Two new open-access cross-country proposals

[craigybagel]

That feels slightly cheeky by Network Rail. Surely getting the rolling stock is the applicants problem and for ORR to judge.

It's the truth though. There's an awful lot of time and effort going into examining various schemes when it's impossible for all, or even most of them to actually happen.

 

[WAB]

As a resident of Oxford, the MCWR idea would offer some useful journeys that aren't that easily made. Though if GWR run more Bristol - Oxford trains that might take some of their market.
I imagine it'll need the new platform in Oxford to work.

I understand that the GWR MD has publicly expressed an interest in extending the Bristol - Oxfords to Milton Keynes / Northampton...

 

[Zomboid]

With all these trains that might end up running, the people of Bicester are going to have to get used to that level crossing being closed. If not actually closed, then with the barriers permanently down.

 

[WestCountry]

With all these trains that might end up running, the people of Bicester are going to have to get used to that level crossing being closed. If not actually closed, then with the barriers permanently down.

There's been a consultation in the last few months on closing it, with either a footbridge or pedestrian underpass replacement.

 

[Zomboid]

Yes, I know. And the idea of closing it to road traffic has gone down pretty badly.

 

[Bald Rick]

That feels slightly cheeky by Network Rail. Surely getting the rolling stock is the applicants problem and for ORR to judge.

NR is required (by the Network Code) to take into account availability of rolling stock when prioritising services in the timetable. Amongst many other factors.

 

[5021]

That would put a severe dent in their start up costs.

I doubt that too.

Certainly it isn't something TfW has ever been prepared to do!

 

[tomuk]

Certainly it isn't something TfW has ever been prepared to do!

Doubling between Wrexham and Chester? Speed improvements on the line?

 

[DDB]

NR is required (by the Network Code) to take into account availability of rolling stock when prioritising services in the timetable. Amongst many other factors.

Interesting. How do they find that out as I would have thought the rolling stock leasing companies being commercial companies would keep what deals they have done close to their chests?

 

[BlueLeanie]

NR is required (by the Network Code) to take into account availability of rolling stock when prioritising services in the timetable. Amongst many other factors.

Which is understandable.

At the same time, who is going to order new stock if they aren't confident that they will have paths to run it on?

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting. How do they find that out as I would have thought the rolling stock leasing companies being commercial companies would keep what deals they have done close to their chests?

The train operator has to declare it. You can’t timetable a train unless you know what rollign stock it is; you need to know that to select the correct Sectional Running Times.

Which is understandable.

At the same time, who is going to order new stock if they aren't confident that they will have paths to run it on?

Grand Central, First Group, etc… (There’s a difference between having access rights and the paths)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Apr 2025 ==

I honestly think E-W will be a considerable game changer for people travelling from Glasgow to Oxford.

It might be. How many people make that journey each day?

 

[BlueLeanie]

It might be. How many people make that journey each day?

I'm not sure.

Is there a public database that details every ticket sold daily? It must be held somewhere in order to apportion revenue.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm not sure.

Is there a public database that details every ticket sold daily? It must be held somewhere in order to apportion revenue.

Glasgow isn't in the top 100 journeys from Oxford, so less than 40 journeys a week between Oxford and there.

Labs - Flow Statistics - Oxford

Edinburgh, on the other hand, sees 18 journeys a day in those statistics.

 

[Zomboid]

I wouldn't expect it to be a popular trip, a handful a day if that.
Might be a bit more if you consider the northern WCML as a group (i.e. everything north of Warrington).
In relation to that point, EWR will be a game changer for travel between the Oxford/ Bicester area and the northern WCML, providing connections are available often enough at MKC. And doubly so for those of us for whom OXP is more convenient.
No matter who is running the trains.

 

[cle]

Glasgow isn't in the top 100 journeys from Oxford, so less than 40 journeys a week between Oxford and there.

Labs - Flow Statistics - Oxford

Edinburgh, on the other hand, sees 18 journeys a day in those statistics.

Interesting to see Bristol and Bath already above High Wycombe. And Nottingham above Ealing Broadway.

 

[BlueLeanie]

Glasgow isn't in the top 100 journeys from Oxford, so less than 40 journeys a week between Oxford and there.

Labs - Flow Statistics - Oxford

Edinburgh, on the other hand, sees 18 journeys a day in those statistics.

I was really surprised to see Manchester has 40% more trips than Birmingham.

 

[stevieinselby]

Of course in today's leisure oriented market segment, people visit different places nowadays to what they did 3 or 4 decades ago. So if an open access operator spots a gap that DfT hasn't chosen to fill (and therefore doesn't take the potential revenue),then the DfT and new Secretary of State hasn't got much of a case regarding revenue extraction.

Non-sequitur. Just because an OOA thinks they can make money running an Orcats raid on a couple of cherry-picked journeys that happen to link two hitherto unlinked stations does not mean that (a) it would be financially viable for DfT or any franchised operator to link them, given that OOAs don't cover their share of infrastructure costs, or (2) that it won't be primarily abstractive from services in the DfT specification.

The more that these OOAs are allowed to pick off odd profitable journeys here and there, the greater the losses incurred by the franchised operators or state operator, and so the greater the need for taxpayer support to fill the hole and the greater the risk of existing journeys in the DfT specification being degraded or dropped, leading to a worse value for money and a potentially worse service overall.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Apr 2025 ==

I understand that the GWR MD has publicly expressed an interest in extending the Bristol - Oxfords to Milton Keynes / Northampton...

If pathing allows, it would be great to see Northampton getting better connected – it has a shockingly poor service for such a large town.

Yes, I know. And the idea of closing it to road traffic has gone down pretty badly.

The idea of in any way restricting cars at all always does. And then it happens, and people cope fine, and within a year they forget that they even used to drive that way.

 

[cle]

If pathing allows, it would be great to see Northampton getting better connected – it has a shockingly poor service for such a large town.

I think 1tph to Northampton would be a good help for the town. Even residents of the town on this forum think it isn't worthy of more services.

I would think 1tph to Bicester and Oxford, with the connections and attractions that brings, would be a decent addition to a town that size.

It also helps with the platform issue at MKC by sending a service through there. That might enable another service into the 2A bay - e.g. maybe this is a 1tph Bristol GWR service, with Chiltern 2tph into bays. Or enables the Aylesbury service, plus 2tph Chiltern (1 to Northampton)

 

[ShadowKnight]

Glasgow isn't in the top 100 journeys from Oxford, so less than 40 journeys a week between Oxford and there.

Labs - Flow Statistics - Oxford

Edinburgh, on the other hand, sees 18 journeys a day in those statistics.

Most of the top 100 destinations all are direct 1 seat rides from Oxford, Edinburgh included.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Has the Universal theme park actually been given any sort of permissions yet? Its got to be at least 5 or 6 years from opening.

Go ahead confirmed in the Government press release today. It will need planning permission but I cannot see that being an issue with the Government backing it.

Multi-billion-pound investment secured as Universal theme park and resort set to be built in Bedford, bringing thousands of jobs

A multi-billion-pound investment in a major new Universal theme park and resort in Bedford has been agreed between Universal, the government and the local council, in a move that represents a major vote of confidence in the UK economy and the future of partnerships between the UK and the US.

www.gov.uk

Press release
Multi-billion-pound investment secured as Universal theme park and resort set to be built in Bedford, bringing thousands of jobs
A multi-billion-pound investment in a major new Universal theme park and resort in Bedford has been agreed between Universal, the government and the local council, in a move that represents a major vote of confidence in the UK economy and the future of partnerships between the UK and the US.

• The Prime Minister has today closed the deal on a new Universal theme park in Bedfordshire
• Plans will bring an estimated £50bn boost for the economy and create around 28,000 jobs in total across creative, hospitality and construction industries
• Set to open in 2031, the theme park will form part of a new planned entertainment resort, due to include immersive storytelling, rides, attractions and hospitality
• Deal firmly puts the UK on the global investment stage, delivering on the government’s Plan for Change, which will create growth and opportunities across the country

The proposals remain subject to a planning decision from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

 

[Snow1964]

Non-sequitur. Just because an OOA thinks they can make money running an Orcats raid on a couple of cherry-picked journeys that happen to link two hitherto unlinked stations does not mean that (a) it would be financially viable for DfT or any franchised operator to link them, given that OOAs don't cover their share of infrastructure costs, or (2) that it won't be primarily abstractive from services in the DfT specification.

I take a different view of the solution, yes I agree if an open access operator spots a profitable gap, then there is revenue to be had from potential new passengers.

However what I disagree on, is why the DfT specification has to stay as it currently is, unreviewed and unchanged, and the state owned operator cannot do that new service, instead of running a virtually empty train somewhere else by reallocating resources (reallocating to cut subsidy, not adding to subsidy needed). Some parts of the DfT specification seem to be bogged down in a service level from years ago even if the world has moved on.

 

[Bald Rick]

However what I disagree on, is why the DfT specification has to stay as it currently is, unreviewed and unchanged, and the state owned operator cannot do that new service, instead of running a virtually empty train somewhere else by reallocating resources (reallocating to cut subsidy, not adding to subsidy needed). Some parts of the DfT specification seem to be bogged down in a service level from years ago even if the world has moved on.

I do agree in principle, but there’s two hitches, one political, one structural.

Political - changing spec involves winners and losers. Politicians really don’t like having losers.

Structural. Open Access Operators are (obviously) in it for the money. The structure of fares allocation and costs for OA operators is such that the markets they serve will make them money. Much of their income is (like it or not) abstracted from Government contracted operators. The structure of fares allocations and costs for Government contracted operators is such that were they to serve the same markets on the same basis they would make less money, or potentially lose money, and certainly provide greater benefit to more people (and make more money) by deploying thr available resourc to better effect. (It‘s much more complex and nuanced than this, but that is the overall principle).

 

[weeklycommuter]

I take a different view of the solution, yes I agree if an open access operator spots a profitable gap, then there is revenue to be had from potential new passengers.
However what I disagree on, is why the DfT specification has to stay as it currently is, unreviewed and unchanged, and the state owned operator cannot do that new service, instead of running a virtually empty train somewhere else by reallocating resources (reallocating to cut subsidy, not adding to subsidy needed). Some parts of the DfT specification seem to be bogged down in a service level from years ago even if the world has moved on.

I do agree in principle, but there’s two hitches, one political, one structural.
Political - changing spec involves winners and losers. Politicians really don’t like having losers.
Structural. Open Access Operators are (obviously) in it for the money. The structure of fares allocation and costs for OA operators is such that the markets they serve will make them money. Much of their income is (like it or not) abstracted from Government contracted operators. The structure of fares allocations and costs for Government contracted operators is such that were they to serve the same markets on the same basis they would make less money, or potentially lose money, and certainly provide greater benefit to more people (and make more money) by deploying thr available resourc to better effect. (It‘s much more complex and nuanced than this, but that is the overall principle).

The DfT have also persisted in running long distance train services including LNER and Avanti with space on trains wasted on kitchens and a lot of first class seating. Lumo have shown that these services can carry a lot more fare paying passengers by filling the trains with two plus two standard class seating and not having kitchens. LNER and Avanti trains could carry a lot more passengers if they replaced the kitchens with more seats and some or all first class seating with standard class seating. LNER and Avanti could also reduce the cost of catering by providing any catering following the Lumo model. Carrying more fare paying passengers and reducing costs would enable a desperately needed reduction in the price of flexible fares on these DfT operated long distance train services.
The Lumo applications for extensions to Glasgow and services to Rochdale on the West Coast Mainline would if approved provide a lower cost alternative to Avanti. If the DfT want to discourage more open access applications they need to not only look at routes and areas of the country which could have a better service but also replacing kitchens and first class seating with a lot more standard class seating on their long distance trains and reducing the price of the flexible fares on these train services.
The Bristol to Nottingham open access application, like the withdrawn Alliance Rail Cardiff to Edinburgh application, also highlights again that the DfT is failing to meet rail passenger demand on the routes currently served by Cross Country Trains because there are not enough seats on these trains and fares are set too high to price rail passengers off. Unless and until the DfT agrees the replacement of the existing hopelessly inadequate Cross Country trains with new bimode trains offering a very big increase in the number of seats compared to current rolling stock the DfT can look forward to many more applications to run open access train services on routes served by Cross County Trains.

 

[JonathanH]

LNER and Avanti could also reduce the cost of catering by providing any catering following the Lumo model. Carrying more fare paying passengers and reducing costs would enable a desperately needed reduction in the price of flexible fares on these DfT operated long distance train services.

We often have threads on this forum bemoaning the lack of full catering facilities on the railway. Different people want different things.

The DfT haven't demonstrated any previous evidence of wanting to reduce the price of flexible fares.

the DfT can look forward to many more applications to run open access train services on routes served by Cross County Trains.

All of them will most likely fail due to lack of paths and the same issue that CrossCountry faces that cross country travel doesn't pay its way. The view has been expressed previously that open access operators can only make money running services to London.

Whilst people think the solution to CrossCountry is longer trains and more destinations, it is clear that the DfT and Railway do not think that way, and they are the ones who have access to demand forecasts and information on what it costs to run the railway.

 

[5021]

Doubling between Wrexham and Chester? Speed improvements on the line?

They were pre-TfW and funded by Network Rail I believe

 

[tomuk]

They were pre-TfW and funded by Network Rail I believe

Funded by Welsh Government who are TfW.

 

[cle]

It's south of Wrexham, and Shrewsbury especially (which is more frequent - Manchesters etc) - that needs the signalling upgrade.

 

[craigybagel]

Funded by Welsh Government who are TfW.

But at the time they weren't. TfW didn't exist.

It's south of Wrexham, and Shrewsbury especially (which is more frequent - Manchesters etc) - that needs the signalling upgrade.

Wrexham - Gobowen is a long AB section that needs splitting. Without it, it's a 20 minute headway between trains. There is capacity between Shrewsbury and Cardiff, but it would be very difficult to path a service with as limited stops as being proposed here without it catching up with the service in front - especially when you have to take into account the above issue between Wrexham and Gobowen, and the single track section from Rosset to Wrexham.

 

[tomuk]

But at the time they weren't. TfW didn't exist.

I'm fully aware of that.

 

[Helvellyn]

The DfT have also persisted in running long distance train services including LNER and Avanti with space on trains wasted on kitchens and a lot of first class seating. Lumo have shown that these services can carry a lot more fare paying passengers by filling the trains with two plus two standard class seating and not having kitchens. LNER and Avanti trains could carry a lot more passengers if they replaced the kitchens with more seats and some or all first class seating with standard class seating. LNER and Avanti could also reduce the cost of catering by providing any catering following the Lumo model. Carrying more fare paying passengers and reducing costs would enable a desperately needed reduction in the price of flexible fares on these DfT operated long distance train services.

Not everyone wants to travel Lumo just like everyone doesn't want to fly easyJet or Ryanair.

Carrying more people at low prices doesn't necessarily make a service more profitable. It's also about the yield generated overall, which is why you tend to see lower priced Advance Tickets on slower/unpopular services.

Even if First Class and catering facilities were removed this wouldn't necessarily translate into lots of cheaper tickets because there are more seats - DfT and HMT want to reduce the overall subsidy for rail, so that means reducing losses where they occur or increasing profits where they occur.

But then I am rather tired of endless debates on here over the years that because someone can't get a £10 ticket from London to Manchester the solution must be to remove First Class.