Removing open access operators from the network by 2029

[weeklycommuter]

Once the report has been written for the ORR Board, there won’t be any further discussions or negotiations. They go into purdah until they decide. It would be an abuse of legal process if they didn’t and that would then lead to (High Court) appeals from others.

For this reason I consider it was most unwise for the Department for Transport to write the following letter to the Office of Rail and Road dated 20 June 2025 which the Office of Rail and Road have just published on their website. The Office of Rail and Road must make the decisions on all Open Access applications in accordance with the law. The law has not changed. Everything done by Government departments must comply with the law and only Parliament can change the law.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-06/2025-06-20-Richard-Goodman-letter-to-ORR_Redacted.pdf

I am writing to you to reiterate the Department’s position with regard to Open Access and to stress the critical importance of the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) considering financial impacts cumulatively and making access decisions in the context of the coming of Great British Railways (GBR).

 

[Clarence Yard]

It’s an epic rant!

Pity some of the stuff he says is not true but no doubt FG and others will sort him out. What is does do is give an early warning to all concerned that DfT officials want Open Access gone in 2029.

 

[JonathanH]

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-railway-updates.258172/page-18#post-7346820

What is does do is give an early warning to all concerned that DfT officials want Open Access gone in 2029.

The DfT letter at https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/defaul...20-Richard-Goodman-letter-to-ORR_Redacted.pdf says, among other things:

When fully operational, GBR will, in its capacity as ‘directing mind’, have the ability to specify and coordinate services to maximise economic benefits, provide new links for under-served communities, and more broadly to develop the network’s passenger offer in a way that is not possible currently. It is with this in mind that we would urge ORR to make its considerations, ensuring that decisions made now complement GBR’s role and future abilities rather than offering short-term benefits at the cost of significant long-term constraints.

In other words, the DfT want GBR to have full control over what services run, and where.

It also says

Capacity is already severely constrained in a number of locations, notably much of the ECML and on the southern section of the WCML, and additional Open Access services would both prevent development of revenue-generative contracted services and increase performance risks to existing services due to perturbation. Live Open Access applications also target congested infrastructure around Sheffield and Manchester and would directly impact key regional and long-distance services as well as the established future plans for routes in these areas.

One thing that is quite odd though is the statement that there remains a place for open access:

The Secretary of State wrote to you on 6 January, outlining her expectations for how Open Access should operate alongside a publicly owned railway. That letter made clear that there would remain a place for Open Access in the future of the railway, but that it must deliver benefits without undue cost to taxpayers or existing passengers.

A few questions:
* Clearly the hope is that GBR can specify a timetable without having to worry about other operators (although it would still have to leave room for freight)?
* Where could open access operators still have a place if the DfT wants them to avoid all congested infrastructure?
* Is the process by which the GBR would force open access operators off the network simply by charging them more for track access, such that they give up their rights voluntarily when they currently extend beyond 2029?
* Will GBR really aim to provide new links going to "under-served communities" to replace open access or just concentrate on the trunk flows?

 

[weeklycommuter]

It’s an epic rant!

Pity some of the stuff he says is not true but no doubt FG and others will sort him out. What is does do is give an early warning to all concerned that DfT officials want Open Access gone in 2029.

I hope we shall know the outcome of the WSMR and the other WCML open access applications very soon. If they are to be decided at the ORR June Board Meeting they must surely be decided very soon if not already as it is nearly the end of June.

AIUI the future plan for the Great British Railways legislation is for Great British Railways to decide applications for train paths with the Office of Rail and Road deciding any appeals on the decisions. The Department for Transport will not be involved and it looks like the Government plan from the announced budget cuts is to use the establishment of Great British Railways as the opportunity to severely cut back the Department for Transport and perhaps abolish it completely to save money.

 

[Brubulus]

I hope we shall know the outcome of the WSMR and the other WCML open access applications very soon. If they are to be decided at the ORR June Board Meeting they must surely be decided very soon if not already as it is nearly the end of June.

AIUI the future plan for the Great British Railways legislation is for Great British Railways to decide applications for train paths with the Office of Rail and Road deciding any appeals on the decisions. The Department for Transport will not be involved and it looks like the Government plan from the announced budget cuts is to use the establishment of Great British Railways to severely cut back the Department for Transport and perhaps abolish it completely.

Abolishing the DFT?? Let's stop living in dreamland and return to the real world. The abstraction figure is likely heavily weighted by the Virgin application, which has a success chance of effectively 0, with the mention of contracted operators likely a dig at First and Arriva, instead of Alstom.

However, the letter may give some of the rejected operators grounds to argue that there was undue interference from the DFT, so I'm not sure why they would have published it.

 

[Scanderina]

Abolishing the DFT?? Let's stop living in dreamland and return to the real world. The abstraction figure is likely heavily weighted by the Virgin application, which has a success chance of effectively 0, with the mention of contracted operators likely a dig at First and Arriva, instead of Alstom.

However, the letter may give some of the rejected operators grounds to argue that there was undue interference from the DFT, so I'm not sure why they would have published it.

ORR published the letter, which it is wise to do for transparency having received it from DfT.

 

[Bald Rick]

Where could open access operators still have a place if the DfT wants them to avoid all congested infrastructure?

Taunton - Westbury seems an opportunity

 

[BranstonJnc]

Feels like a sensible set of services that utilise existing paths, albeit perhaps more cautiously spread and with better stock utilisation, might actually work well...

 

[JonathanH]

Taunton - Westbury seems an opportunity

Well yes, maybe, but even that has long signal spacing, and therefore open access would "get in the way".

 

[Clarence Yard]

The problem for GBR is that granting OA an access contract is always going to cost them money, so why would they do it? Part of the problem is that they will always be under budgetary pressure and the benefits of OA generally accrue to the Treasury directly, not via the DfT budget, or in future the GBR budget. OA also severely restricts the ability of the DfT (GBR) to earn future revenue on that route for themselves.

The way the current legislation works is that all operators effectively only pay short run marginal costs. The rest is called fixed costs but really consists of two elements, long run incremental costs (LRIC - sometimes also called traffic based avoidable costs) and fixed costs that do not vary with traffic.

Currently OA operators pay a “market can bear” mark up, given their particular market status. That is expected to change. NR is heavily subsidised by the DfT through direct grant and the fixed track access charge (effectively another form of network grant, laundered through the TOCs) and between 30% and 40% of that combined funding stream to NR could potentially form the LRIC.

The DfT and the ORR favour charging all operators LRIC based charges in addition to the current marginal costs but the law currently stops them charging the full LRIC, although it does allow for LRIC charges. That law is going to change and it is an open secret that the DfT is keen that OA pays the full LRIC from 2029.

If that takes place, it will probably force the majority of OA operators to either cease operations or transfer their operations to GBR at no cost, if some at the DfT get their way. OA will effectively get “an offer they can’t refuse”!

 

[Brubulus]

The problem for GBR is that granting OA an access contract is always going to cost them money, so why would they do it? Part of the problem is that they will always be under budgetary pressure and the benefits of OA generally accrue to the Treasury directly, not via the DfT budget, or in future the GBR budget. OA also severely restricts the ability of the DfT (GBR) to earn future revenue on that route for themselves.

The way the current legislation works is that all operators effectively only pay short run marginal costs. The rest is called fixed costs but really consists of two elements, long run incremental costs (LRIC - sometimes also called traffic based avoidable costs) and fixed costs that do not vary with traffic.

Currently OA operators pay a “market can bear” mark up, given their particular market status. That is expected to change. NR is heavily subsidised by the DfT through direct grant and the fixed track access charge (effectively another form of network grant, laundered through the TOCs) and between 30% and 40% of that combined funding stream to NR could potentially form the LRIC.

The DfT and the ORR favour charging all operators LRIC based charges in addition to the current marginal costs but the law currently stops them charging the full LRIC, although it does allow for LRIC charges. That law is going to change and it is an open secret that the DfT is keen that OA pays the full LRIC from 2029.

If that takes place, it will probably force the majority of OA operators to either cease operations or transfer their operations to GBR at no cost, if some at the DfT get their way. OA will effectively get “an offer they can’t refuse”!

If there is any reduction in service to places like Hull, that is going to cause a problem politically as this is going to come across as an ideological crusade instead of a genuine attempt to make the rail network fairer and better for passengers.

Abstraction from DfT operators by OA leads to lower fares on some "cash cow" flows such as London-Edinburgh.

Secondly ending OA could cause issues in the rolling stock market since there is now a single lessor of UK gauge rolling stock, which will lead to an increase in lease costs.

I do realise that many OA routes have been attempted by DfT contracted operators and failed, and if that is the case, charges for track access should be at a reasonable and proportionate level, instead of a punitive one.

 

[nwales58]

… the fiscal environment of the day …

Oh dear, oh dear. Since when has ORR had any direct responsibility for DfT’s relationship with the Treasury?

Surely a DfT DG is in a position to kick off any necessary rewrite of the rules of the game if he wants an absolute cap on open access abstraction.

What is behind his worry that multiple operators produce more abstraction than the sum of their individual operations? My befuddled mind can’t grasp it, unless there is a proven behavioural change. Has there been any decent research on this?

 

[Harpo]

Surely a DfT DG is in a position to kick off any necessary rewrite of the rules of the game if he wants an absolute cap on open access abstraction.

Quite. HMG makes law, ORR applies it. (See 3rd rail electrification etc..)

 

[mike57]

I think open access is going to be a thorny and contentious issue going forwards.

To me OA operations fall into two categories: Those offering through routes which are not part of the current 'soon to be GBR' operation, and competition on main routes like Lumo. I realise there is some spill over between them.

The direct competition element (e.g. Lumo) is able to survive because LNER are pushing fares ever upwards. If you removed Lumo I am not sure that there would be a major outcry, but people would end up paying more.

The more difficult case would be the likes of Hull Trains, who have established a route which has been effectively abandonded by the national operator down to a token service. Remove Hull trains and I am pretty sure that whatever assurances were given by the politicians Hull would be back where it was before Hull Trains came on the scene. At a political level Hull and surroundings already feel abandonded by Westminster, there are plenty of pointers to that in the political landscape over the last few years.

So I think trying curtail existing OA operations should not be part of GBR strategy, to me they have far bigger problems to deal with, and should be concentrating on those, the main one being to bring the railways back to being a national operation, may be with brands within it (Inter City, Regional, Metro, whatever), but with everyone pulling in the same direction, as the current silo mentality is responsible for a lot of self inflicted problems. Simplifying the overly complex fares structure, ensuring that rolling stock procurement is more standardised, increasing train lengths as a solution to issues like XC overcrowsing, there is an awful lot that needs to be done before they turn their attention to a handful of OA operators.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Oh dear, oh dear. Since when has ORR had any direct responsibility for DfT’s relationship with the Treasury?

Surely a DfT DG is in a position to kick off any necessary rewrite of the rules of the game if he wants an absolute cap on open access abstraction.

What is behind his worry that multiple operators produce more abstraction than the sum of their individual operations? My befuddled mind can’t grasp it, unless there is a proven behavioural change. Has there been any decent research on this?

Quite. HMG makes law, ORR applies it. (See 3rd rail electrification etc..)

Only Parliament can change the law. Changing the rules requires Parliament to pass primary legislation which will be the legislation to set up Great British Railways. I expect HM Government will introduce the bill but the precise content of the Act of Parliament will be decided by Parliament and will not necessarily be exactly the same as the initial bill proposed by HM Government.

 

[Zomboid]

I'm not sure that the writing will be on the wall for existing successful OAOs, such as Hull Trains (who I think most would agree have been a net positive for the rail industry), but I expect that it'll be harder for any new operators to get in. It would be transparently ridiculous to kick HT off without directly replacing their services with equivalent GBR trains, in which case what would be the point?

Though to be honest most (if not all) of the likely viable routes have been taken or tried already.

 

[Zomboid]

Only Parliament can change the law. Changing the rules requires Parliament to pass primary legislation which will be the legislation to set up Great British Railways. I expect HM Government will introduce the bill but the precise content of the Act of Parliament will be decided by Parliament and will not necessarily be exactly the same as the initial bill proposed by HM Government.

Though with a colossal majority at the moment, don't expect any significant amendments to pass...

 

[weeklycommuter]

Though with a colossal majority at the moment, don't expect any significant amendments to pass...

That depends on the initial bill. I expect there will be discussions between the Government and MPs in particular on the future of Open Access passenger train services which provide essential passenger train services for many constituencies. Whether the Wrexham Shropshire and Midlands Railway passenger train services will be part of those discussions depends on whether the Office of Rail and Road approves the application. I hope the decision is announced very soon.

 

[Kite159]

It’s an epic rant!

Pity some of the stuff he says is not true but no doubt FG and others will sort him out. What is does do is give an early warning to all concerned that DfT officials want Open Access gone in 2029.

Which is what LNER would love to happen, so they can hike up fares without pesky competition for London to/from the likes of Doncaster, Wakefield*, York, Newcastle etc

 

[Mike Machin]

When one considers how well Grand Central, Hull Trains and Lumo perform on the East Coast route with people choosing to use them, I have long been of the opinion that other than commuter services within metropolitan areas, all passenger services should be provided by competitive companies on an open access basis.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When one considers how well Grand Central, Hull Trains and Lumo perform on the East Coast route with people choosing to use them, I have long been of the opinion that other than commuter services within metropolitan areas, all passenger services should be provided by competitive companies on an open access basis.

Grand Central perform well? On what planet is that?

They're an unreliable joke with a serious attitude problem (in terms of abandoning passengers in disruption) and a fleet of rolling stock that's 10 years overdue scrap. The one and only thing going for them is that they are cheap.

Hull is good, and Lumo fulfils a specific purpose (cheap competitor to low cost airlines with e.g. a luggage policy that is stricter than such airlines* and a horribly cramped interior), but GC, seriously? They are a reason to abolish Open Access, not increase it.

* Because you can't purchase a large bag, for instance. They might let you for a fee if in a nice mood, but you can't guarantee it thus the option is useless.

 

[steamybrian]

When one considers how well Grand Central, Hull Trains and Lumo perform on the East Coast route with people choosing to use them, I have long been of the opinion that other than commuter services within metropolitan areas, all passenger services should be provided by competitive companies on an open access basis.

No No No.
The whole idea of Great British Railways is to abolish train operating companies and to have one unified passenger service. I remember BR services of pre- 1994 when you could buy a ticket from A to B and catch any train. Simple.
If you want cheaper tickets then it be by time restriction (for example after 1000) when you could still catch any train.

 

[NCT]

No No No.
The whole idea of Great British Railways is to abolish train operating companies and to have one unified passenger service. I remember BR services of pre- 1994 when you could buy a ticket from A to B and catch any train. Simple.
If you want cheaper tickets then it be by time restriction (for example after 1000) when you could still catch any train.

All ECML Open Access operators accept Any Permitted tickets.

 

[The Middle]

No No No.
The whole idea of Great British Railways is to abolish train operating companies and to have one unified passenger service. I remember BR services of pre- 1994 when you could buy a ticket from A to B and catch any train. Simple.
If you want cheaper tickets then it be by time restriction (for example after 1000) when you could still catch any train.

I could just imagine the eye watering price of everything being an 'any permitted' ticket. Ryanair & EasyJet will be licking their lips should that ever come to fruition.

 

[357]

Which is what LNER would love to happen, so they can hike up fares without pesky competition for London to/from the likes of Doncaster, Wakefield*, York, Newcastle etc

Yes, and of course we are still waiting to see the governments response to the fact they will be cutting rail services and severing many places only direct links to places including London.

 

[Wolfie]

Quite. HMG makes law, ORR applies it. (See 3rd rail electrification etc..)

Nope, absolutely not. Parliament makes law, most likely but not exclusively based on proposals from HMG.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Wednesday at 10:45 ==

Only Parliament can change the law. Changing the rules requires Parliament to pass primary legislation which will be the legislation to set up Great British Railways. I expect HM Government will introduce the bill but the precise content of the Act of Parliament will be decided by Parliament and will not necessarily be exactly the same as the initial bill proposed by HM Government.

Absolutely correct.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Wednesday at 10:46 ==

ORR published the letter, which it is wise to do for transparency having received it from DfT.

Too right. Had ORR not done so and then it leaked after negative decisions....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Wednesday at 10:49 ==

However, the letter may give some of the rejected operators grounds to argue that there was undue interference from the DFT, so I'm not sure why they would have published it.

With the current legislation it was naive at best for a senior DfT official to write at the time that they did, particularly in those terms. I wonder if this is an attempt to set up a "the current system isn't working hence we need to change the legislation" scenario?

 

[Harpo]

Nope, absolutely not. Parliament makes law,

Process wise, of course. But it’s origins will be HMG and we currently have part of HMG, in DfT, tieing itself up in knots over issues that legislation could (eventually) resolve.

 

[Wolfie]

Process wise, of course. But it’s origins will be HMG and we currently have part of HMG, in DfT, tieing itself up in knots over issues that legislation could (eventually) resolve.

There are, of course, such things as private members bills. I do agree the main thrust of your argument though.... Rather feels like DfT are trying to have their way ahead of any legislative discussion.

 

[Harpo]

Rather feels like DfT are trying to have their way ahead of any legislative discussion.

Presumably because the legislative process hasn’t been sharp or quick enough to stop the owning groups attempts to convert franchised income into open access income. The little Dutch lad with his finger in the dyke springs to mind.

 

[vuzzeho]

Yes, and of course we are still waiting to see the governments response to the fact they will be cutting rail services and severing many places only direct links to places including London.

And then there's Eurostar and whoever else is coming onto HS1 (Probably Trenitalia) - and the government themselves have agreed to run services with SBB to Switzerland (though, I suppose that'll probably be a GBR/SBB 'Lyria' type deal) - without open access, how are those services going to work?