Are there any potential Open Access Routes left?

[Chester1]

What, 11 cars (or 9 sometimes) 3 times an hour isn't enough? That's mad. It carries a lot of fresh air and needs reducing off-peak[1] if anything, not increasing. Or leave it as it is and grow the business - but there is no need for 4tph.

[1] "off-peak" not "Off-Peak" - the busiest times on the WCML by far are Friday and Sunday evenings.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I think this is confirmed by the fact that (unlike in Germany, Italy etc) no open-access operator yet appears to have made any attempt to opt out of ORCATS and do their own ticketing on their own model, e.g. low-cost-airline-style, or like the new Sleeper.

Neil

4tph from London to Manchester is far from mad! According to current plans from 2026 there will be 3tph on HS2, and 1tph WCML service via Stoke. 4tph of 11 carriages in the years before this, is the natural step between then and now. In terms of loadings it really depends on the time of day. I agree that they carry allot of air at some times of the day but my expeirence of the Crewe service (I have never used the two via Stoke) is that it has allot of passengers every evening and is overloaded Friday and Sunday nights. There were capacity problems prior to increasing from 9 to 11 carriages and my understanding was a 4th service has been mentioned in future planning several times. I would be surprised if current capacity is sufficient during the busiest services (which is what actually matters) for the next 11 years.

I think the problem with the introducing a seperate ticketing system is current open opperators don't run a regular enough service for enough people to be comfortable to entirely rely on them for both journeys. I wouldn't rely on Grand Central's 4 services to Bradford for instance. Even First 7 trains a day to Hull is pushing it. Has Alliance said anything about ticketing plans in its GNER application for Scotland-London services? With direct competition from Airlines and applying to run 1tph it would be the most likely to run a seperate ticketing system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

4tph from London to Manchester is far from mad! According to current plans from 2026 there will be 3tph on HS2, and 1tph WCML service via Stoke.

The latter will not primarily be for passengers from London, but for those not served by HS2 e.g. Milton Keynes, Rugby etc.

4tph of 11 carriages in the years before this, is the natural step between then and now.

In terms of loadings it really depends on the time of day.

I can see a relatively reasonable case for 2tph during the day with 4tph peak overlays at busy times.

I would be surprised if current capacity is sufficient during the busiest services (which is what actually matters) for the next 11 years.

The busiest services being full is not a reason to run 4tph all day. That is a waste of resources.

I think the problem with the introducing a seperate ticketing system is current open opperators don't run a regular enough service for enough people to be comfortable to entirely rely on them for both journeys.

Possibly so - but as that hangs their entire business model off the existing franchised operator, that makes it clear that it is primarily abstractive.

Time for Open Access InterCity operators to be barred from ORCATS, perhaps? That would prove the case once and for all.

Neil

 

[Chester1]

The latter will not primarily be for passengers from London, but for those not served by HS2 e.g. Milton Keynes, Rugby etc.

I don't see how that changes the need for extra capacity on the WCML or switching some traffic i.e. Birmingham-London services to the Chiltern's line prior to 2026/30? Its a good point in relation to potential usage of HS2 though.

I can see a relatively reasonable case for 2tph during the day with 4tph peak overlays at busy times.

The busiest services being full is not a reason to run 4tph all day. That is a waste of resources.

Is this financially viable or would it require too many Pendalino's waiting around for significant sections of the day? There is still room for switching capacity from evenings to less popular times. Its astonishing that Virgin only bans railcard users from traveling in the evening peak with off peak tickets on London-Liverpool services. Evening peak does not exist for London-Glasgow/Manchester/Chester/Holyhead railcard users i.e. virtually every semi regular train passenger aged 16-25 and 60+. Also, could Virgin reduce advanced tickets for the most popular trains to a very token amount? I can't imagine either would be popular with passengers but I think changing both could delay the need for extra peak capcity for a while.

Possibly so - but as that hangs their entire business model off the existing franchised operator, that makes it clear that it is primarily abstractive.

Time for Open Access InterCity operators to be barred from ORCATS, perhaps? That would prove the case once and for all.

Neil

I don't think that makes them primarily abstractive, just reliant on the franchise trains frequency to reassure customers. Abstractive means taking money from franchise holders. Its also not neccessarily their choice to run a low number of trains, it depends whether they could get more paths for exisiting services if they wanted to.

I would be in favour of them being banned from ORCATS but there would need to a mimium number of paths per day each way granted by NR for each route. I think 6 would be the absoute mimium viable which would match GNWR's failed application, mean no change to First Hull and giving Grand Central two extra Bradford and one extra Sunderland paths. I would be highly interested to see how their pricing would work outside of ORCATS!

Again, has Alliance indicated how its pricing would work if GNER are granted London-Scotland paths? I suspect if they got hourly they might go for a seperate airline style system but I doubt they will get that many (and perhaps none).

 

[Clarence Yard]

ORCATS is fast becoming irrelevant as far as InterCity operators are concerned as most of their key London flows (where the vast majority of their revenue is) are now predominately dedicated product, for which they get 100% through Lennon. That means any OA operator cannot make it's business pay on ORCATS revenue alone and as a significant % of that ORCATS revenue is now minor connecting flow stuff, they have to really compete on the main flows with their own product.

The requirement for OA operators to accept IA Tickets goes back to the original Hull Trains hearing in 1999 when OPRAF insisted that they did, to enable the new journey opportunities to be available for all.

 

[Tiny Tim]

As the discussion so far indicates, determining if a new OA opportunity exists is very difficult, there are so many variables to consider. Mounting any OA bid is going to be very expensive, with no guarantee of success. Presently, for even the most adventurous speculators, the risks are too big, especially when the potential rewards may be small or non-existent. Bidders for a full-blown TOC franchise may have to bid big, but they can also win big more often than not.

 

[Chester1]

Is there potential for new open access opperators to agree to pay for infrastructure upgrades like First Hull trains is (sort of) proposing, in order to get paths in the first place. London-Newcastle-Edinborugh in 3 hours 43 minutes 16 times a day would be extremely lucrative and cut air travel but is unlikely to be accepted in anything like its current form. Are there any affordable capacity upgrades to the ECML that Arriva could pay for to inorder to create more paths? Marginal cost only kills most applications because it gives the government a huge incentive to stop them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

ORCATS is fast becoming irrelevant as far as InterCity operators are concerned as most of their key London flows (where the vast majority of their revenue is) are now predominately dedicated product, for which they get 100% through Lennon.

Does LM not get any money at all from, say, an Any Permitted London-Liverpool ticket, which might be (though is unlikely to be) used on their service?

It is nowhere near being the case that the majority of passengers use Advance tickets, is it?

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Its astonishing that Virgin only bans railcard users from traveling in the evening peak with off peak tickets on London-Liverpool services.

Where did you get this from? The Railcard easement is generic to all VT Off Peak tickets - it is found in the generic Off Peak T&Cs and not in the specific restriction:

2) Holders of Off-Peak ticket
types SVS/SVR, which are
discounted using 16-25, Senior
, Disabled Persons, HM Forces
and Family & Friends Railcards
and Jobcentre Plus Travel
Discount Card, can travel on
Virgin Train services at any
time, provided that all travel
is on Virgin Trains services
only. This easement does not
apply for journeys wholly
between Milton Keynes Central/
Northampton and London Euston
in either direction.

Thus, it *does* apply to London-Liverpool. It doesn't apply to e.g. MKC-Liverpool as you'd be changing onto LM at Crewe, of course.

Also, could Virgin reduce advanced tickets for the most popular trains to a very token amount?

There are already, quite rightly, a number of very busy trains with next to no Advance quota or none at all. Advances are for filling seats that would not be filled were only walk-ups available.

I can't imagine either would be popular with passengers but I think changing both could delay the need for extra peak capcity for a while.

Friday evening is a real oddity. If Anytime vs. Off Peak was *really* about loadings, Anytime would be the only tickets available until around 2100 Friday evening. Two things prevent this - one is regulation, the other is that it's really a means of price differentiation, a bit like First and Standard class used to be in the days when most business travellers went First.

Look at some airline fares on a Friday evening, say - they'll be the most expensive in the week.

I don't think that makes them primarily abstractive, just reliant on the franchise trains frequency to reassure customers.

Which means the franchise operator is giving them some value by doing this, which arguably should be paid for.

Abstractive means taking money from franchise holders.

No, abstractive means that their existence causes the franchise holders to take *less* money.

I would be in favour of them being banned from ORCATS but there would need to a mimium number of paths per day each way granted by NR for each route. I think 6 would be the absoute mimium viable which would match GNWR's failed application, mean no change to First Hull and giving Grand Central two extra Bradford and one extra Sunderland paths. I would be highly interested to see how their pricing would work outside of ORCATS!

I would too. They could do some very innovative things. One thing that might work well is to go for completely yield managed pricing, but to retain the effect of walk-ups by allowing tickets to be changed online easily including after departure the same day for a small fee plus the fare difference.

Again, has Alliance indicated how its pricing would work if GNER are granted London-Scotland paths? I suspect if they got hourly they might go for a seperate airline style system but I doubt they will get that many (and perhaps none).

My suspicion is they will get nothing at all.

Neil

 

[Tetchytyke]

It is nowhere near being the case that the majority of passengers use Advance tickets, is it?

On most long-distance flows I'd say that most tickets probably are Advance now. I'm a fairly frequent traveller and it's been well over a year since I last used a walk-up ticket to head to Yorkshire. That doesn't mean that nobody uses walk-up tickets for long journeys, but when you think how many seats are available each day from, say, London to Leeds, I'd say the number of them filled with walk-up tickets would be relatively low.

Possibly so - but as that hangs their entire business model off the existing franchised operator, that makes it clear that it is primarily abstractive.

Not really. I fairly often use East Coast for one direction and Grand Central for the other. I can't see how preventing passengers from making that choice would be good business for either company.

There are already, quite rightly, a number of very busy trains with next to no Advance quota or none at all. Advances are for filling seats that would not be filled were only walk-ups available.

ATOC really need to make their mind up on this. Either these tickets are a way of putting bums on empty seats, or they are "good value for passengers who plan ahead". They cannot be both.

The presence of Advance fares is used to justify the price of walk-up fares, especially Anytime. To reduce Advance quotas makes a mockery of that argument and is, to a large extent, simply price-gouging.

 

[Stats]

Again, has Alliance indicated how its pricing would work if GNER are granted London-Scotland paths? I suspect if they got hourly they might go for a seperate airline style system but I doubt they will get that many (and perhaps none).

There's a whole section on ticketing in their briefing document: http://content.yudu.com/Library/A2l...ls/1523636/GNER-Briefing-Document?refid=67647

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's a whole section on ticketing in their briefing document: http://content.yudu.com/Library/A2l...ls/1523636/GNER-Briefing-Document?refid=67647

Interesting that it appears to be a primarily walk-up railway, with Advances playing a minimal part and everything else calculated from an Off Peak Single rate.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On most long-distance flows I'd say that most tickets probably are Advance now. I'm a fairly frequent traveller and it's been well over a year since I last used a walk-up ticket to head to Yorkshire. That doesn't mean that nobody uses walk-up tickets for long journeys, but when you think how many seats are available each day from, say, London to Leeds, I'd say the number of them filled with walk-up tickets would be relatively low.

Is that like when you buy a car you see lots of them? I always travel walk-up, and I see a lot of people doing the same On the rare occasion I've looked at Advances, they've been a quid or two cheaper for a return journey than the off-peak walk-up, so I've always defaulted to that, the extra flexibility being to me worth at least a tenner on a long-distance journey (but often the difference is far smaller on a return).

A genuine statistic would be useful, but I expect it's commercial-in-confidence.

Not really. I fairly often use East Coast for one direction and Grand Central for the other. I can't see how preventing passengers from making that choice would be good business for either company.

This depends if, if they didn't exist, you would have done the journey with a change using the franchised operator, or the journey would have not happened at all or been by car/coach/air.

ATOC really need to make their mind up on this. Either these tickets are a way of putting bums on empty seats, or they are "good value for passengers who plan ahead". They cannot be both.

They sort-of can as they are released early on trains which are known to be quiet.

The presence of Advance fares is used to justify the price of walk-up fares, especially Anytime. To reduce Advance quotas makes a mockery of that argument and is, to a large extent, simply price-gouging.

Yes, I think the Anytime fares have got rather silly, and unnecessarily so. I don't think, in the context of the railway being asked to cut subsidy, that off-peak tickets are too expensive, however.

Neil