WCML Open Access Applications Rejected

[800001]

In theory, definitely. They’re good at writing bids. We see that with Grand Union, where the ORR reckoned they’d abstract a few million whereas their competitor applicant would abstract £100m. I’d say the latter figure is probably more realistic for both of them tbh.

In reality? Look at Lumo on the ECML. Anyone who says they’re bringing genuine new passengers to the railway is living in La-La Land.

Lumo did bring large amounts of new customers to the ECML, and LNER also increased its customer count, so I fail to see where you get your idea that Lumo did not bring new customers from?

 

[CyrusWuff]

Some of the WSMR Mk3 vehicles and locos were then used on the Holyhead-Wrexham-Shrewsbury-Cardiff premier service by WG/ATW (also initially as an OA service).

The WSMR Mk3s all went to Chiltern, having been refurbished by Axiom Rail (formerly Marcroft Engineering) in Stoke during their time at WSMR and modified to support the AAR multiple working used by the Class 67s.

The ATW ones, meanwhile, were refurbished by Pullman Rail in Cardiff.

 

[Starmill]

Still not dead, but I reckon it will only be the airport extension proposal that gets anywhere.

Two stoppers via Stockport and a net gain of an express between Crewe and Wilmslow is impossibly tight I reckon. Achievable potentially if there's a willingness to cut Holmes Chapel, or Holmes Chapel and Sandbach back to hourly but otherwise a nightmare.

 

[Sonik]

Lumo has grabbed quite a bit of the London-Edinburgh air market, according to air analysts who study the domestic air market. Rail market share of the total London-Edinburgh transport market has risen in greater % numbers than on other comparable flows. Total rail revenue is up

An increase (including LNER) curiously coinciding with the service failures of Avanti & TPE

especially those that have gone for bums on seats rather than yield per journey.

That's essentially the same thing for LCC airlines due to upsell, which is where they really make their money. Analysts are obsessed with Ryanair's ancillary revenue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's essentially the same thing for LCC airlines due to upsell, which is where they really make their money. Analysts are obsessed with Ryanair's ancillary revenue.

Yet Lumo fails to capture it by offering no buy ups except food/drink. It's like Ryanair but done really badly. Very FirstGroup to be fair.

 

[The Planner]

Two stoppers via Stockport and a net gain of an express between Crewe and Wilmslow is impossibly tight I reckon. Achievable potentially if there's a willingness to cut Holmes Chapel, or Holmes Chapel and Sandbach back to hourly but otherwise a nightmare.

The Airport service extended off the Stoke service would work with some tweaking I reckon.

 

[nw1]

Shrewsbury to London services have failed on three occasions in three decades. Until a means is found of making through trains faster than railheading at Stafford, the definition of insanity is available for testing for a fourth time.

They did exist in BR days of course when they were extensions of regular London-Wolverhampton services in certain hours.

I guess with bi-modes available nowadays the most viable option for a London-Shrewsbury service would be to do something similar and and extend certain regular Euston-Birmingham services there.

I'm not saying that they should do that right now - probably no stock available - but if such a service were to run in the future, that would be the best way of doing it rather than some completely separate service which seems an inefficient use of stock and paths.


(EDIT: Sorry, I see others have said something similar to the above).

 

[Harpo]

I guess with bi-modes available nowadays the most viable option for a London-Shrewsbury service would be to do something similar and and extend certain regular Euston-Birmingham services there.

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but ‘via Wolves’ has already failed at least three times.

Wolves to Euston through trains are incredibly slow, typically 1h49 to 2h09, about the same as Warrington or Wigan to London!

Little wonder that so many Shropshire commuters drive to Stafford for a 1hr20 journey to London.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Lumo seems to earning very decent average journey yields from that market too because it seems, headline figures apart, it isn’t really competing seriously with LNER. It appears to be price pointing the bulk of its tickets against air.

Edinburgh and Newcastle to London is probably the most lucrative rail flow in the country. It’s a licence to print money. They should be getting good yields.

My point isn’t that Lumo are good, bad, or indifferent as an operator. My point is that their entire business model is revenue abstractive. They add nothing new, they bring nothing new.

I’m well aware their argument is that they are really attracting punters from Ryanair but I am skeptical as to how true that is. The fact LNER are also gaining passengers rather suggests that it’s a push factor from aviation more than anything else. People tried the train when it was taking hours to get through airport security after Covid and they haven’t gone back. It’s genuinely good to see, but I don’t think it’s happened because of a revenue abstractive open access operator.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Friday at 08:22 ==

Yet Lumo fails to capture it by offering no buy ups except food/drink. It's like Ryanair but done really badly. Very FirstGroup to be fair.

I think some of that is the nature of the rail industry, where even OA operators have to abide by the Conditions of Travel, etc. They can’t easily charge for luggage because the CoT says you’re generally allowed to bring bags with you for free. Seat selection fees are allowed but they’re not a thing on the railway; NXEC tried it years ago and failed miserably.

The OuiGo model isn’t really permitted here, and that’s overall for the best IMO.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They can’t easily charge for luggage because the CoT says you’re generally allowed to bring bags with you for free.

The NRCoT allows TOCs their own luggage policy and indeed most of them do have one even though it usually isn't enforced unless you turn up with something really silly. Lumo indeed restricts you to much smaller than the standard 90x70x30, I forget the exact size but it's basically airline carry on size. I don't see why they couldn't allow a limited number of larger bags per train for a fee.

I'm also genuinely surprised they don't charge for their seat selector. Sure, you can circumvent that using TrainSplit or a derivative, but the vast majority will just cough up if they want that service, just like the vast majority unnecessarily pay Trainline fees.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Lumo indeed restricts you to much smaller than the standard 90x70x30, I forget the exact size but it's basically airline carry on size

True about the CoT, although it would be hard to make it much different. LUMO’s medium suitcase is bigger than airlines carry on, about 6cm bigger in each dimension, and you can bring a second smaller bag.

I do still think they would struggle to go full OuiGo because of the rules though.

 

[DDB]

Presumably this reduces the number of bids fighting over the voyagers which must very slightly improve the chances of the remaining bids?

 

[Bletchleyite]

LUMO’s medium suitcase is bigger than airlines carry on, about 6cm bigger in each dimension

IATA carryon is 56x45x25 and this is followed by many of the Airbus operators eg easyJet and Wizz (Boeing operators tend to be 55x40x20 due to the smaller bins). Lumo is 63x41x27 which is actually smaller in one dimension, though realistically provided your bag is vaguely carry on size nobody is going to get a tape measure out.

Either way it does strike me that there is scope to charge for bigger stuff rather than banning it outright.

 

[Starmill]

The NRCoT allows TOCs their own luggage policy and indeed most of them do have one even though it usually isn't enforced unless you turn up with something really silly. Lumo indeed restricts you to much smaller than the standard 90x70x30, I forget the exact size but it's basically airline carry on size. I don't see why they couldn't allow a limited number of larger bags per train for a fee.

I'm also genuinely surprised they don't charge for their seat selector. Sure, you can circumvent that using TrainSplit or a derivative, but the vast majority will just cough up if they want that service, just like the vast majority unnecessarily pay Trainline fees.

I think it makes business sense to keep bookings on their own site so they can push their app, marketing communications and special offers themselves. They can also shout about no fees in an attempt to get business from trainline.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Presumably this reduces the number of bids fighting over the voyagers which must very slightly improve the chances of the remaining bids?

Not really, split between ScotRail and Lumo (Stirling) services, there is unlikely to be enough left to form a sufficient fleet for anyone else.

However, it does possibly give EMR a bit more breathing space, as ScotRail aren't likely to need all of them immediately.

 

[35B]

The NRCoT allows TOCs their own luggage policy and indeed most of them do have one even though it usually isn't enforced unless you turn up with something really silly. Lumo indeed restricts you to much smaller than the standard 90x70x30, I forget the exact size but it's basically airline carry on size. I don't see why they couldn't allow a limited number of larger bags per train for a fee.

I'm also genuinely surprised they don't charge for their seat selector. Sure, you can circumvent that using TrainSplit or a derivative, but the vast majority will just cough up if they want that service, just like the vast majority unnecessarily pay Trainline fees.

Given the capacity of their units, is that just a commercial balance between seats and luggage?

 

[Zomboid]

Not really, split between ScotRail and Lumo (Stirling) services, there is unlikely to be enough left to form a sufficient fleet for anyone else.

However, it does possibly give EMR a bit more breathing space, as ScotRail aren't likely to need all of them immediately.

I thought that was in reference to the currently spare 221s.
Lumo and ScotRail are getting the EMR 222s.

 

[Clarence Yard]

My point isn’t that Lumo are good, bad, or indifferent as an operator. My point is that their entire business model is revenue abstractive. They add nothing new, they bring nothing new.

I’m well aware their argument is that they are really attracting punters from Ryanair but I am skeptical as to how true that is. The fact LNER are also gaining passengers rather suggests that it’s a push factor from aviation more than anything else. People tried the train when it was taking hours to get through airport security after Covid and they haven’t gone back. It’s genuinely good to see, but I don’t think it’s happened because of a revenue abstractive open access operator.

Lumo’s business model isn’t revenue abstractive from rail. The push from aviation is both price and time led. Getting through airport security became a pain way before COVID and Lumo had their eyes on that issue before they had even operated a train.

The airline analysts aren’t either fans or otherwise of OA - they have noticed the huge growth in rail market share on the Edinburgh run, as compared with other internal airline flows. It is clear that something significant has occurred with the arrival of Lumo. The rise in rail journeys and revenue on that flow, as compared to the pre-COVID years, is staggering.

I have the luxury of being able to look at the current and past rail situation but if you don’t believe me, go on Raildata and have a look at 2018/9 and then 2023/4 for the actual journey figures for the flow. Then go and look at some other IC flows to see their growth figures over the same period.

 

[A S Leib]

but if you don’t believe me, go on Raildata and have a look at 2018/9 and then 2023/4 for the actual journey figures for the flow. Then go and look at some other IC flows to see their growth figures over the same period.

Edinburgh to King's Cross: 630,000 – 999,000
Glasgow Central to Euston: 345,000 – 346,000
Plymouth to Paddington: 129,000 – 135,000

 

[Tetchytyke]

I have the luxury of being able to look at the current and past rail situation but if you don’t believe me, go on Raildata and have a look at 2018/9 and then 2023/4 for the actual journey figures for the flow. Then go and look at some other IC flows to see their growth figures over the same period.

It was always close, both in time and price, between air and rail for Edinburgh and Newcastle to London. Aviation has got worse and, at the same time, the rail service has got better.

It's great to see such a modal shift, and Lumo have obviously added c.2500 seats a day in each direction to the route, in addition to LNER's frequency increases. I'm just sceptical about how much of this modal shift is actually down to Lumo, i.e. would all these people have switched from air to rail anyway. I rather suspect they would, I think the modal shift has been due to push factors from aviation rather than any pull factors on rail, but it can only ever be an opinion.

I'm not vehemently against OA, I just don't see the point of issuing licences/permits to OA operators which are directly competing against the state-subsidised incumbent. I genuinely don't understand what Lumo bring to the table- they stop at the same stations as LNER operating an (almost) identical types of train as LNER.

At least the Grand Union Lumo OA adds extra trains to Stirling to the mix, sceptical as I am that there's this massive untapped Stirling to London market.

I have no issue with OAs who genuinely bring something new to the table and serve new markets. Hull Trains is obviously the poster child for that, developing a good and profitable service from a market that the state franchisee never showed the slightest bit of interest in serving.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Friday at 12:57 ==

Glasgow Central to Euston: 345,000 – 346,000
Plymouth to Paddington: 129,000 – 135,000

Neither of those are quite so surprising: aviation still beats rail hands down for Glasgow to London, and there's no aviation alternative for Plymouth to London.

 

[Sonik]

I'm not vehemently against OA, I just don't see the point of issuing licences/permits to OA operators which are directly competing against the state-subsidised incumbent.

I have no issue with OAs who genuinely bring something new to the table and serve new markets. Hull Trains is obviously the poster child for that

This is my position

Let's not forget here the FOCs, who are all essentially OA (even DRS) and many of whom have done wonders to attract substantial new traffic to rail.

IMO growing *domestic* intermodal (as Tesco have show the way) is key to both economic growth and lowering emissions. Filling all the paths with random five car services doesn't help that at all.

 

[Trainman40083]

This is my position

Let's not forget here the FOCs, who are all essentially OA (even DRS) and many of whom have done wonders to attract substantial new traffic to rail.

IMO growing *domestic* intermodal (as Tesco have show the way) is key to both economic growth and lowering emissions. Filling all the paths with random five car services doesn't help that at all.

Just imagine if you could accommodate both. FOCs constrained by lack of paths. Overcrowded passenger trains, people craving better value fares, which needs more capacity.

 

[Chester1]

It was always close, both in time and price, between air and rail for Edinburgh and Newcastle to London. Aviation has got worse and, at the same time, the rail service has got better.

It's great to see such a modal shift, and Lumo have obviously added c.2500 seats a day in each direction to the route, in addition to LNER's frequency increases. I'm just sceptical about how much of this modal shift is actually down to Lumo, i.e. would all these people have switched from air to rail anyway. I rather suspect they would, I think the modal shift has been due to push factors from aviation rather than any pull factors on rail, but it can only ever be an opinion.

I'm not vehemently against OA, I just don't see the point of issuing licences/permits to OA operators which are directly competing against the state-subsidised incumbent. I genuinely don't understand what Lumo bring to the table- they stop at the same stations as LNER operating an (almost) identical types of train as LNER.

At least the Grand Union Lumo OA adds extra trains to Stirling to the mix, sceptical as I am that there's this massive untapped Stirling to London market.

I have no issue with OAs who genuinely bring something new to the table and serve new markets. Hull Trains is obviously the poster child for that, developing a good and profitable service from a market that the state franchisee never showed the slightest bit of interest in serving.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Friday at 12:57 ==


Neither of those are quite so surprising: aviation still beats rail hands down for Glasgow to London, and there's no aviation alternative for Plymouth to London.

You think its coincidence that there was a significant modal shift from air to rail on a passenger flow after an OA launched based on a business model of taking airline passengers? The more likely explanation is Lumo did what it promised it would do.

 

[Brubulus]

You think its coincidence that there was a significant model shift from air to rail on a passenger flow after an OA launched based on a business model of taking airline passengers? The more likely explanation is Lumo did what it promised it would do.

From personal experience, rail passengers are continuing to use LNER, while end to end passengers who would have flown are taking Lumo.
There is some abstraction due to the increase in LNER prices being somewhat suppressed by LUMO, but it generally does not seem to be stealing passengers.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You think its coincidence that there was a significant model shift from air to rail on a passenger flow after an OA launched based on a business model of taking airline passengers?

If it was just that Lumo are brilliantly amazing at marketing to airline passengers then LNER wouldn’t be getting record passenger numbers too.

It’s not like Lumo are noticeably different to LNER, either on price or on service, other than the lack of first class and a buffet car.

Looking at a random Tuesday in August, the lunchtime Lumo is £47 from Newcastle to London and the following LNER is £50. The difference is negligible.

As I’ve repeatedly said, It’s got much more to do with push factors away from aviation than anything else, in my opinion. Two hour queues to get through security tend to push people away from flying. Ryanair’s increasingly erratic ancillary charges do too. They switched then didn’t go back.

It’s great they did switch but the idea that a bright blue IET instead of a bright red one persuaded people to switch is fanciful, in my opinion.

 

[IanXC]

Stop the hate because it isn’t persuading anyone.

Lumo has grabbed quite a bit of the London-Edinburgh air market, according to air analysts who study the domestic air market. Rail market share of the total London-Edinburgh transport market has risen in greater % numbers than on other comparable flows. Total rail revenue is up.

Lumo seems to earning very decent average journey yields from that market too because it seems, headline figures apart, it isn’t really competing seriously with LNER. It appears to be price pointing the bulk of its tickets against air.

Something is happening here which needs some serious industry analysis because it could become a pricing/yield model for similar IC flows, especially those that have gone for bums on seats rather than yield per journey.

The word "hate" here seems to be trying to imply anyone who criticises Lumo is talking from feelings rather than facts.

As you say the rail share of London - Edinburgh is higher than it has ever been, but somehow before Covid the InterCity East Coast operation regularly made profits, whereas today it makes losses. Its interesting to draw the trend lines forward, where you will discover that this missing ICEC profit is a very similar number to First Group OAO profits...

LNER achieved revenues of £675m during the 12 months to March 2024, according to Office of Rail and Road (ORR) figures, but it still needed £39m in subsidies.

Over the same period, Lumo alone – which runs trains to most of the same stations – made £52m from ticket sales.

A report into the effects of rail competition seen by The Telegraph claimed that this year alone the East Coast Main Line operator will miss out on £87m paid to private competition.

An LNER source claimed that this “abstraction” of ticket sales by company’s like Lumo from the state-owned operator made the difference between a profit and a loss.

“Our profits go to the Treasury,” the source said. “We would be making money again now if it wasn’t for Lumo.”

Nationalised railway faces £1bn blow from cheaper private rivals

Taxpayers will have to bail out state-run operator struggling to compete on ticket prices, report finds

www.telegraph.co.uk

And thats before we get to the fact that Lumo especially, often because of their own choice of rolling stock, often give up on running a service in disruption and expect LNER to transport their passengers. Network Rail even allow for OAO trains to run through disruption which restricts train capacity; as a result you find LNER cancelling 9 and 10 coach trains so that Lumo's 5 cars can run. Where is the systemwide logic in that?

 

[The Middle]

And thats before we get to the fact that Lumo especially, often because of their own choice of rolling stock, often give up on running a service in disruption and expect LNER to transport their passengers. Network Rail even allow for OAO trains to run through disruption which restricts train capacity; as a result you find LNER cancelling 9 and 10 coach trains so that Lumo's 5 cars can run. Where is the systemwide logic in that?

"Schroedinger's Open Access Operator"

Both gives up running a service during disruption whilst also running a 5 coach train service through disruption.

 

[IanXC]

"Schroedinger's Open Access Operator"

Both gives up running a service during disruption whilst also running a 5 coach train service through disruption.

Runs through when overhead power is available, gives up and expects LNER to pick up the slack when an unelectrified route is involved in the solution.

 

[The Middle]

Runs through when overhead power is available, gives up and expects LNER to pick up the slack when an unelectrified route is involved in the solution.

Is it really "giving up" though when it would be required to defy the laws of physics? Even if it were able, in your own words it would be "taking up the path of a 9 or 10 car LNER" so they are clearly damned if the do and damned if they don't in your eyes.

 

[800001]

The word "hate" here seems to be trying to imply anyone who criticises Lumo is talking from feelings rather than facts.

As you say the rail share of London - Edinburgh is higher than it has ever been, but somehow before Covid the InterCity East Coast operation regularly made profits, whereas today it makes losses. Its interesting to draw the trend lines forward, where you will discover that this missing ICEC profit is a very similar number to First Group OAO profits...

Nationalised railway faces £1bn blow from cheaper private rivals

Taxpayers will have to bail out state-run operator struggling to compete on ticket prices, report finds

www.telegraph.co.uk

And thats before we get to the fact that Lumo especially, often because of their own choice of rolling stock, often give up on running a service in disruption and expect LNER to transport their passengers. Network Rail even allow for OAO trains to run through disruption which restricts train capacity; as a result you find LNER cancelling 9 and 10 coach trains so that Lumo's 5 cars can run. Where is the systemwide logic in that?

In disruption network rail have agreed contingency plans with all Operators.
It is actually LNER who get to operate 99% of the time with other operators cancelling/terminating short at Network rails instruction.
Lumo, TPE, XC and Grand Central all get instructed to cancel trains to allow LNER Services to run.
When LNER cancel and Lumo operate, it is usually because LNER are unable to crew a train to operate because of the disruption.

Again where Lumo operate and LNER often cancel is because the train crew of Lumo are prepared to work trains, where as LNER crew often refuse to work a service because of the delay putting them over there hours.