Do open access operators benefit or hinder our railways? (and how could the situation be improved?)

[devonexpress]

Given how we now have a few open access operators, what are people opinions of them, do they help provide passengers with crucial links that other toc's can't? Or are they a hinder, taking away passengers from franchise, taking away much needed rolling stock which could be better used elsewhere?

 

[DarloRich]

i don't understand how they could hinder services. They offer us as customers choice. The franchise holders have to win our business in areas that OA companies exist. Thye have no right to expect our cash. They, like every other business, must win it on merit.

 

[devonexpress]

i don't understand how they could hinder services. They offer us as customers choice. The franchise holders have to win our business in areas that OA companies exist. Thye have no right to expect our cash. They, like every other business, must win it on merit.

You should therefore read my paragraph above. Back a few years ago we have several OAO's who took up valuable rolling stock which could have been used to beef up normal services. Grand Central's HST's and 180s, HT 180s etc. But at the same time these operators provide links normal toc's can't or are not interested in.

 

[DarloRich]

You should therefore read my paragraph above. Back a few years ago we have several OAO's who took up valuable rolling stock which could have been used to beef up normal services. Grand Central's HST's and 180s, HT 180s etc. But at the same time these operators provide links normal toc's can't or are not interested in.

I read your post. What you are describing is competition. Businesses have to compete for resources. I would counter your point by saying that no one wanted those resources when GC took them. Their HST had trees growing out of them and the 180's were mobile bonfires.

You may have a point if you suggest they take up paths that a franchise operator could use but the privitatisation of the railways was deigned to allow for this kind of competition.

 

[Purple Orange]

I read your post. What you are describing is competition. Businesses have to compete for resources. I would counter your point by saying that no one wanted those resources when GC took them. Their HST had trees growing out of them and the 180's were mobile bonfires.

That strikes at the heart of what railway is for.

• Is the railway for private companies to make a profit via the provision of public services?

• Or is the railway a vehicle to power the economy, by enabling as many people as possible to move around the country as and when they need?

 

[DarloRich]

That strikes at the heart of what railway is for.

• Is the railway for private companies to make a profit via the provision of public services?

• Or is the railway a vehicle to power the economy, by enabling as many people as possible to move around the country as and when they need?

I would say OA companies infringe on neither option! The same number of seats are still in service. They often offer lower prices than the franchise operators and run to places the franchised operators don't.

 

[devonexpress]

That strikes at the heart of what railway is for.

• Is the railway for private companies to make a profit via the provision of public services?

• Or is the railway a vehicle to power the economy, by enabling as many people as possible to move around the country as and when they need?

The job of the railway is to shift people about, as quickly and efficiently as possible at a competitive price. The biggest competition for TOC's isn't other TOC's is cars & flights. I'm not saying the OAO's don't have an important part in our railway because they do, Grand Central is the perfect highlight of that, so is Heathrow Express. But at the same time, when TOC's are desperate for rolling stock on crucially important routes, why is it fair that people are made to stand on a packet train, when lets say only a half full mini HST's trots its way to Sunderland? This is what i'm more trying to highlight.

The same goes with the plan for OAO on the GWML, with Class 91s/Mk4s, surely that's going to massively slow down GWR's IETs?

 

[DarloRich]

with Class 91s/Mk4s, surely that's going to massively slow down GWR's IETs?

and that is why it will be rejected.

 

[pdeaves]

I would say OA companies infringe on neither option! The same number of seats are still in service. They often offer lower prices than the franchise operators and run to places the franchised operators don't.

The job of the railway is to shift people about, as quickly and efficiently as possible at a competitive price. The biggest competition for TOC's isn't other TOC's is cars & flights. I'm not saying the OAO's don't have an important part in our railway because they do, Grand Central is the perfect highlight of that, so is Heathrow Express. But at the same time, when TOC's are desperate for rolling stock on crucially important routes, why is it fair that people are made to stand on a packet train, when lets say only a half full mini HST's trots its way to Sunderland? This is what i'm more trying to highlight.

I think there are benefits and dis-benefits either way. That is why the ORR applies various tests before agreeing an operator's rights. The decision letters, whether accepting or rejecting, make interesting reading where they weigh up the relative merits and determine what's best overall. Sometimes open access is good and sometimes not!

 

[221129]

why is it fair that people are made to stand on a packet train, when lets say only a half full mini HST's trots its way to Sunderland?

Same can be said for empty 12 car EMUs running around the South East off peak, while Off Peak Voyagers are Full and standing. It's not a problem unique to OAOs.

 

[Darandio]

You should therefore read my paragraph above. Back a few years ago we have several OAO's who took up valuable rolling stock which could have been used to beef up normal services. Grand Central's HST's and 180s, HT 180s etc. But at the same time these operators provide links normal toc's can't or are not interested in.

But at the same time, when TOC's are desperate for rolling stock on crucially important routes, why is it fair that people are made to stand on a packet train, when lets say only a half full mini HST's trots its way to Sunderland? This is what i'm more trying to highlight.

All you've done here is basically repeat the same thing and it's already been answered. Historically it has been the norm for OAO's to take the stock that nobody wanted. It's never really been the case that other operators had a keen interest in this rolling stock.

 

[Randomer]

I'm of two minds about open access:

1) They do provide services that other franchised operators either don't think of as viable or the DFT doesn't want to subsidise through the franchise process. Looking at Hull Trains they have made a major increase in Hull-London services that the franchised operator would probably never have implemented. It also forces competition in terms of pricing onto incumbent operators which is probably a good thing for the consumer.

2) Despite providing increased journey opportunities from potentially under served stations they use paths in busy parts of the railway that could potentially be better used. Using Hull Trains as an example again running 180's into Kings Cross with much lower capacity than the Class 91 or HST sets LNER were using at the time. Even with newer services most open access operations are inevitably going to run smaller trains that most precisely match current demand, the economics of running empty seats forces this. However, on several parts of the network other franchised operators are doing similar things Crosscountry on the ECML north of York for example.

The most interesting part of potential open access going forward to me is operations like First East Coast Trains. Perhaps offering a genuine attempt at low price long distance travel to compete with coaches or low cost airlines. However, I'm not convinced allowing such operations keeps the current franchising model as viable and again the capacity issues vs paths available remains.

 

[yorkie]

I don't see how anyone could possibly argue that Grand Central and Hull Trains have not had a positive impact for customers on the East Coast Mainline!

My only criticism is that their short trains are not always the best use of capacity.

 

[Purple Orange]

I don't see how anyone could possibly argue that Grand Central and Hull Trains have not had a positive impact for customers on the East Coast Mainline!

My only criticism is that their short trains are not always the best use of capacity.

Could splitting and joining be a solution here? If compatible units are used. E.g. Bradford-Kings Cross joins with Sunderland-Kings Cross at Doncaster. Not sure how Hull Trains could achieve this though.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You should therefore read my paragraph above. Back a few years ago we have several OAO's who took up valuable rolling stock which could have been used to beef up normal services. Grand Central's HST's and 180s, HT 180s etc. But at the same time these operators provide links normal toc's can't or are not interested in.

The OA rolling stock was available on the free commercial market, the franchises could have bid for them but they didn't (no money, probably).
The DfT has to approve all franchise rolling stock contracts, as they are a main driver of a TOC's cost base.
And in most cases OA rolling stock was at the bottom of the barrel with the Roscos, with no other takers.
Only recently have OAOs ordered new stock comparable with the franchises (both part of FirstGroup).
Recently GC has taken a few Mk4 vehicles for the Blackpool service, but there is no demand for the rest of the ex-LNER fleet.
Class 180s have been shunned by the franchise operators for poor reliability and small numbers (there are extra costs with a small fleet).
HSTs/Mk3s are life-expired and don't meet PRM regulations.

 

[Darandio]

Could splitting and joining be a solution here? If compatible units are used. E.g. Bradford-Kings Cross joins with Sunderland-Kings Cross at Doncaster. Not sure how Hull Trains could achieve this though.

Presumably you never saw the chaos in the past when trying to join Class 180's together at Doncaster for path sharing during disruption?

 

[Purple Orange]

Presumably you never saw the chaos in the past when trying to join Class 180's together at Doncaster for path sharing during disruption?

Can’t say I did. Oddly for someone who has joined a railway forum, I tend not to look at the trains all that much when I’m out and about. My mind tends to focus more on the stations and the infrastructure around the railways. For instance, the subsurface London Underground lines fascinates me, but the deep level lines and the rolling stock is less of an interest.

 

[yorkie]

If you are going to do splitting & joining then you need stock that is extremely reliable for that purpose.

I'd also say that you'd need an extra platform at Doncaster. In fact an extra island platform would be useful there (and there must surely be space) however I doubt the business case would stack up to be honest.

Perhaps @Bald Rick may have some views on this?

 

[PupCuff]

I'm inclined to say that, I would support doing privatisation properly, then we'd be encouraging competition because the business who operates the 'best' trains, at the 'best' price, at the 'best' times and offers the 'best' customer service should be the one which is most successful. Best, will be a judgement by the individual customer - one may suit their needs better than others. In this model, open access operators would be a significant benefit.

Of course, the way we have privatised, competition simply detracts from the value of the franchised operator. The franchised operator has been selected because their offer is the 'best' - but on a judgement by the government, which may or may not reflect the needs or wants of the individual customer.

 

[southern442]

OAO's I would say massively benefit the privatised railway, and also provide one of the few opportunities where passengers themselves can also benefit from the current state of affairs on our network, through competition. When East Coast Trains starts up I will be far more likely to make the trip up to Scotland than previously as my only other means of getting up there with my own budget would've been one of the extremely long coach trips.

EDIT: again though, I'm not convinced 5-car trains are the best use of extra ECML paths, especially London to Edinburgh ones.

 

[devonexpress]

I don't see how anyone could possibly argue that Grand Central and Hull Trains have not had a positive impact for customers on the East Coast Mainline!

My only criticism is that their short trains are not always the best use of capacity.

I'm not criticizing them, I've said praises for both Hull Trains, Grand Central & Heathrow Express. However, if we look back to say 2013, it doesn't take away from the fact that FGW where desperate for more Mk3's & PowerCars & couldn't get hold of them, hence why they had to use 180s instead. You also have HEX which has priority over FGW/GWR I believe, It also takes up valuable paths, and two platforms at Paddington which could be used by GWR, with Heathrow connect providing a good service, on the other hand the service is fantastic and it's a very useful service for those coming from Heathrow to get to London quickly.

 

[Bald Rick]

Have OAOs benefited passengers? Unquestionably yes, for those that use them.

But that wasn’t the question. The question was “Do open access operators benefit or hinder our railways?”

The answer to that, in my opinion, is that on balance hinder, but it is not necessarily their fault.

Why?

1) they are not on a level playing field with their rail competitors. They do not pay the full track access costs that franchised operators do. Ultimately, this causes net revenue loss to the industry.

2) by their nature, they tend to cause the timetable, and thus the ‘system’ for moving passengers, to be less efficient than it could be. Short trains is one example, taking up marginal spare capacity is another (which causes reliability problems for everyone).

3) most, if not all, OA applications are in reality revenue grabs (to take advantage of point one); or to try and find a spare path on paper that they know, in reality, won’t work on rails such that someone buys them off. Privately, many OAO people will admit this.

If you are going to do splitting & joining then you need stock that is extremely reliable for that purpose.

I'd also say that you'd need an extra platform at Doncaster. In fact an extra island platform would be useful there (and there must surely be space) however I doubt the business case would stack up to be honest.

Perhaps @Bald Rick may have some views on this?

I don’t know Donny well enough, but suspect it is feasible without a new platform subject to signalling arrangements.

 

[43096]

However, if we look back to say 2013, it doesn't take away from the fact that FGW where desperate for more Mk3's & PowerCars & couldn't get hold of them, hence why they had to use 180s instead.

From memory GC started services in around 2007/8 with their HSTs. What do you propose should have happened between then and 2013?

 

[Iskra]

Have OAOs benefited passengers? Unquestionably yes, for those that use them.

But that wasn’t the question. The question was “Do open access operators benefit or hinder our railways?”

The answer to that, in my opinion, is that on balance hinder, but it is not necessarily their fault.

Why?

1) they are not on a level playing field with their rail competitors. They do not pay the full track access costs that franchised operators do. Ultimately, this causes net revenue loss to the industry.

2) by their nature, they tend to cause the timetable, and thus the ‘system’ for moving passengers, to be less efficient than it could be. Short trains is one example, taking up marginal spare capacity is another (which causes reliability problems for everyone).

3) most, if not all, OA applications are in reality revenue grabs (to take advantage of point one); or to try and find a spare path on paper that they know, in reality, won’t work on rails such that someone buys them off. Privately, many OAO people will admit this.





I don’t know Donny well enough, but suspect it is feasible without a new platform subject to signalling arrangements.

No, they cause net gain to the rail industry by serving markets barely served by Franchised Operators, thus creating additional revenue. What you're talking about is negatively affecting franchised operators margins, which is a different thing.

 

[Purple Orange]

My view on open access operators is that they do not benefit on the whole.

1. They tend to operate 5 trains per day.
2. Flexibility is a key factor to most passengers, which these services do not provide.
3. My personal view is I would rather have an ‘almost’ turn-up and go service to the nearest key mainline station, where I can make use of an ‘almost’ turn up and go intercity service, as opposed to 5 trains per day.

Let’s take Sunderland as an example. As a city, it is really part of the sphere of Newcastle, in terms of employment, retail and transport. Newcastle central is the significant element to travelling anywhere in the country from Sunderland, particularly given that the Tyne & Wear metro has an excellent service between the two. It is far easier to get the metro to Newcastle and get the train from there, allowing you to travel at times suited to your day, than it is to plan your day around the times of the train.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm not criticizing them, I've said praises for both Hull Trains, Grand Central & Heathrow Express. However, if we look back to say 2013, it doesn't take away from the fact that FGW where desperate for more Mk3's & PowerCars & couldn't get hold of them, hence why they had to use 180s instead. You also have HEX which has priority over FGW/GWR I believe, It also takes up valuable paths, and two platforms at Paddington which could be used by GWR, with Heathrow connect providing a good service, on the other hand the service is fantastic and it's a very useful service for those coming from Heathrow to get to London quickly.

FGW (well, First Group) procured the 180s in the first place as one of their first franchise decisions c1998.
For the next franchise term they discarded the 180s but found they still needed some to operate extra services, so re-leased them.
It's hardly OA's fault that the fleet was snapped up in the meantime.

HEx is a special case of OA, as Heathrow Airport paid for the construction of the branch and the train fleet, and agreed access to Paddington with DfT/BR before privatisation, when capacity on the main line was not as critical as now.
The joint project also funded electrification from Paddington to Hayes, and the remodelling of the Paddington layout for higher capacity/speeds.
They will shortly be using 387s hired from GWR rather then their own train fleet.

 

[Iskra]

My view on open access operators is that they do not benefit on the whole.

1. They tend to operate 5 trains per day.
2. Flexibility is a key factor to most passengers, which these services do not provide.
3. My personal view is I would rather have an ‘almost’ turn-up and go service to the nearest key mainline station, where I can make use of an ‘almost’ turn up and go intercity service, as opposed to 5 trains per day.

Let’s take Sunderland as an example. As a city, it is really part of the sphere of Newcastle, in terms of employment, retail and transport. Newcastle central is the significant element to travelling anywhere in the country from Sunderland, particularly given that the Tyne & Wear metro has an excellent service between the two. It is far easier to get the metro to Newcastle and get the train from there, allowing you to travel aatbtimes suited to your day, than it is to plan your day around the times of the train.

But surely it's better to have the choice, which in itself is a significant benefit compared to no choice. Especially when one may work out cheaper than the other?

Of course, the GC service is not exclusively about Sunderland...

 

[westv]

Mention of 5 coach trains. LNER were also doing that for some services prior to the "lockdown".

 

[route:oxford]

That strikes at the heart of what railway is for.

• Is the railway for private companies to make a profit via the provision of public services?
• Or is the railway a vehicle to power the economy, by enabling as many people as possible to move around the country as and when they need?

When's your starting point?

The backbone of the UK railway network relied on the investments of small private investors in towns and villages throughout the 18th century. In towns and cities throughout the country there were even public servants who did all they did to stop the railways coming to their towns.

 

[Dr Hoo]

My view on open access operators is that they do not benefit on the whole.

1. They tend to operate 5 trains per day.
2. Flexibility is a key factor to most passengers, which these services do not provide.
3. My personal view is I would rather have an ‘almost’ turn-up and go service to the nearest key mainline station, where I can make use of an ‘almost’ turn up and go intercity service, as opposed to 5 trains per day.

Let’s take Sunderland as an example. As a city, it is really part of the sphere of Newcastle, in terms of employment, retail and transport. Newcastle central is the significant element to travelling anywhere in the country from Sunderland, particularly given that the Tyne & Wear metro has an excellent service between the two. It is far easier to get the metro to Newcastle and get the train from there, allowing you to travel at times suited to your day, than it is to plan your day around the times of the train.

Surely you are projecting your 'personal view' onto other individuals, who may well not attach so much significance to flexibility. Someone in Sunderland, Bradford, Hull, etc. has the alternative of frequent local/metro services to Newcastle, Leeds or Doncaster and frequent connections forward to London, with Open tickets available if they want flexibility on the way to London.
But a significant number of people seem happy to accept a lower Advanced fare for specific trains and a through journey.
As already stated, it is about expanding the market through choice.
And open access does pay at least its variable track costs in accordance with EU law.