Speculation: How could Hull Trains and Grand Central be saved?

[JonathanH]

There's explicitly a test to make sure that Open Access services are 'not primarily abstractive'.

Yes, the key word is 'primarily'. Even if not primarily abstractive, it doesn't stop Hull Trains and Grand Central being at least in part abstractive which they clearly are with regard to shared flows, both through LNER offering reduced fares at the common stations and the need to share revenue.

Ultimately the taxpayer is funding competition and what could be considered unnecessary duplication on the routes.

 

[43096]

It also seems imprudent to have these primarily abstractive services clogging up busy mainlines with short trains.

But on the other hand you’d happily roll the Hull service into LNER. To remind you: the daily LNER service has long been effectively a reverse ORCATS raid on Hull Trains.

You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Ianno87]

It also seems imprudent to have these primarily abstractive services clogging up busy mainlines with short trains.

Evidence suggests that Open Access has had the effect of growing the market overall, and actually benefitting the revenue line of the franchised operator.

Plus the social benefit of services to the likes of Hartlepool and Sunderland, at zero cost to the taxpayer.

But on the other hand you’d happily roll the Hull service into LNER. To remind you: the daily LNER service has long been effectively a reverse ORCATS raid on Hull Trains.

You can’t have it both ways.

 

[si404]

Yes, the key word is 'primarily'.

Indeed - if @Bletchleyite hadn't used that word, I'd have had no problem with the idea that the Open Access Operators abstract revenue.

Ultimately the taxpayer is funding competition

Not really - LNER might have bidded to pay more premium if their money-maker was more of a monopoly, but taxpayer not getting as much payment from a private company due to allowing (heavily regulated) competition in a corporatist industry is not the same as funding competition.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

I'll quote myself from the other thread on this topic:

I agree, the track access charges per passenger are actually lower profit makers than the ticket revenue achieved by LNER per passenger, ultimately meaning the government shouldn't be feeding the thieves stealing revenue from their table

Kill off HT and GC, aquire the rolling stock and paths, run the services as LNER and no money needs to pass hands it's the most brutal but least likely to be seen as state aid or hand outs

 

[ainsworth74]

Not really - LNER might have bidded to pay more premium if their money-maker was more of a monopoly, but taxpayer not getting as much payment from a private company due to allowing (heavily regulated) competition in a corporatist industry is not the same as funding competition.

Well, LNER wouldn't have bidded anything as they're the Operator of Last Resort

 

[si404]

Well, LNER wouldn't have bidded anything as they're the Operator of Last Resort

I forgot that the last franchisee also went bust due to overpaying the premiums.

So the taxpayer didn't even lose out there due to Open Access existing...

 

[35B]

It also seems imprudent to have these primarily abstractive services clogging up busy mainlines with short trains.

Primarily abstractive? What's your basis for saying that? It's never been seriously argued for Hull Trains, while DfT and GNER (remember them?) lost hands down when they tried to challenge GC.

There's an argument about short formations, but it's usually made in the spirit of those who can't see beyond a sausage factory view of how railways operate.

 

[35B]

I agree, the track access charges per passenger are actually lower profit makers than the ticket revenue achieved by LNER per passenger, ultimately meaning the government shouldn't be feeding the thieves stealing revenue from their table

Kill off HT and GC, aquire the rolling stock and paths, run the services as LNER and no money needs to pass hands it's the most brutal but least likely to be seen as state aid or hand outs

I'll let you suggest that to the good folk of Hull and the Durham coast, and see how they react - remember, it was the franchised operations that stuck with the 1994 pattern that had lost through services to those places, and the open access operators that set those services up, and took the risk of getting them off the ground.

 

[Neptune]

The Grand Central West Riding service has been a success and would be sadly missed if it disappeared. LNER would not be interested in taking this service over, especially since they’re going to run additional Bradford services from Forster Square (eventually). Therefore Low Moor, Halifax, Brighouse, Mirfield and Pontefract lose out.

GC & HT are Focused on local connectivity to London as well as major centres with a poor London service. Think of the likes of Low Moor, Eaglescliffe & Howden. I can’t see LNER stopping their Huddersfield service at Mirfield.

First’s Edinburgh service I don’t really understand. That IS a pure ORCATS raid from what I can see.

 

[Ianno87]

First’s Edinburgh service I don’t really understand. That IS a pure ORCATS raid from what I can see.

Not the way ORR see it. Firstly, it is more aimed at extracting demand from air.

Secondly, I seem to recall (may be mis-remembering) they were proposing *not* to recieve a slice of ORCATS? i.e. you could only buy their own tickets, not inter-available ones?

 

[Hadders]

I am no fan of Open Access - it tends to be abstractive and get in the way somewhat, generally with short trains on lines where we should be maxing out lengths, and use paths (like on the WCML) which might be better used for resilience (i.e. left empty).

So I'd say yes, Hull Trains into LNER (and change how it operates so it doesn't result in short trains on the south ECML, e.g. portion work it with something else that's quiet past Donny, perhaps incorporate one or more of the GC routes if they are busy enough), the 80x to some other 80x operator (or LNER), and GC (and indeed First East Coast) to just go away - the latter could change their 80x order into additional units for GWR or additional vehicles for GWR's existing units to take some 5s to 9 depending on how far along they are. Problem solved.

I understand where you're coming from but prior to Hull Trains GNER served Hull once a day and showed no sign of increasing this level of service. What Open Access has done in the case of Hull is grown the service. This is a good thing overall.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I understand where you're coming from but prior to Hull Trains GNER served Hull once a day and showed no sign of increasing this level of service. What Open Access has done in the case of Hull is grown the service. This is a good thing overall.

Has it grown the market adequately, though? That is, has more revenue come to the railway than there would have been before without those direct services?

I see it myself as rather like Blackpool - if you've got a quality hourly connection, what's the point in an infrequent direct service? Direct trains from everywhere to everywhere are not justified, unless you can make better use of mainline capacity by portion-working them, and they can therefore be fitted into the standard pattern without disrupting everything else.

 

[43096]

Has it grown the market adequately, though? That is, has more revenue come to the railway than there would have been before without those direct services?

I see it myself as rather like Blackpool - if you've got a quality hourly connection, what's the point in an infrequent direct service?

Given that the East Coast franchise is benefiting from ORCATS revenue as a result of the Hull Trains service, the answer has to be "yes".

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given that the East Coast franchise is benefiting from ORCATS revenue as a result of the Hull Trains service, the answer has to be "yes".

Is the income for East Coast higher than it would be if Hull Trains didn't exist? I doubt it. If it actually is, this one may be an exception, but I still object to 5-car trains on an overcongested mainline.

 

[43096]

Is the income for East Coast higher than it would be if Hull Trains didn't exist? I doubt it. If it actually is, this one may be an exception, but I still object to 5-car trains on an overcongested mainline.

I've told you twice that LNER (and GNER and co before) have received higher revenue as a result of Hull Trains. Which bit of that are you struggling with? Or is it just that it doesn't fit your preconceived agenda, as it substantially weakens your case?

As to your second point, why not remove freight as well, then. It doesn't carry any passengers and runs on an open access basis.......

 

[Hadders]

Is the income for East Coast higher than it would be if Hull Trains didn't exist? I doubt it. If it actually is, this one may be an exception, but I still object to 5-car trains on an overcongested mainline.

I share your view on 5-car trains but how can you expect Open Access Operators to fun full length trains when the Government owned operator has just introduced a whole fleet of short trains?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I share your view on 5-car trains but how can you expect Open Access Operators to fun full length trains when the Government owned operator has just introduced a whole fleet of short trains?

Those are for running doubled-up and leaving portions behind once you get off the busy mainline, aren't they? I don't care what the formation is made up of, it just needs not to overall be a short one. Portion working is a perfectly valid way of making good use of paths if the intended destinations won't support a 260m train on their own.

 

[thealm]

Those are for running doubled-up and leaving portions behind once you get off the busy mainline, aren't they? I don't care what the formation is made up of, it just needs not to overall be a short one. Portion working is a perfectly valid way of making good use of paths if the intended destinations won't support a 260m train on their own.

Not true they introduced 5 car services onto new Lincoln services which were once 9 car services to Newark Northgate.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Is the income for East Coast higher than it would be if Hull Trains didn't exist? I doubt it. If it actually is, this one may be an exception, but I still object to 5-car trains on an overcongested mainline.

I wasn't aware that the ECML was regarded as 'Congested Infrastructure' (let alone 'overcongested', whatever that means). The Castlefield Corridor is officially Congested. Historical declarations such as the Midland Main Line have been dealt with by things like re-quadrupling or, in the case of Reading-Gatwick, by means of additional platforms at Reading, Redhill and Gatwick.

The ECML has had and continues to receive many enhancements to boost its capacity; too numerous to list here.

 

[Hadders]

Those are for running doubled-up and leaving portions behind once you get off the busy mainline, aren't they? I don't care what the formation is made up of, it just needs not to overall be a short one. Portion working is a perfectly valid way of making good use of paths if the intended destinations won't support a 260m train on their own.

Plenty of 5-car Azumas running between Kings Cross and Stevenage. And I don't think they're short formed either.

 

[ainsworth74]

As I've said on several threads I think over the past months the whole LNER fleet of Azumas isn't yet in service so I think it's hard to draw conclusions on what the long term shape of 5-car running might be.

 

[Ianno87]

Is the income for East Coast higher than it would be if Hull Trains didn't exist?

Yes, it very much is.

HT/GC has made the general ECML service to the likes of Donny more attractive (4-5 trains per hour most of the day) and brought more custom to rail overall, of which LNER enjoys a slice of the pie.

Why do you think LNER and its predecessors suddenly got keen on stopping more stuff at Northallerton...?

 

[Ianno87]

Plenty of 5-car Azumas running between Kings Cross and Stevenage. And I don't think they're short formed either.

Some of the Newark/Lincoln services seem less well-loaded than Open Access services do.

 

[bussnapperwm]

I'm in favour of saving them. They're not primarily abstractive, they're not being used by the franchise operator to do their obligation (cough W&S/Chiltern cough) and they're adding more to the local economy in the areas they run in.

 

[cle]

I completely agree that GNER/LNER should not just inherit the fruits of others' labours, especially as they ignored these markets or served them infrequently. They haven't earned it.

Hull Trains, and GC to a lesser degree, took risks, build businesses and brands, differentiated - this should be rewarded. New markets have been served, existing mainline stations better served (Grantham, Retford, Stevenage even) - exactly what open access was intended for. Innovation.

 

[Ianno87]

I completely agree that GNER/LNER should not just inherit the fruits of others' labours, especially as they ignored these markets or served them infrequently. They haven't earned it.

Hull Trains, and GC to a lesser degree, took risks, build businesses and brands, differentiated - this should be rewarded. New markets have been served, existing mainline stations better served (Grantham, Retford, Stevenage even) - exactly what open access was intended for. Innovation.

One option would be to temporarily run Hull Trains and/or Grand Central as a sub-contracted element of the LNER franchise (which its Train Service Requirement would be temporarily amended to specify), using HT's access rights, with a management fee (thus small profit) paid to HT in exchange. Then once patronage has recovered, it reverts to a standalone operation once financially viable.

 

[37424]

I completely agree that GNER/LNER should not just inherit the fruits of others' labours, especially as they ignored these markets or served them infrequently. They haven't earned it.

Hull Trains, and GC to a lesser degree, took risks, build businesses and brands, differentiated - this should be rewarded. New markets have been served, existing mainline stations better served (Grantham, Retford, Stevenage even) - exactly what open access was intended for. Innovation.

My view they shouldn't be supported by the government in any way there will be enough cost trying to support the existing franchises. Yes they may have grown the market to some degree but the job of main franchise is to run the major routes and until recently only had a limited fleet of 9 carriage trains to less than ideally serve this more marginal market.

If these were small companies that would otherwise go to wall then I might be more sympathetic but they are of course part of much larger companies.

There will of course be tough decisions for many companies in many industries and the government cannot support them all

 

[Chester1]

One option would be to temporarily run Hull Trains and/or Grand Central as a sub-contracted element of the LNER franchise (which its Train Service Requirement would be temporarily amended to specify), using HT's access rights, with a management fee (thus small profit) paid to HT in exchange. Then once patronage has recovered, it reverts to a standalone operation once financially viable.

This debate is really about whether or not members support Open Access Operators. I completely agree with you, to maintain some social distancing there is a need for the capacity that Grand Central and Hull Trains can provide. The long term market may change and kill them off but its in the public interest for the government to offer them a contract and becoming a temporary unit of LNER would be a good option.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The Government can't specifically support OA - it's illegal for them to do so on both Competition and Procurement grounds. The fact that it directly contracts competing services is problematic for both them and the OA operators. if they weren't so involved, it would have been much easier for them to subsidise the operation in a pseudo EMA or a direct contract. it's been looked at in detail by both the DfT and the OA owning groups.

Hull Trains is not primarily abstractive, never has been and when GNER tried to claim it was in the High Court, they had to withdraw that charge on the first day of that infamous court case against the ORR, which they lost, badly.

People on this forum are fixated by ORCATS. Inter Available revenue is now such a small proportion of ECML (& WCML) flows so ORCATS raiding is very much a thing of the past - getting your key flow revenue up to 80% - 90% Dedicated is now the name of the game. If you are starting an OA operation now you have to compete on price and service offer otherwise you will go bust big time and quickly. Connecting flows tend to be IA but even with those there is an increasing tendency to do joint tickets to maximise Dedicated revenue and cut out the ORCATS leakage.

Both GC and HT have been pointed into the direction of extending their existing TAA's to cover their Covid related losses. GC have a one year extension application in with the ORR and HT have a three year extension application going through the system now. Both are expected to be granted.