Should open access operators aspire to operate a clockface/hourly timetable?

[PTR 444]

Open access operators, unlike DfT TOCs, are constrained by the need to be profitable, in addition to limited track capacity and rolling stock. This means that many OAO routes run to an irregular timetable with large gaps in departures.

While OAOs need to ensure each service makes them money, would it be out of the question for them to aspire to run a more frequent service? Obviously passenger demand plays a big part in this but if there is a lot of untapped demand from London to Bradford for example, I don’t see why Grand Central couldn’t run a 2-hourly service along this route, provided they can afford the additional staff, track access charges and rolling stock.

 

[A S Leib]

My own preference would be in favour of doing so (e.g. having Lumo and Sunderland services leaving at the same time past the hour and Hull and Bradford services paired, so Doncaster and the North East get more consistent times), but I don't think it makes a massive difference (apart from easier pathing?) for services running fewer than ~eight times per day; it's more important that trains run at the time there's demand if there's that few running.

 

[Clansman]

I think you highlight the key relationship of supply and demand, and why open access operators don't run on a clockface basis.

There is little incentive for any open access operator to want to run potential loss-making services. Not every service they operate is necessarily profitable, but the collective operation is on average hence why they do it. A big part in their deal to operate is that they bare 100% of the risks. If the DfT was to impose on them a condition to run additional services, then they would simply pull out.

If there is demand for services but isn't within the scope of profitability, that's the DfT's probelm to sort out. If they turn to open access as the solution, then there has to be financial incentives or subsidies for them to willingly do so.

If the railways ran on a fully privatised basis on market principles, you'd have a huge gap in services between 10am-4pm across vast swathes of the country who would be without any regular service.

 

[swt_passenger]

My own preference would be in favour of doing so (e.g. having Lumo and Sunderland services leaving at the same time past the hour and Hull and Bradford services paired, so Doncaster and the North East get more consistent times), but I don't think it makes a massive difference (apart from easier pathing?) for services running fewer than ~eight times per day; it's more important that trains run at the time there's demand if there's that few running.

ORR decided the ECML had capacity for 8 tph of long distance high speed services into Kings Cross, and they shared them out 6.5 tph to the franchised TOC, and 1.5 tph to the combined open access operators. Hence unless LNER formally give up paths the combined open access operators are competing with each other for a fairly limited number of paths. It’s not as easy as pairing them up into 2 groups and having 2 departures every hour.

 

[A S Leib]

ORR decided the ECML had capacity for 8 tph of long distance high speed services into Kings Cross, and they shared them out 6.5 tph to the franchised TOC, and 1.5 tph to the combined open access operators. Hence unless LNER formally give up paths the combined open access operators are competing with each other for a fairly limited number of paths. It’s not as easy as pairing them up into 2 groups and having 2 departures every hour.

I didn't mean having 2 departures every hour, just that there'd only be two times past each hour when OA departures would leave / arrive (e.g. 05:40 to Edinburgh, 06:10 to Hull, 08:40 to Sunderland, 09:10 to Bradford).

 

[swt_passenger]

I didn't mean having 2 departures every hour, just that there'd only be two times past each hour when OA departures would leave / arrive (e.g. 05:40 to Edinburgh, 06:10 to Hull, 08:40 to Sunderland, 09:10 to Bradford).

Ok yes that makes sense.

 

[Bald Rick]

I didn't mean having 2 departures every hour, just that there'd only be two times past each hour when OA departures would leave / arrive (e.g. 05:40 to Edinburgh, 06:10 to Hull, 08:40 to Sunderland, 09:10 to Bradford).

That only works if they have the same stoppint patern on common sections of line.

 

[A S Leib]

That only works if they have the same stoppint patern on common sections of line.

Currently there's around a seven minute difference between the fastest GC and slowest HT King's Cross–Doncaster weekday service; couldn't that difference be removed by running GC services marginally slower?

 

[JonathanH]

Currently there's around a seven minute difference between the fastest GC and slowest HT King's Cross–Doncaster weekday service; couldn't that difference be removed by running GC services marginally slower?

Wouldn't that affect the commercial advantage that Grand Central have from running fast to a headline journey time?

 

[Bald Rick]

Currently there's around a seven minute difference between the fastest GC and slowest HT King's Cross–Doncaster weekday service; couldn't that difference be removed by running GC services marginally slower?

Wouldn't that affect the commercial advantage that Grand Central have from running fast to a headline journey time?

It would also mess uo the timetable for other services.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Currently there's around a seven minute difference between the fastest GC and slowest HT King's Cross–Doncaster weekday service; couldn't that difference be removed by running GC services marginally slower?

What benefit would that bring to Grand Central?