Branch lines in the hands of Open Access Operators?

[RobShipway]

I was watching a video on Youtube with where Grand Union MD Ian Yeowart was being interviewed and it got me thinking as to whether Open Access Operators could perform the same success on Branch Lines as they have been able to do on Inter City Routes?

Or start a service on a branch line, but when it reaches the main network that service becomes a Inter-City Service?

An example of branch, then Inter-City Service would be the Cardiff Central to Nottingham Cross Country service, where it stops at Newport, then Severn Tunnel Junction and then all stops to Worcestershire Parkway. It then becomes more of an inter-city service with only stopping at University before getting to Birmingham New Street.

 

[JonathanH]

Or start a service on a branch line, but when it reaches the main network that service becomes a Inter-City Service?

I'm not really sure what is different about what you are describing. You could argue that Hull Trains and the two Grand Central routes are exactly this. A slow journey along secondary routes followed by a fast main line journey to London.

There aren't a lot more opportunities to do this where there is adequate capacity on a secondary route to introduce extra services and then run fast to a major point. It is only really London that can generate enough demand.

An open access operator running from, for example, Caerphilly to Swansea or Workington to Manchester via Carlisle and Preston, isn't going to happen. Is that what you had in mind or am I misunderstanding?

 

[RobShipway]

I'm not really sure what is different about what you are describing. You could argue that Hull Trains and the two Grand Central routes are exactly this. A slow journey along secondary routes followed by a fast main line journey to London.

There aren't a lot more opportunities to do this where there is adequate capacity on a secondary route to introduce extra services and then run fast to a major point. It is only really London that can generate enough demand.

An open access operator running from, for example, Caerphilly to Swansea or Workington to Manchester via Carlisle and Preston, isn't going to happen. Is that what you had in mind or am I misunderstanding?

Is is part of what I had in mind, but also possibly the Open Access operator running the services on the branch lines. So as an example, rather than say Southern operating the trains on the routes from Littlehampton or Seaford into Worthing or Brighton, you have an Open Access Operator like Grand Union running the services?

 

[JonathanH]

So as an example, rather than say Southern operating the trains on the routes from Littlehampton or Seaford into Worthing or Brighton, you have an Open Access Operator like Grand Union running the services?

Right, but these are routes that probably don't pay their way. One of the early ideas of privatisation might have been micro operations such as you suggest, for example the Brighton and Hove bus operator running Brighton to Seaford.

But if we think about that idea, Brighton to Seaford is currently run as part of a much wider network with its trains maintained at Lovers Walk depot. An open access operator could have a contract for the depot operator to maintain the train fleet for Brighton to Seaford in isolation but where is the competitive advantage for the open access operator? Lower staff costs? Freedom to choose the timetable? Freedom to set fares? I don't think you could realistically have a situation where Southern and an OAO both run trains from Brighton to Seaford.

I think it was considered at one point but has been dismissed because it is further fragmentation with limited reward. With the DfT dictating service levels across the railway because of what the Treasury is having to pay to maintain the service, the freedom to do something different seems unlikely.

 

[pdeaves]

In addition to JonathanH's response, there would be some train crew issues. Currently, drivers get to do different routes, in part preventing fatigue and complacency leading to silly mistakes. If an open access operator were to run only one branch, they could well need more staff on shorter shifts on account of them not having other work to do. Or, hire in from the 'big TOC'.

In short, there is no economy of scale with short branches as 'standalone' units.

 

[30907]

there is no economy of scale with short branches as 'standalone' units.

Against that, there might (in rare cases) be some economy of operation.

The example that comes to mind is the Esk Valley - operating it from the Whitby end would allow the first down/last up (in the pre Covid timetable) to be withdrawn. And micro-franchising it to a NYMR offshoot has been proposed (probably by Alan Williams).

But that is a very unusual case, and the benefits might equally be obtained by Northern establishing an outstation at Whitby a la Pwllheli.

 

[RobShipway]

Right, but these are routes that probably don't pay their way. One of the early ideas of privatisation might have been micro operations such as you suggest, for example the Brighton and Hove bus operator running Brighton to Seaford.

But if we think about that idea, Brighton to Seaford is currently run as part of a much wider network with its trains maintained at Lovers Walk depot. An open access operator could have a contract for the depot operator to maintain the train fleet for Brighton to Seaford in isolation but where is the competitive advantage for the open access operator? Lower staff costs? Freedom to choose the timetable? Freedom to set fares? I don't think you could realistically have a situation where Southern and an OAO both run trains from Brighton to Seaford.

I think it was considered at one point but has been dismissed because it is further fragmentation with limited reward. With the DfT dictating service levels across the railway because of what the Treasury is having to pay to maintain the service, the freedom to do something different seems unlikely.

In addition to JonathanH's response, there would be some train crew issues. Currently, drivers get to do different routes, in part preventing fatigue and complacency leading to silly mistakes. If an open access operator were to run only one branch, they could well need more staff on shorter shifts on account of them not having other work to do. Or, hire in from the 'big TOC'.

In short, there is no economy of scale with short branches as 'standalone' units.

Okay, thanks guys. I thought that might be the case. I just wondered if the people could get better services with having the services provided by an Open Access Operator than the big TOC's.

 

[pdeaves]

Okay, thanks guys. I thought that might be the case. I just wondered if the people could get better services with having the services provided by an Open Access Operator than the big TOC's.

What is 'better service'? More trains running? In which case, in many cases, how do you fit more on the network? Or more crew doing more things (stupid example to illustrate: 'silver service' catering)? In which case, how do you generate the revenue to pay for it? Or do you have something else in mind?

 

[zwk500]

Okay, thanks guys. I thought that might be the case. I just wondered if the people could get better services with having the services provided by an Open Access Operator than the big TOC's.

OAO's fill a very specific niche, and small branch lines are not it. They generally identify a large town/small city that the franchised operators don't serve with direct London trains, and then add stops in at intermediate stations on the Main line to pass the abstraction of traffic test. Lumo are doing something different, which is nice but also not applicable to the Seaford or Whitby branch.
There's nowhere on the Brighton line you would both pass the abstractive test and not kill the timetable. Fundamentally, the issue for that line is not the Operator but the capacity.

At the moment, Seaford has a half-hourly train to the main nearby destinations: Newhaven, Lewes, Falmer (for the universities) and Brighton. At Lewes it connects into the London and Eastbourne trains, at Brighton you have Thameslink (or you can change at Lewes and then HHE/GTW for TL if you want). Even if you gave over the branch entirely to the OAO, what reasonable improvements could be made without removing any other paths from the Sussex area?

 

[Bald Rick]

Open Access operators will only ever look to serve routes that are profitable, obviously, and the only where they can fill a niche to pass the ‘not primarily abstractive’ test.

The only profitable routes in the country are some of the long distance high speed lines to London, and some of the longer distance ‘commuter‘ routes in London and the South East that serve London - where it is almost impossible to pass the abstraction test.

A typical branch line in this country has marginal costs about 3-10 times revenue. You are not going to get OA operators interested in serving them*

*Except Go Op of course, who if they do ever get going, are going to learn the hard way.

 

[RobShipway]

What is 'better service'? More trains running? In which case, in many cases, how do you fit more on the network? Or more crew doing more things (stupid example to illustrate: 'silver service' catering)? In which case, how do you generate the revenue to pay for it? Or do you have something else in mind?

OAO's fill a very specific niche, and small branch lines are not it. They generally identify a large town/small city that the franchised operators don't serve with direct London trains, and then add stops in at intermediate stations on the Main line to pass the abstraction of traffic test. Lumo are doing something different, which is nice but also not applicable to the Seaford or Whitby branch.
There's nowhere on the Brighton line you would both pass the abstractive test and not kill the timetable. Fundamentally, the issue for that line is not the Operator but the capacity.

At the moment, Seaford has a half-hourly train to the main nearby destinations: Newhaven, Lewes, Falmer (for the universities) and Brighton. At Lewes it connects into the London and Eastbourne trains, at Brighton you have Thameslink (or you can change at Lewes and then HHE/GTW for TL if you want). Even if you gave over the branch entirely to the OAO, what reasonable improvements could be made without removing any other paths from the Sussex area?

Open Access operators will only ever look to serve routes that are profitable, obviously, and the only where they can fill a niche to pass the ‘not primarily abstractive’ test.

The only profitable routes in the country are some of the long distance high speed lines to London, and some of the longer distance ‘commuter‘ routes in London and the South East that serve London - where it is almost impossible to pass the abstraction test.

A typical branch line in this country has marginal costs about 3-10 times revenue. You are not going to get OA operators interested in serving them*

*Except Go Op of course, who if they do ever get going, are going to learn the hard way.

Thanks Guys. In answer to Pdeaves question the better service I had in mind would be to have a 25 minute service through the day from Seaford, as you have with the services at 6:25am and 6:50am Monday to Friday. But also include this to be run on Saturdays as well.

 

[zwk500]

Thanks Guys. In answer to Pdeaves question the better service I had in mind would be to have a 25 minute service through the day from Seaford, as you have with the services at 6:25am and 6:50am Monday to Friday. But also include this to be run on Saturdays as well.

If these paths were available to run, why would they be better as an OAO than with GTR?

 

[greatkingrat]

Thanks Guys. In answer to Pdeaves question the better service I had in mind would be to have a 25 minute service through the day from Seaford, as you have with the services at 6:25am and 6:50am Monday to Friday. But also include this to be run on Saturdays as well.

Even if an all day every 25 minute service was possible without getting in the way of anything else, it is debatable whether that would actually be better than a regular 2tph leaving at the same times each hour.

 

[RobShipway]

If these paths were available to run, why would they be better as an OAO than with GTR?

Because if they where an OAO, they would be just concentrated on those routes and would make sure that replacements for those journeys are in place if the paths cannot be used. Whereas GTR are sometimes not making sure that there is any replacement transport when engineering works take place for example. It is a case that oh well, just use the local Brighton & Hove bus service as we cannot provide replacement bus service to get you to Lewes to change trains to get to London. So, you end up taking the 12, 12A or 12X service into Brighton and then travelling up from there instead. That having been said, it is cheaper to do that in travelling up to London. With an OAO also offering an alternative service, it would hopefully bring the prices down so that maybe more people travel on the train into Brighton rather than the Bus.

Even if an all day every 25 minute service was possible without getting in the way of anything else, it is debatable whether that would actually be better than a regular 2tph leaving at the same times each hour.

But that is the thing, you look at the timetable of the trains, it is not the same times through the hour, all the way through the day. The trains start at 4:50am, the next train is at 5:25am, the next 30 minutes later at 5:55am, the next 30 minutes later at 6:25am, the next 25 minutes later at 6:50am, the next at 7:23am, the next 30 minutes later at 7:53am, this carries on for the trains through up to 8:53am. The next train then is 32 minutes later at 9:25am, then at 9:53am which continues at this times through the hour until 12:25pm. Then you have to wait an hour for the train at 1:25pm. Then the trains return to 53 minutes past the hour and then 25 minutes past the next hour right through to 2353 service.

Now, since I grew up through the 1970's/1980's the areas through from Brighton to Eastbourne have become more areas where people that work in London commute from to get to work. Even after Covid, it is possible to see people travelling two to three times a week up to London. The journeys for those in Brighton, Lewes or Eastbourne areas is simple, just walk on a train then to travel up to London. For places like Seaford, which previously did have a train up to London each day and back in the late afternoon/early evening, you have to change at either Lewes on to a crowded 4 car or 8 car train or travel on to Brighton to catch either a Thameslink train or fast service to London, which you then have to give more time for travelling.

 

[zwk500]

Because if they where an OAO, they would be just concentrated on those routes and would make sure that replacements for those journeys are in place if the paths cannot be used.

But as an AOA they would be a small operation and susceptible to much greater impact of, say, a driver being ill.

Whereas GTR are sometimes not making sure that there is any replacement transport when engineering works take place for example. It is a case that oh well, just use the local Brighton & Hove bus service as we cannot provide replacement bus service to get you to Lewes to change trains to get to London. So, you end up taking the 12, 12A or 12X service into Brighton and then travelling up from there instead. That having been said, it is cheaper to do that in travelling up to London. With an OAO also offering an alternative service, it would hopefully bring the prices down so that maybe more people travel on the train into Brighton rather than the Bus.

It is worth pointing out that a fair amount of travel from Seaford and Newhaven to Brighton is by bus anyway, as it serves different parts of Brighton, including stopping closer to the Royal Sussex County Hospital and Varndean college.

But that is the thing, you look at the timetable of the trains, it is not the same times through the hour, all the way through the day. The trains start at 4:50am, the next train is at 5:25am, the next 30 minutes later at 5:55am, the next 30 minutes later at 6:25am, the next 25 minutes later at 6:50am, the next at 7:23am, the next 30 minutes later at 7:53am, this carries on for the trains through up to 8:53am. The next train then is 32 minutes later at 9:25am, then at 9:53am which continues at this times through the hour until 12:25pm. Then you have to wait an hour for the train at 1:25pm. Then the trains return to 53 minutes past the hour and then 25 minutes past the next hour right through to 2353 service.

If tidying up the times is the goal, this doesn't require a whole other operator to be set up. Either public differential or a slight retiming would suffice. But looking at last Wednesday, after 0700 the 2 trains per hour leave in 5 minute-windows for the rest of the day: xx17-xx22 and xx.47-51. The overwhelming majority of trains leave at xx.20/21 or xx.48/49, which is a lot better than many other lines receive. https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...22-10-26/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt
They do seem to have dropped that portion that attached onto the Eastbourne-London Bridge at Lewes in the morning, which is a shame but in the current financial situation an understandable decision.

Now, since I grew up through the 1970's/1980's the areas through from Brighton to Eastbourne have become more areas where people that work in London commute from to get to work. Even after Covid, it is possible to see people travelling two to three times a week up to London. The journeys for those in Brighton, Lewes or Eastbourne areas is simple, just walk on a train then to travel up to London. For places like Seaford, which previously did have a train up to London each day and back in the late afternoon/early evening, you have to change at either Lewes on to a crowded 4 car or 8 car train or travel on to Brighton to catch either a Thameslink train or fast service to London, which you then have to give more time for travelling.

It's worth pointing out that the provision Seaford and Newhaven get is equal to the provision London Road, Moulscombe and Falmer get, which are arguably stronger drivers of London traffic given the high number of University buildings around the latter two and the London commuters around the former two.

 

[JonathanH]

One thing there is a lot less of now is competition on buses, of the kind seen in the 1980s where a company would come along with a fleet of old buses and run services five minutes ahead of the established operator. Easy to do that on the road, less so on the railway.

Trains are just not as easy to compete in that way. Platforms 7 and 8 at Brighton are available for East Coastway services for most of the day but the Seaford line goes down to single track at Newhaven which somewhat restricts what can run on the line. A train every 20 minutes would be tight, possibly impossible, so realistically every 30 minutes is the best service which can run. Even if an open access operator could run as well as Southern, the timetable would need to be constructed in conjunction. The 90 minute running time between Brighton and Seaford means it couldn't be the same each hour. Victoria to Eastbourne runs half-hourly and Lewes is one of those stations where the connections look well planned (eg everything stops for the London train). Nothing really stacks up for 'on-railway' competition.

 

[zwk500]

Platforms 7 and 8 at Brighton are available for East Coastway services for most of the day but the Seaford line goes down to single track at Newhaven which somewhat restricts what can run on the line. A train every 20 minutes would be tight, possibly impossible, so realistically every 30 minutes is the best service which can run. Even if an open access operator could run as well as Southern, the timetable would need to be constructed in conjunction. The 90 minute running time between Brighton and Seaford means it couldn't be the same each hour. Victoria to Eastbourne runs half-hourly and Lewes is one of those stations where the connections look well planned (eg everything stops for the London train). Nothing really stacks up for 'on-railway' competition.

BIB - Are you sure? According to RTT it's 35mins skipping southease or 37 mins stopping there. A return trip of 74 mins gives 16 minutes to spread between the turnrounds quite nicely for 3 units to rotate through a 2tph service on a clock face fairly reliably. I'll bet it's either freight at Newhaven or a junction margin somewhere that hasn't been tidied up that drives the variance in the times.

Newhaven Harbour to Seaford is 7 mins according to RTT, so 3tph is achievable but yes too tight for performance concerns (6 mins turnround at Seaford all day would not be ideal).

Realtime Trains | 2C26 1147 Brighton to Seaford | 30/10/2022

Real-time train running information for 2C26 1147 departure from Brighton to Seaford on 30/10/2022. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[JonathanH]

BIB - Are you sure? According to RTT it's 35mins skipping southease or 37 mins stopping there. A return trip of 74 mins gives 16 minutes to spread between the turnrounds quite nicely for 3 units to rotate through a 2tph service on a clock face fairly reliably. I'll bet it's either freight at Newhaven or a junction margin somewhere that hasn't been tidied up that drives the variance in the times.

Sorry, I should have put cycle time instead of running time, ie needs 3 units to run 2tph rather than 2 so the easiest cycle to run is 90 minute intervals for each unit.

As you say, it could be tightened up, but on a theoretical 3tph service between Brighton and Seaford, if operator A ran xx00 and xx20 and operator B ran xx40 in one hour, that couldn't happen the next hour without longer dwells at Brighton.

 

[Chester1]

Open Access operators will only ever look to serve routes that are profitable, obviously, and the only where they can fill a niche to pass the ‘not primarily abstractive’ test.

The only profitable routes in the country are some of the long distance high speed lines to London, and some of the longer distance ‘commuter‘ routes in London and the South East that serve London - where it is almost impossible to pass the abstraction test.

A typical branch line in this country has marginal costs about 3-10 times revenue. You are not going to get OA operators interested in serving them*

*Except Go Op of course, who if they do ever get going, are going to learn the hard way.

Didn't First or Arriva look propose a Liverpool to Hull open access service about 10 years ago? Before the pandemic route some non London intercity franchises made a profit. Do you think a non London OAO could be viable if rail travel recovers? Something linking Birmingham and Manchester and some other places?

 

[zwk500]

Sorry, I should have put cycle time instead of running time, ie needs 3 units to run 2tph rather than 2 so the easiest cycle to run is 90 minute intervals for each unit.

As you say, it could be tightened up, but on a theoretical 3tph service between Brighton and Seaford, if operator A ran xx00 and xx20 and operator B ran xx40 in one hour, that couldn't happen the next hour without longer dwells at Brighton.

Oh I agree with you on the 3tph being a non-starter, I was just making the point that it isn't the journey time that's forcing the different times each hour, but either something else or just a lack of finesse over the plan (which is understandable given recent events).

 

[skyhigh]

Because if they where an OAO, they would be just concentrated on those routes and would make sure that replacements for those journeys are in place if the paths cannot be used. Whereas GTR are sometimes not making sure that there is any replacement transport when engineering works take place for example. It is a case that oh well, just use the local Brighton & Hove bus service as we cannot provide replacement bus service to get you to Lewes to change trains to get to London.

That doesn't make sense. If replacement buses aren't available to a big TOC (particularly one that also operates buses!) it's highly unlikely a small operator will be able to find any - unless they are happy paying top money to guarantee buses. But they won't do that, because they will be responsible for all costs and that will have a much bigger impact on a smaller operation. In fact they'd probably be more likely to say take the local bus than a big TOC!

 

[Bald Rick]

Before the pandemic route some non London intercity franchises made a profit.

Name one!

 

[pdeaves]

That doesn't make sense. If replacement buses aren't available to a big TOC (particularly one that also operates buses!) it's highly unlikely a small operator will be able to find any - unless they are happy paying top money to guarantee buses. But they won't do that, because they will be responsible for all costs and that will have a much bigger impact on a smaller operation. In fact they'd probably be more likely to say take the local bus than a big TOC!

Quite. Bus companies have other contracts (schools being a big one) and/or other routes to run. If they cannot supply a rail replacement, they cannot supply a rail replacement. It doesn't matter the TOC shareholding or form of access right they have.

 

[Chester1]

Name one!

I thought TPE and CrossCountry did but I must be wrong!