tbtc
Veteran Member
There's a difference between an overlap and a directly competing service. There's loads of (much better) examples of overlap, particularly former NX ones: MML/Central, Central/one, Wessex/W&B. These are not profitable lines which operators are stumbling over each other to pay a premium for, and typically only overlap on relatively small portions of routes substantially differing in nature (e.g. London - Leeds and Liverpool - Norwich, which shared the Nottingham - Sheffield line).
By 'competing service', I mean high-demand/high-profit corridors e.g.:
Bedford/Luton/Kettering - London: Stagecoach/EMT and First/FCC
Birmingham - London: Virgin & Stagecoach/VWC, GoVia/LM and Arriva/CH
Doncaster - London: DOR/EC, First/HT and Grand Central
Main stations with a "+Connections" alternative are at a significant disadvantage; the public react negatively to changing
Whilst the examples you've given clearly show two competing TOCs on one busy "commuter" corridor (and there are others, such as Cambridge - London or Brighton - London), bear in mind there are also examples such as
- Ipswich - London Liverpool Street (used to be Anglia versus FGE, now all one TOC)
- Reading - London Paddington (used to be Thames Trains versus FGW, now all one TOC)
- Gatwick - London Victoria (used to be Gatwick Express versus South Central, now all one TOC)
- Birmingham - East Midlands (used to be Virgin XC versus Central Trains, now all one TOC)
Plus also the scrapping of "competing" services (like SWT from Cornwall to London), shows that the powers that be seem pretty relaxed about one TOC having a significant "monopoly" (e.g. I'd imagine that the market for Reading/Ipswich to London is much higher in passenger volumes than the flows from every Scottish station combined to London)
