Future routes for Open Access operators

[zwk500]

Not so much Bolton-London with this one, clearly it would be much quicker changing in Manchester onto a WCML service. However, there are numerous new direct connections with this route which could be useful; Liverpool to Bolton; Bolton, Salford Crescent and Man Victoria to Stockport and Crewe; Liverpool, Bolton, Manchester, Stockport and Crewe to Leicester; Liverpool and Manchester to Solihull amd Warwick (for people who hate changing at Birmingham New Street); Leicester to Solihull, Warwick and Oxford; Warwick to Oxford.

AFAICT, the route basically breaks down to Liverpool-Manchester via Wigan, Manchester to Leicester, Leicester to Birmingham, and Birmingham to London via Oxford. I'm not convinced the new journeys are going to add up to 30p of every £1 abstracted, given the fact that basically everything after Leicester (the most revenue-heavy part of the route) is abstractive.

 

[Neptune]

Which markets are you serving?

Just looks like another way of using the Denton line to me

 

[The Planner]

Not so much Bolton-London with this one, clearly it would be much quicker changing in Manchester onto a WCML service. However, there are numerous new direct connections with this route which could be useful; Liverpool to Bolton; Bolton, Salford Crescent and Man Victoria to Stockport and Crewe; Liverpool, Bolton, Manchester, Stockport and Crewe to Leicester; Liverpool and Manchester to Solihull amd Warwick (for people who hate changing at Birmingham New Street); Leicester to Solihull, Warwick and Oxford; Warwick to Oxford.

Sounds like a FA Cup draw where you have picked locations out for home and away. Is that via Water Orton as why on earth would you stop there? Crewe to Leicester would take an age and would be quicker changing at Nuneaton. Why would anyone go from Manchester to Solihull via Leicester, even factoring in New St? Warwick to Oxford will be much easier from May 23 as Warwick gets an increased service. Oxford to Padd is clearly abstractive.

 

[43096]

Oxford to Padd is clearly abstractive.

Doesn't it have to be "not primarily abstractive". GC run Kings Cross to York, Lumo KX to Newcastle and Edinburgh. They are clearly abstractive!

 

[Philip]

Sounds like a FA Cup draw where you have picked locations out for home and away. Is that via Water Orton as why on earth would you stop there? Crewe to Leicester would take an age and would be quicker changing at Nuneaton. Why would anyone go from Manchester to Solihull via Leicester, even factoring in New St? Warwick to Oxford will be much easier from May 23 as Warwick gets an increased service. Oxford to Padd is clearly abstractive.

AFAICT, the route basically breaks down to Liverpool-Manchester via Wigan, Manchester to Leicester, Leicester to Birmingham, and Birmingham to London via Oxford. I'm not convinced the new journeys are going to add up to 30p of every £1 abstracted, given the fact that basically everything after Leicester (the most revenue-heavy part of the route) is abstractive.

I deliberately haven't mentioned Birmingham in the calling pattern, because it wouldn't call at any Birmingham Station, so as to prevent revenue abstraction; rather it would use the freight chord from the Water Orton line onto the Solihull line. Reference to Water Orton was meant as via, rather than stopping there. If Oxford to Paddington is abstractive then perhaps it could be set down only at Oxford, or take a truncated route to Waterloo.

In terms of why the Manchester-Solihull via Leicester connection; firstly it's only one aspect of various connections on a long cicuitous route. However, I do know from my own job that some passengers will go completely out of their way to avoid changing at New Street and what's more if the operator offered cheap fares it could tempt people a bit more, because Manchester-West Midlands via Cross Country is usually expensive.

 

[JonathanH]

or take a truncated route to Waterloo.

I think the word is tedious, not truncated.

 

[Philip]

I think the word is tedious, not truncated.

It was meant to read as 'an out of the way' route, ie. over secondary lines or current freight-only lines if need be, to reach West Byfleet and the line into Waterloo.

 

[zwk500]

It was meant to read as 'an out of the way' route, ie. over secondary lines or current freight-only lines if need be, to reach West Byfleet and the line into Waterloo.

Have you looked at a map before writing any of this?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Nov 2022 ==

It was meant to read as 'an out of the way' route, ie. over secondary lines or current freight-only lines if need be, to reach West Byfleet and the line into Waterloo.

Liverpool, Man Vic, Crewe, Leicester, Saltley, Oxford is already 'out of the way' enough, don't you think?

But no, either Didcot-Swindon-Westbury-Salibsury-Basingstoke, Didcot-Reading-Basingstoke (RM) is needed to reach Waterloo. Just run GWML and WLL to terminate at Kensington Olympia. It's no further out of anybody's way than you've already gone.

Oh, and to offer low fares you also need to keep operating costs down, which this plan emphatically does not.

 

[Philip]

Have you looked at a map before writing any of this?

Yes, a complete rail map of the UK at that; I'm referring to the line via Wokingham. If OA services are restricted by abstraction barriers then they have to use more circuitous routes if connecting between cities which already have a direct service (ie. Oxford to London).

 

[zwk500]

Yes, a complete rail map of the UK at that; I'm referring to the line via Wokingham.

How'd you get from Wokingham to West Byfleet without a reversal at Guildford?

 

[Philip]

How'd you get from Wokingham to West Byfleet without a reversal at Guildford?

To be fair this map doesn't make it obvious that you have to do that https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/Rail map v36d curvy blue.pdf.

I have been to West Byfleet a few times and thought it was on the line between Farnborough and Woking, this is the route I'm referring to in order to reach Waterloo.

 

[JonathanH]

To be fair this map doesn't make it obvious that you have to do that https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/Rail map v36d curvy blue.pdf.

I have been to West Byfleet a few times and thought it was on the line between Farnborough and Woking, this is the route I'm referring to in order to reach Waterloo.

West Byfleet is beyond Woking towards London. From Reading that requires a reversal at Guildford. No one is going to want to go via Guildford to get from somewhere in the North or Midlands to London. It wouldn't be 'low-cost' either because the stock utilisation would be terrible.

 

[Philip]

West Byfleet is beyond Woking towards London. From Reading that requires a reversal at Guildford. No one is going to want to go via Guildford to get from somewhere in the North or Midlands to London. It wouldn't be 'low-cost' either because the stock utilisation would be terrible.

Getting to London isn't the primary aim, rather it just seems a convenient place to terminate the service and provides a cheaper, if slower, alternative for Oxford and Warwick passengers. The primary aim of this service is filling in some direct service gaps of which I've mentioned above, ie. Liverpool-Bolton, Bolton-Crewe, Victoria-Stockport, Crewe-Leicester, Manchester-Leicester, Warwick-Oxford. I know Warwick-Oxford is planned to be improved from next May, but this idea is in reference to the current level of service.

 

[JonathanH]

provides a cheaper, if slower, alternative for Oxford and Warwick passengers

How and why is it cheaper to take indirect routes?

 

[PTR 444]

It was meant to read as 'an out of the way' route, ie. over secondary lines or current freight-only lines if need be, to reach West Byfleet and the line into Waterloo.

Surely if you were trying to get to Waterloo from Reading you would go via Staines? Or is there no connection from the GWML to the Wokingham Line?

 

[JonathanH]

Surely if you were trying to get to Waterloo from Reading you would go via Staines? Or is there no connection from the GWML to the Wokingham Line?

Indeed you would, but it takes 80 minutes to get from Reading to Waterloo via Staines.

The connections are better now from the relief lines to the Wokingham route, with the dive under from platform 15 at Reading and the original route through platform 7 at Reading followed by the Festival Line to join the down relief.

 

[leytongabriel]

As this is the speculation forum ( ) could open access pick up any of the routes where through services have come and gone like
London - Oxford - Stratford upon Avon, Bristol - Salisbury - London, Norwich - Thetford - Cambridge - London perhaps on the basis of one or two returns a day? And then there's Donny - Gainsborough - Lincoln - Spalding - Peterborough - London for the stout of heart.

 

[zwk500]

To be fair this map doesn't make it obvious that you have to do that https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/Rail map v36d curvy blue.pdf.

Because it isn't a map, it's a diagram. have a look at Google maps to double check where towns are relative to each other.

For some perspective:

I have been to West Byfleet a few times and thought it was on the line between Farnborough and Woking, this is the route I'm referring to in order to reach Waterloo.

West Byfleet is on the line between Woking at Wimbledon, the SWML. Farnborough is the other side of Woking from West Byfleet. But more to the point, why the SWML instead of going direct via Staines?

Perhaps a better route would be Bolton, Wigan (RM), Stafford, Tamworth, Nuneaton, Coventry, Leamington, Oxford, Reading, Basingstoke, Salisbury.

 

[Philip]

Surely if you were trying to get to Waterloo from Reading you would go via Staines? Or is there no connection from the GWML to the Wokingham Line?

If the route into London is too direct then it could cause revenue abstraction problems, so a more indirect might be necessary to avoid this.

How and why is it cheaper to take indirect routes?

I don't know the answer but I can provide a comparison - Northern cheap advance tickets between Manchester and Liverpool and between Manchester Piccadilly and Chester/Sheffield. They offer much cheaper fares than EMR, TfW and TPE; the service is much slower because of all the stops but a lot of people use the slower Northern service because it is so cheap.

 

[zwk500]

If the route into London is too direct then it could cause revenue abstraction problems, so a more indirect might be necessary to avoid this.

Unfortunately, an indirect route won't attract new business (and the SWML would be abstractive from SWR)

I don't know the answer but I can provide a comparison - Northern cheap advance tickets between Manchester and Liverpool and between Manchester Piccadilly and Chester/Sheffield. They offer much cheaper fares than EMR, TfW and TPE; the service is much slower because of all the stops but a lot of people use the slower Northern service because it is so cheap.

That's yield and load management by a company that runs 2 different routes. This is a very different situation from a standalone operator.

 

[JonathanH]

I don't know the answer but I can provide a comparison - Northern cheap advance tickets between Manchester and Liverpool and between Manchester Piccadilly and Chester/Sheffield. They offer much cheaper fares than EMR, TfW and TPE; the service is much slower because of all the stops but a lot of people use the slower Northern service because it is so cheap.

Yes, but Northern receives a subsidy to ensure that the stopping services still run. They offer cheap fares to encourage users on services they are contracted to run.

The first and foremost thing for an open access operator to achieve is a profitable business. That doesn't happen if the route is inefficient and they can only get passengers by offering cheap fares. Someone has to top up the difference.

 

[Philip]

Because it isn't a map, it's a diagram. have a look at Google maps to double check where towns are relative to each other.

For some perspective:
View attachment 123149

West Byfleet is on the line between Woking at Wimbledon, the SWML. Farnborough is the other side of Woking from West Byfleet. But more to the point, why the SWML instead of going direct via Staines?

Perhaps a better route would be Bolton, Wigan (RM), Stafford, Tamworth, Nuneaton, Coventry, Leamington, Oxford, Reading, Basingstoke, Salisbury.

The latter half of that route, south of Leamington looks fine, but a big factor in this suggested route I've come up with is providing a direct service between Liverpool and Manchester with Leicester, which in my opinion is a glaring omission in the current NR timetable. Liverpool-Bolton, Bolton to Stockport & Crewe and also Victoria to Stockport would probably also be well used.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Absolutely and utterly not. The tiny, tiny benefit of through trains to the Continent a couple of times a day (as opposed to an hourly connection which is more likely to offer a suitable time) does not outweigh the complete loss of control of our borders, effectively outsourcing the matter to the boundaries of Schengen like Spain and Romania, neither of which have any motivation to act in our interests.

I'd rather be out of the EU than have to accept Schengen. It makes no sense whatsoever for an island to be in it.

Edit: I would be happy with the "slightly leakier" approach of passport and customs controls being done on board if it suited, though, as it is just about everywhere else.

The argument about "loss of control of our borders" would hold more water (no pun intended) if our government showed any signs of control over our present border situation.

 

[zwk500]

The latter half of that route, south of Leamington looks fine, but a big factor in this suggested route I've come up with is providing a direct service between Liverpool and Manchester with Leicester, which in my opinion is a glaring omission in the current NR timetable. Liverpool-Bolton, Bolton to Stockport & Crewe and also Victoria to Stockport would probably also be well used.

If you wanted to serve Manchester to Leicester, why not run via Stoke and Tamworth and turn left at Nuneaton?

The argument about "loss of control of our borders" would hold more water (no pun intended) if our government showed any signs of control over our present border situation.

There's a thread split off for EU/Schengen discussion

 

[Iskra]

Absolutely and utterly not. The tiny, tiny benefit of through trains to the Continent a couple of times a day (as opposed to an hourly connection which is more likely to offer a suitable time) does not outweigh the complete loss of control of our borders, effectively outsourcing the matter to the boundaries of Schengen like Spain and Romania, neither of which have any motivation to act in our interests.

I'd rather be out of the EU than have to accept Schengen. It makes no sense whatsoever for an island to be in it.

Edit: I would be happy with the "slightly leakier" approach of passport and customs controls being done on board if it suited, though, as it is just about everywhere else.

International through-ticketing would be a much more sensible, efficient and demand-inducing solution.

 

[Bald Rick]

Getting to London isn't the primary aim,

In which case it is doomed to fail.

As I have explained a number of times, London is the only show in OA town.

 

[Philip]

In which case it is doomed to fail.

As I have explained a number of times, London is the only show in OA town.

Is this not partly because the level of rail service away from London is generally much worse than it is towards and within London, hence people are put off using the train? London might have plenty to offer as a tourist destination but then so do many other cities and places within the UK and with a more frequent rail service and with a slight reduction in fares it might persuade people to start travelling by train more so.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is this not partly because the level of rail service away from London is generally much worse than it is towards and within London, hence people are put off using the train?

No, it’s entirely because railways need volume to make money, and as a centre of population and economic activity, London (and the surrounding areas ) is an order of magnitude greater than any other part of the U.K.

I may have mentioned before, but something like 70% of stations on the rail network have London in their top 3 revenue flows.

 

[rapmastaj]

OK, here you go:
St Albans, Luton, Bedford, Leicester, Loughborough, Chesterfield, Sheffield, Barnsley, Wakefield Kirkgate, Leeds.

To connect up some of the places on the Midland Mainline that blatantly should already be connected by direct services. And to annoy the London centric lobby it'll terminate just outside the M25

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Although the only open access services that have got off the ground have involved London, it's worth remembering that among the very first proposals (possibly THE first) was the original iteration of Grand Central with a cross-Pennine service. Can't recall the exact routing or calling points they proposed but York/Hull/Leeds to Preston via the Calder Valley and Manchester Victoria rings a bell.