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

[route:oxford]

Are you in favour of privatising NHS services more than they are?

I'm absolutely confident that WH Smith can operate the branch of Marks & Spencer in Forth Valley Royal far better than any state owned organisation could operate a small grocery shop.

I don't think the UK or Scottish government should set up their own IT manufacturer instead of Dell, I don't think the UK or Scottish Goverment should set up their own medical device manufacturing company to build scanning instruments in competition with GE, Philips, Toshiba or Siemens. I can't see the benefit of the UK or Scottish Government launching a lift or escalator company in competition with Otis or Schindler or air handling units in competition with Mitsubishi or Panasonic.

I'm heading into work right now to start my 10pm shift, driving my new NHS staff lease Audi, just tapped my XID manufactured smartcard on the Newgate manufactured parking access. BOC are heading round the back to Estates with life saving oxygen supplies.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Okay, but it's still a Government Department, answerable to the Treasury...

ORR, like other regulators, has a quasi-statutory role which is independent of government.
Their salaries might be paid by HMG, but they are not obliged to rule in favour of DfT all the time, and often haven't.

Freight is effectively open access too, they are not franchises and aren't specified by DfT.
Network Rail theoretically makes money out of OA too from access charges, but it's still only a tiny amount compared to franchises.
The CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) also rules on rail competition matters and has often ruled against the DfT for controlling the market (eg in dictating rolling stock allocations).

People grumbling about 5-car OA services should have a look at the Cross-Country franchise specified by DfT.

 

[devonexpress]

ORR, like other regulators, has a quasi-statutory role which is independent of government.
Their salaries might be paid by HMG, but they are not obliged to rule in favour of DfT all the time, and often haven't.

Freight is effectively open access too, they are not franchises and aren't specified by DfT.
Network Rail theoretically makes money out of OA too from access charges, but it's still only a tiny amount compared to franchises.
The CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) also rules on rail competition matters and has often ruled against the DfT for controlling the market (eg in dictating rolling stock allocations).

People grumbling about 5-car OA services should have a look at the Cross-Country franchise specified by DfT.

Exactly and Virgin wanted to start an OAO using Voyagers at one point

 

[6Gman]

Bus cuts leave a million people without a regular service

Campaigners said reductions in bus routes and funding had left some people "trapped in their homes".

www.bbc.co.uk

My issue is that it should be more universal that buses are operated on a local publicly owned system. My local bus route has come and gone frequently over the years.

The link you post refers to bus cuts "in the last ten years". Deregulation has been around for over 33 years.

If deregulation's to blame it took its time . . .

 

[Purple Orange]

No but Isle of Man to Liverpool or Manchester are, London to Dublin is. Alderney to Guersey is. Loganair Westray to PapaWestray is a vital link, Newquay to London is so vital it's given a subsiday by the government. Therefore your comment doesn't stand any merit.

In the context of nationalising an entire airline, it is.

 

[6Gman]

Bus cuts leave a million people without a regular service

Campaigners said reductions in bus routes and funding had left some people "trapped in their homes".

www.bbc.co.uk

My issue is that it should be more universal that buses are operated on a local publicly owned system. My local bus route has come and gone frequently over the years.

Why ?

 

[Purple Orange]

The link you post refers to bus cuts "in the last ten years". Deregulation has been around for over 33 years.

If deregulation's to blame it took its time . . .

Do I need to call out cases from 33 years ago or could anything in that period suffice?

It reads like I’ve been debating with the ERG tonight.

Goodnight.

 

[6Gman]

Do I need to call out cases from 33 years ago or could anything in that period suffice?

It reads like I’ve been debating with the ERG tonight.

Goodnight.

I'm asking for evidence that the reduction in bus services is down to deregulation rather than reduced use and withdrawal of local authority support.

 

[6Gman]

Buses should be regulated across the country. It is due to the deregulation of the bus services that has allowed many communities to lose their bus services completely.

Just to remind you what you said.


To give an example from your local area - the 130 Manchester-Macclesfield via Wilmslow is a shadow of its former self. But if it was due to deregulation wouldn't it have happened in the late 80s/ early 90s rather than in the past few years ? Is it not more likely due to the fact that it runs through an area of high car ownership and that Cheshire East Council prioritises other services ?

 

[Ianno87]

Just to remind you what you said.


To give an example from your local area - the 130 Manchester-Macclesfield via Wilmslow is a shadow of its former self. But if it was due to deregulation wouldn't it have happened in the late 80s/ early 90s rather than in the past few years ? Is it not more likely due to the fact that it runs through an area of high car ownership and that Cheshire East Council prioritises other services ?

Plus increasing traffic congestion only serving to make the bus slower and more unreliable.

(And the fact that travel patterns inevitably evolve over time rendering once-popular bus routes no longer relevant)

 

[Energy]

No but Isle of Man to Liverpool or Manchester are, London to Dublin is. Alderney to Guersey is. Loganair Westray to PapaWestray is a vital link, Newquay to London is so vital it's given a subsiday by the government. Therefore your comment doesn't stand any merit.

You have described vital short haul (some very short) services, just because these routes are vital doesn't mean the rest of BA's route network is so these routes if they are unprofitable can either run by government subsidy, run by a contract similar to Thameslink so the government take costs and ticket revenue but giving a fixed fee to the operator, or run by a separate nationalised operator. The whole of BA doesn't need to be privatised because it runs some crucial air links in the UK when most of its routes don't fall into that category.

 

[Purple Orange]

Back on topic, with respect to open access operators and franchises I would prefer to see a DB system in place, which is partly where we have headed given that LNER and Northern are currently franchises run via the public sector. In fact publicly owned franchises are quite significant:

• LNER
• Northern
• XC
• Chiltern Railways
• Grand Central
• London Overground (Arriva Rail London)
• Scotrail
• EMR
• C2C
• TfL Rail
• London Underground (although no longer a franchise)

Those are just the ones that are wholly run by state run organisations (note the 5th bullet point).

Then we have the following with majority state run operations:

• GTR
• TfW
• MerseyRail
• West Midlands Trains
• Greater Anglia
• Eurostar

Then we have companies such as First Group, which I will freely acknowledge that on the whole provide a good product on TPE. GWR seems to be fairly decent from what I read of commenters on the whole. Avanti is still early to judge, but it looks promising with their proposals so far. However, they have also reported losses.

The point is that generally our rail services are not very appealing to the private sector and as an industry requires subsidy to operate the services that are needed. We have a financially inefficient model and I would like to see changes that enable profits from the railways ploughed back in to the rail industry.

 

[devonexpress]

In the context of nationalising an entire airline, it is.

The was never a plan to nationalise the airline, the plan was to bail it out or assist it with tax breaks until it could get back on it's feet, however due to many reason it was decided not too. Also, Your comment I believe was not about nationalising an airline, you refer to regional routes not being a lifeline for people travelling everyday, which is in fact untrue.

 

[devonexpress]

You have described vital short haul (some very short) services, just because these routes are vital doesn't mean the rest of BA's route network is so these routes if they are unprofitable can either run by government subsidy, run by a contract similar to Thameslink so the government take costs and ticket revenue but giving a fixed fee to the operator, or run by a separate nationalised operator. The whole of BA doesn't need to be privatised because it runs some crucial air links in the UK when most of its routes don't fall into that category.

I never said a whole airline should be nationalised, I was refer back to the users comments that airlines routes are not lifelines and used used everyday by people which I why I highlighted those routes, as what he said is factually incorrect.

 

[Purple Orange]

The was never a plan to nationalise the airline, the plan was to bail it out or assist it with tax breaks until it could get back on it's feet, however due to many reason it was decided not too. Also, Your comment I believe was not about nationalising an airline, you refer to regional routes not being a lifeline for people travelling everyday, which is in fact untrue.

No, you’ve got me wrong there. At the time of the Flybe fallout, reporting in the press was discussion about a bailout, but also about whether the state should or should not operate key routes that are a lifeline for people travelling from their community. Obviously that did not happen, but the debate was being had publicly in the news at least. It is the route, not the airline, that I was referring to.

To correct you, I have never said regional routes are not a lifeline for people. Some routes are. Most routes are not, hence why none of the existing airlines should be nationalised.

PS, can we get this back to discussing the railways?

 

[Bletchleyite]

To correct you, I have never said regional routes are not a lifeline for people. Some routes are. Most routes are not, hence why none of the existing airlines should be nationalised.

If you were going to nationalise one, Loganair operates pretty much all such routes in the UK.

 

[devonexpress]

No, you’ve got me wrong there. At the time of the Flybe fallout, reporting in the press was discussion about a bailout, but also about whether the state should or should not operate key routes that are a lifeline for people travelling from their community. Obviously that did not happen, but the debate was being had publicly in the news at least. It is the route, not the airline, that I was referring to.

To correct you, I have never said regional routes are not a lifeline for people. Some routes are. Most routes are not, hence why none of the existing airlines should be nationalised.

Thank you for clarifying, I respect your opinion but I completely disagree with you. Airlines bring major economic benefits to our country in terms of skill, people, higher salaries, and if necessary they should be bailed out. Don't forget British Airways was a national airline until 1987.

 

[matt_world2004]

The suspension of the Heathrow connect by Heathrow airoor limited when the class 332s had a fault so the Heathrow express could run was discraceful behaviour that deprived the residents of hanwell and West Ealing of a rail service completely

There was no public service in those actions and the connects running express to Heathrow Airport and back were often empty while the GwRs that were covering for them were leaving people behind

 

[devonexpress]

The suspension of the Heathrow connect by Heathrow airoor limited when the class 332s had a fault so the Heathrow express could run was discraceful behaviour that deprived the residents of hanwell and West Ealing of a rail service completely

There was no public service in those actions and the connects running express to Heathrow Airport and back were often empty while the GwRs that were covering for them were leaving people behind

Not really much GWR or Heathrow Connect could do, The 360s where needed to cover for the 332s, and GWR could only go as far as Hayes & Harlington as the stock they operated was not allowed to Heathrow Airport. Those at Hanwell, West Ealing could quite easily have doubled back via Paddington it's not as if they lost the service completely, although I agree it must have been annoying.

 

[Purple Orange]

Whatever people’s opinions of airlines, ferries and buses are, the railway is still being operated by a significant proportion of state owned organisations. Why is that? Even Grand Central is state owned.

(PS, BA is no longer a national airline and a company like IAG should be considered equally as Virgin Atlantic, Ryanair, EasyJet, and just like Thomas Cook and Flybe have been)

 

[matt_world2004]

Not really much GWR or Heathrow Connect could do, The 360s where needed to cover for the 332s, and GWR could only go as far as Hayes & Harlington as the stock they operated was not allowed to Heathrow Airport. Those at Hanwell, West Ealing could quite easily have doubled back via Paddington it's not as if they lost the service completely, although I agree it must have been annoying.

No trains called at hanwell at all. There was a lot Heathrow airport could have done, such as maintaining the connect service and refunding hex customers for the delay caused by travelling on the hc

 

[Bletchleyite]

(PS, BA is no longer a national airline and a company like IAG should be considered equally as Virgin Atlantic, Ryanair, EasyJet, and just like Thomas Cook and Flybe have been)

For now. If IAG ends up in the mire, I can see it being split and each of the UK and Spain nationalising their bit, with Vueling just being closed.

 

[Purple Orange]

For now. If IAG ends up in the mire, I can see it being split and each of the UK and Spain nationalising their bit, with Vueling just being closed.

Then they will have to do that to Virgin et al. Or the Tories will be Tories and allow solvent airlines to operate the routes out of Heathrow. There is nothing about the current BA operation that makes it a national airline anymore than easyJet.

But back to railways, why is it that commercially run businesses are shying away from the railways? Despite services being open for companies to come along and extract a profit, why is it that there appears to be a big retrenchment of the type of operator the conservatives would like to see run the railways?

 

[devonexpress]

Hence why I said it was a national airline until 1987. Personally I don't get your agenda, but I don't like people playing with the truth. As for British Airways, it is still considered the flag carried of the UK and the consensus across aviation is that the government woul nationalise it. I don't know where you get your qualifications to make such judgements.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then they will have to do that to Virgin et al.

They might well do - but that would be a nationalisation, not a bailout - that is, Branson would lose his stake.

 

[Purple Orange]

Hence why I said it was a national airline until 1987. Personally I don't get your agenda, but I don't like people playing with the truth. As for British Airways, it is still considered the flag carried of the UK and the consensus across aviation is that the government woul nationalise it. I don't know where you get your qualifications to make such judgements.

Playing with what truth? I sense you’re being purposefully antagonistic with your last comment, so I will leave it there with you thanks.

 

[Purple Orange]

They might well do - but that would be a nationalisation, not a bailout - that is, Branson would lose his stake.

Very true, but I just can’t see any of that happening. I’d expect the government would allow airlines to fail and other airlines would take up the opportunity to serve the transatlantic market.

 

[devonexpress]

Playing with what truth? I sense you’re being purposefully antagonistic with your last comment, so I will leave it there with you thanks.

Believe what you want, You either misunderstood what I've typed or purposely changed it.

 

[Ianno87]

The suspension of the Heathrow connect by Heathrow airoor limited when the class 332s had a fault so the Heathrow express could run was discraceful behaviour that deprived the residents of hanwell and West Ealing of a rail service completely

There was no public service in those actions and the connects running express to Heathrow Airport and back were often empty while the GwRs that were covering for them were leaving people behind

No trains called at hanwell at all. There was a lot Heathrow airport could have done, such as maintaining the connect service and refunding hex customers for the delay caused by travelling on the hc

Sacrificing Hanwell and West Ealing was probably the option that impacted fewest passengers overall.

Shoving HEx passengers on Connect would probably left the folk of Hanwell/West Ealing unable to board packed trains in any case.

 

[Dr Hoo]

But back to railways, why is it that commercially run businesses are shying away from the railways? Despite services being open for companies to come along and extract a profit, why is it that there appears to be a big retrenchment of the type of operator the conservatives would like to see run the railways?

Without any political overtones, surely the shortage of useful spare capacity on many routes (e.g. to allow a reasonable spread of open access services throughout the day and good equipment utilisation) is a huge barrier in itself?