Avanti Reliability and competition on the WCML

[Matt P]

I appreciate that issues with Avanti services are not down to one factor. I also there will be a spectrum of views on the merits of open access competition.

However, would things be as bad at Avanti if it faced the same levels of competition as LNER?

For me it isn't clear cut. Clearly there have been issues with LNER's processors when they operated as franchised operators. Open access operators have also competing with franchised services for much of the post BR era. Furthermore LNER, despite being effectively a nationalised operator, is also operating more like commercial operator rather than a franchised operator. So comparisons with the WCML are more difficult.

That said, is it time to consider a more commercial approach to the WCML, with no franchised long distance operator and either a state owned operator operating more like LNER plus open access or more radically, entirely open access?

 

[Bald Rick]

Avanti does have rail competition. Including:

LNER, Lumo and CS for London - Scotland
WMT for London - MK / Rugby / Trent Valley stations / Stafford / Crewe, London - West Mids
Chiltern for London - West Mids
GWR for London to the Worcestershire / S Warks area

Alternative services don’t have to be on the same tracks / to the same stations to be competition.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Avanti does have rail competition. Including:

LNER, Lumo and CS for London - Scotland
WMT for London - MK / Rugby / Trent Valley stations / Stafford / Crewe, London - West Mids
Chiltern for London - West Mids
GWR for London to the Worcestershire / S Warks area

Alternative services don’t have to be on the same tracks / to the same stations to be competition.

Indeed. Also TPE for Preston->Scotland and Scotrail for Carlisle->Glasgow. And TfW from Chester->Holyhead.
Not all are journeys necessarily starting from London.

 

[Runningaround]

Avanti does have rail competition. Including:

LNER, Lumo and CS for London - Scotland
WMT for London - MK / Rugby / Trent Valley stations / Stafford / Crewe, London - West Mids
Chiltern for London - West Mids
GWR for London to the Worcestershire / S Warks area

Alternative services don’t have to be on the same tracks / to the same stations to be competition.

Only if you aren't pushed for time trips to watch football in London are generally limited to returning on Avanti only. If Chiltern was faster and the Smethwick Galton Bridge stop hadn't been axed by TFW then I'd use them.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

The issues with Avanti are largely arising from IR, Rest Day Working agreements and 'longstanding' driver shortages. How would more on-track competition help address these?

 

[The Planner]

I appreciate that issues with Avanti services are not down to one factor. I also there will be a spectrum of views on the merits of open access competition.

However, would things be as bad at Avanti if it faced the same levels of competition as LNER?

For me it isn't clear cut. Clearly there have been issues with LNER's processors when they operated as franchised operators. Open access operators have also competing with franchised services for much of the post BR era. Furthermore LNER, despite being effectively a nationalised operator, is also operating more like commercial operator rather than a franchised operator. So comparisons with the WCML are more difficult.

That said, is it time to consider a more commercial approach to the WCML, with no franchised long distance operator and either a state owned operator operating more like LNER plus open access or more radically, entirely open access?

How would an entirely open access scenario work? Unless you packaged a high value path with a bunch of low value ones, your train service offering goes down the pan. LNER won't be OLR for ever.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The Grand Union open access application for London-Stirling is still working its way through the system.
The dynamic will also change when HS2 starts up, even if Avanti (or whoever runs ICWC by then) also operates HS2 services, as there will be more space on the classic route south of Crewe.

 

[The Planner]

The Grand Union open access application for London-Stirling is still working its way through the system.
The dynamic will also change when HS2 starts up, even if Avanti (or whoever runs ICWC by then) also operates HS2 services, as there will be more space on the classic route south of Crewe.

Grand Union are still two years away, if not more.

 

[Matt P]

How would an entirely open access scenario work? Unless you packaged a high value path with a bunch of low value ones, your train service offering goes down the pan. LNER won't be OLR for ever.

I had envisaged it would work on the basis that operators identify services they can operate on a commercial basis. So there'd be no specification or obligation to run services to specific destinations or at a specified frequency, as there would be in a franchise or concession.

 

[The Planner]

I had envisaged it would work on the basis that operators identify services they can operate on a commercial basis. So there'd be no specification or obligation to run services to specific destinations or at a specified frequency, as there would be in a franchise or concession.

So trains that dont make enough of a return get binned, or destinations that don't make a return get binned?

 

[Matt P]

So trains that dont make enough of a return get binned, or destinations that don't make a return get binned?

Precisely. Why should long distance operators be required to run certain services and the tax payer pick up the tab to keep loss making services running.

This isn't entirely unlike how BR Intercity operated, albeit without on rail competition. It is also how long distance services run in many EU countries.

I am not advocating this approach for local or regional services. Again I'd be advocating a European style solution to that as well, which would amount to a reformed franchise system. Ideally run by local government rather than central government.

 

[The Planner]

Precisely. Why should long distance operators be required to run certain services and the tax payer pick up the tab to keep loss making services running.

This isn't entirely unlike how BR Intercity operated, albeit without on rail competition. It is also how long distance services run in many EU countries.

I am not advocating this approach for local or regional services. Again I'd be advocating a European style solution to that as well, which would amount to a reformed franchise system. Ideally run by local government rather than central government.

So long distance travel pretty much ceases to exist then.

 

[Matt P]

So long distance travel pretty much ceases to exist then.

Why would it cease to exist? Certain routes, maybe. But the core intercity network would likely remain.

 

[The Planner]

Why would it cease to exist? Certain routes, maybe. But the core intercity network would likely remain.

How would it if you arent subsidising the loss making services, outside of the peaks why would a commercial operator want to run trains?

 

[jagardner1984]

With Avanti’s reputation where it is - and anecdotally I hear of people in the West of Scotland travelling via Edinburgh to use Lumo / LNER - it does make me wonder if Lumo were to put in an application to extend a service or two to Glasgow via Carstairs, whether they would pick up a good bit of business, albeit with a slightly longer journey time.

Vaguely relevant to this conversation - does anyone know whether the Carstairs Junction remodelling will bring any improved timings to services either from Carlisle or Edinburgh ?

 

[43066]

Precisely. Why should long distance operators be required to run certain services and the tax payer pick up the tab to keep loss making services running.

This completely misunderstands why the railway is subsidised in the first place. It isn’t expected to turn a profit in all areas, and neither should it be.

 

[Efini92]

Indeed. Also TPE for Preston->Scotland and Scotrail for Carlisle->Glasgow. And TfW from Chester->Holyhead.
Not all are journeys necessarily starting from London.

Wouldn’t TPE need to run trains to be considered competition?

 

[43066]

How would it if you arent subsidising the loss making services, outside of the peaks why would a commercial operator want to run trains?

Exactly. A purely commercial railway = no loss making services, and extremely high priced services running on peak routes only. It might turn more of a profit, but the overall economic benefit would be far lower.

 

[Efini92]

Exactly. A purely commercial railway = no loss making services, and extremely high priced services running on peak routes only. It might turn more of a profit, but the overall economic benefit would be far lower.

It would be similar to how most bus services have gone (outside of London).

 

[JamieL]

With Avanti’s reputation where it is - and anecdotally I hear of people in the West of Scotland travelling via Edinburgh to use Lumo / LNER - it does make me wonder if Lumo were to put in an application to extend a service or two to Glasgow via Carstairs, whether they would pick up a good bit of business, albeit with a slightly longer journey time.

Vaguely relevant to this conversation - does anyone know whether the Carstairs Junction remodelling will bring any improved timings to services either from Carlisle or Edinburgh ?

Lumo and Avanti are both FirstGroup so they are unlikely to take action to undermine their own services.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Apr 2023 ==

Precisely. Why should long distance operators be required to run certain services and the tax payer pick up the tab to keep loss making services running.

Surely we are beyond the whole "no such thing as society" nonsense? Public services need to serve as much of the population as possible - and InterCity rail connections are a key component in that whether or not they turn a profit. This aside, there are of course plenty of initiatives the Government could take to make long distance train travel more viable. Increase duties on short range air travel for example (such flights should NEVER be cheaper than the Anytime railfare IMHO). They currently choose not to do so.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

This completely misunderstands why the railway is subsidised in the first place. It isn’t expected to turn a profit in all areas, and neither should it be.

The franchise system was aimed at reducing the overall subsidy by maximising the financial performance of the 18-odd individual franchises.
Either by reding the local subsidy (most of them) or increasing the local "profits" (for a select few).
The TOCs almost got to parity of revenue and costs overall, the outstanding problem being the large subsidy gifted to Network Rail.
That system was destroyed by Covid, and the railway is still looking for a formula that meets DfT "cost of railway support" budget.

 

[43066]

The franchise system was aimed at reducing the overall subsidy by maximising the financial performance of the 18-odd individual franchises.
Either by reding the local subsidy (most of them) or increasing the local "profits" (for a select few).
The TOCs almost got to parity of revenue and costs overall, the outstanding problem being the large subsidy gifted to Network Rail.
That system was destroyed by Covid, and the railway is still looking for a formula that meets DfT "cost of railway support" budget.

The problem is with the DfT seemingly knowing the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.

There are many TOCs that cannot and will not turn a profit. Even the “profitable” ones will cross subsidise loss making services they are required to run. That shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody. We are the world’s sixth largest economy, yet we already spend less per capita on our railway than most comparable European countries, so why the endless focus on reducing costs further?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The problem is with the DfT seemingly knowing the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.

There are many TOCs that cannot and will not turn a profit. Even the “profitable” ones will cross subsidise loss making services they are required to run. That shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody. We are the world’s sixth largest economy, yet we already spend less per capita on our railway than most comparable European countries, so why the endless focus on reducing costs further?

Well I think the simple answer is that spending more on railway operational costs takes it away from schools, hospitals, benefits etc.
It's hard to say that railways deserve more when there is such a shortfall elsewhere.

 

[JamieL]

Well I think the simple answer is that spending more on railway operational costs takes it away from schools, hospitals, benefits etc.
It's hard to say that railways deserve more when there is such a shortfall elsewhere.

Perhaps the answer isn't simple? Ultimately spending on InterCity travel increases economic activity in one form or another. All that creates tax revenue which can be pumped back into schools and hospitals.

 

[43066]

Well I think the simple answer is that spending more on railway operational costs takes it away from schools, hospitals, benefits etc.
It's hard to say that railways deserve more when there is such a shortfall elsewhere.

The even simpler (and more correct) answer is that other countries have the same demands on their public purses, yet don’t underfund public services in the way successive governments in this country have chosen to (they also generally have more sensible and less wasteful health and social care models, but that’s off topic to discuss!).

As for “who deserves more”, it perfectly suits Sunak, Hunt etc. for the population to believe that railways and schools are competing for funding in an imaginary zero sum game. They hope that, while people are arguing about nurses’ and teachers’ derisory pay rises that are supposedly bankrupting the country, they don’t notice that there’s somehow money to increase pensions for asset rich baby boomers by a greater % than struggling public sector workers are getting (because guess who will vote Tory), money to eliminate the lifetime pension contribution limit for their chums at Goldman Sachs etc.

 

[Some guy]

If grand central services did end up running to Blackpool it would’ve provided a lot of competition for Avanti. It’s still a shame those services never made it past the pandemic

 

[The Planner]

If grand central services did end up running to Blackpool it would’ve provided a lot of competition for Avanti. It’s still a shame those services never made it past the pandemic

It would have provided a bit, I doubt it would have made that much of a dent due to frequency and journey time.