Future routes for Open Access operators

[Doctor Fegg]

Worcester and Malvern seem to be fair generators of traffic towards London and Hereford is a city with a rather infrequent/poor direct service. The GWR direct services via Evesham are slow and I think it’s often quicker to change at Birmingham.

Not really. At 1hr22 Euston-Birmingham, plus 39 minutes Birmingham-Worcester Shrub Hill, you're at 2hr01 travelling time even before you add the time required to change trains and wait for a connection. The fastest via Evesham is 1hr57, and most do it in less than 2hr10.

For London<–>Hereford it is often quicker to change at Newport, not Birmingham. But Hereford–London is not a big market.

 

[Bald Rick]

Really ? Apart from Wellingborough all the stops already have at least 4 trains an hour to London already and we are only talking a handful of trains per day. I suppose we could always make Bedford & Wellingborough pick-up / set down only. Then it would just be a question of whether traffic from Leicester would outweigh that from all the other places further north.

Yes really, south of Harpenden the MML is full.

 

[Iskra]

Yes really, south of Harpenden the MML is full.

An intercity route operating 4 and 5 carriage trains is not full, it just has poorly managed capacity!

 

[zwk500]

An intercity route operating 4 and 5 carriage trains is not full, it just has poorly managed capacity!

Path-wise the route is still full. You can absolutely make the case that capacity is not being maximised, but you can't run any additional trains on a line just because 2 other paths are half-length.

 

[martinsh]

Here's another one ...

Suggestion No 3

Burnley – Accrington – Blackburn – Leyland – Wigan – Newton-le-Willows – Warrington – Hartford – Crewe – Stafford – Nuneaton – Milton Keynes (sd) – Euston

Apart from linking various places to London it would also serve the following markets

Wigan to Blackburn / Burnley
Wigan / Warrington to stations south of Crewe
Hartford to Warrington (for connections northwards)

Note that the calling points south of Crewe have been selected to provide as many sensible connections as possible (e.g. Stafford for Wolverhampton & Birmingham).

Paths should be available since Grand Central managed to get them for its Blackpool service.

I would call this one “Red Rose Rail”.

 

[The Planner]

Here's another one ...

Suggestion No 3

Burnley – Accrington – Blackburn – Leyland – Wigan – Newton-le-Willows – Warrington – Hartford – Crewe – Stafford – Nuneaton – Milton Keynes (sd) – Euston

Apart from linking various places to London it would also serve the following markets

Wigan to Blackburn / Burnley
Wigan / Warrington to stations south of Crewe
Hartford to Warrington (for connections northwards)

Note that the calling points south of Crewe have been selected to provide as many sensible connections as possible (e.g. Stafford for Wolverhampton & Birmingham).

Paths should be available since Grand Central managed to get them for its Blackpool service.

I would call this one “Red Rose Rail”.

Where were Grand Central calling north of Crewe? I don't recall them stopping at shacks so those paths aren't going to be there at that point. Bear in mind that if Grand Union ever get their Stirling service going then those paths are even less there! I would lose the Stafford call, Crewe enables the same thing.

 

[Snow1964]

GO-OP have put a application in to run trains from Taunton to Westbury, Swindon and weston super mare. I've been.o the ORRs website and can't find a application

GO-OP say the application is in, but ORR not listing anything

Our proposal for 2023​

This shows the route that we plan to operate from the summer of 2023 on.

The core of the service between Taunton and Westbury is shown in purple. This will see six or more trains a day, improving the service levels in growing market towns.

They will also provide much needed connections for services to and from Yeovil, Salisbury and Exeter.

In addition, some services will be extended to Swindon; and we will also enhance travel up the Somerset coast with some extra trains between Taunton and Weston Super Mare.

Seems plan is to use stored class 153s

There is a shortage of diesel multiple units in the UK, which has made rolling stock one of the most challenging elements in our planning (to say nothing of our desire to move beyond fossil fuels). However, there are several class 153 units in storage that have come out of service because they do not meet modern standards of accessibility. We’re inspired by the way that Transport for Wales has given similar units a new lease of life with a major modification and refurbishment programme, so our plan is to do the same.
They are small, and so as passenger numbers grow we will need to progress to something else. But that may well free up the class 153s to operate branch line ‘feeder’ services.

Our planned services

Making vital connections across Somerset and Wiltshire Our proposal for 2026 We plan to begin not with trains – but with buses. In fact, much of our investment will be in four ‘charging…

go-op.coop

 

[swt_passenger]

GO-OP say the application is in, but ORR not listing anything



Seems plan is to use stored class 153s

Our planned services

Making vital connections across Somerset and Wiltshire Our proposal for 2026 We plan to begin not with trains – but with buses. In fact, much of our investment will be in four ‘charging…

go-op.coop

Posted elsewhere that it’s on Network Rails 2022 “completed consultations” page. I haven’t looked it up as I think it’s probably a lost cause by now.

 

[Tayway]

Glasgow to Leeds is a market that has lost out considerably since the pandemic, going from a two-hourly direct service to just a couple of trains each way. Could an open-access operator have any success with an alternative to Cross Country's currently dire provision?

Maybe four or five trains in each direction per day could serve the following route:

Glasgow Central - Motherwell - Lockerbie - Carlisle - Appleby - Settle - Skipton - Keighley - Shipley - Leeds

This would be operated by 5-car 800s or similar. If successful (and provided paths can be found), then an extension to Sheffield and Nottingham could be considered.

 

[zwk500]

Glasgow to Leeds is a market that has lost out considerably since the pandemic, going from a two-hourly direct service to just a couple of trains each way. Could an open-access operator have any success with an alternative to Cross Country's currently dire provision?

Maybe four or five trains in each direction per day could serve the following route:

Glasgow Central - Motherwell - Lockerbie - Carlisle - Appleby - Settle - Skipton - Keighley - Shipley - Leeds

This would be operated by 5-car 800s or similar. If successful (and provided paths can be found), then an extension to Sheffield and Nottingham could be considered.

Are you sure this isn't just another attempt to reinstate the Thames-Clyde Express?

FWIW Given the Glasgow-Edinburgh service is hardly lacking, changing at Waverley for a Leeds train from Edinburgh is probably easier than trying to make a commercial profit over the S&C.

 

[JonathanH]

Could an open-access operator have any success with an alternative to Cross Country's currently dire provision?

Probably not. If Cross Country was more lucrative on the route, it would be running more trains. The message that should be taken from 'dire provision' is that there isn't a sufficient market.

 

[swt_passenger]

Maybe ten to fifteen years ago there was a website all about a Glasgow - Nottingham open access service, I’m sure it was online for quite a few years, but nothing ever happened.

 

[D365]

GO-OP say the application is in, but ORR not listing anything



Seems plan is to use stored class 153s

Our planned services

Making vital connections across Somerset and Wiltshire Our proposal for 2026 We plan to begin not with trains – but with buses. In fact, much of our investment will be in four ‘charging…

go-op.coop

How many times has Go-Op tried…

 

[zwk500]

How many times has Go-Op tried…

Does the Boss of Go-Op live at Melksham or something? Every time it's a more convoluted attempt to run trains between Swindon and Westbury direct.

Also the proposal for reversal/Terminating at Taunton will be...fun for the NR planning team.

 

[Iskra]

Glasgow to Leeds is a market that has lost out considerably since the pandemic, going from a two-hourly direct service to just a couple of trains each way. Could an open-access operator have any success with an alternative to Cross Country's currently dire provision?

Maybe four or five trains in each direction per day could serve the following route:

Glasgow Central - Motherwell - Lockerbie - Carlisle - Appleby - Settle - Skipton - Keighley - Shipley - Leeds

This would be operated by 5-car 800s or similar. If successful (and provided paths can be found), then an extension to Sheffield and Nottingham could be considered.

I'd probably try it with spare 185's first rather than ordering specific stock, Transpennine Express (or Northern) could run it and run it as an extension and replacement of the current Northern Nottingham-Leeds services, but possibly only extending every 2 hours initially. Although running across the station throat at Leeds could be problematic, so it might have to go via Wakefield Kirkgate and then Westgate to reduce conflicts at Leeds, but that would probably be quite useful for many passengers anyway.

Personally, I'd find that route very useful as I usually travel to Glasgow via the S&C anyway as it's nicer and can be cheaper.

 

[30907]

Glasgow to Leeds is a market that has lost out considerably since the pandemic, going from a two-hourly direct service to just a couple of trains each way. Could an open-access operator have any success with an alternative to Cross Country's currently dire provision?

XC requires 1 unit to provide the pre pandemic service (which replaced an EC equivalent - not of course serving Leeds at all).

Maybe four or five trains in each direction per day could serve the following route:

which would require 2 units minimum in service daily, so considerably more revenue.

 

[yoyothehobo]

What we need is an equivalent of Altnabreacs golden rules for reopenings:

1. Does it serve London?
2. Would it be primarily abstractive?
3. Starting/Primary Stations are currently under served to London or require a change to London as of the present
4. Does not require ANY new infrastructure to operate.
5. Can operate at least 3 full return services per day.
6. Stops at intermediate stations with reasonable loadings

Or something along those lines.

 

[zwk500]

What we need is an equivalent of Altnabreacs golden rules for reopenings:

1. Does it serve London?
2. Would it be primarily abstractive?
3. Starting/Primary Stations are currently under served to London or require a change to London as of the present
4. Does not require ANY new infrastructure to operate.
5. Can operate at least 3 full return services per day.
6. Stops at intermediate stations with reasonable loadings

Or something along those lines.

Tbf the two-point test is enough: will it make a profit, and will it be primarily abstractive?

 

[Snow1964]

Tbf the two-point test is enough: will it make a profit, and will it be primarily abstractive?

The second test is flawed, if the open access usage fee (to Network Rail etc) exceeds the abstractive amount then surely it is better to have the open access operator

Ultimately both the track provider and operators getting subsidies get a portion of their funding from Government, so should consider overall cost/gain, not just passenger operators potential loss.

 

[Trainbike46]

The second test is flawed, if the open access usage fee (to Network Rail etc) exceeds the abstractive amount then surely it is better to have the open access operator

Ultimately both the track provider and operators getting subsidies get a portion of their funding from Government, so should consider overall cost/gain, not just passenger operators potential loss.

Well, currently to start on OAO, you need to pass the not-primarily-abstractive test, so unless you are proposing to fully change the rules around OAOs, any new OAO will have to pass that test, so for proposals that question is really relevant

 

[Snow1964]

Well, currently to start on OAO, you need to pass the not-primarily-abstractive test, so unless you are proposing to fully change the rules around OAOs, any new OAO will have to pass that test, so for proposals that question is really relevant

which is why I said is flawed as it doesn’t consider the option of net gain to railway overall, if there is primarily abstractive locally

 

[cle]

I'd probably try it with spare 185's first rather than ordering specific stock, Transpennine Express (or Northern) could run it and run it as an extension and replacement of the current Northern Nottingham-Leeds services, but possibly only extending every 2 hours initially. Although running across the station throat at Leeds could be problematic, so it might have to go via Wakefield Kirkgate and then Westgate to reduce conflicts at Leeds, but that would probably be quite useful for many passengers anyway.

Personally, I'd find that route very useful as I usually travel to Glasgow via the S&C anyway as it's nicer and can be cheaper.

Appreciating it is a RUK-bingo chestnut - linking Nottingham/Sheffield/Leeds to Glasgow does seem like a reasonable set of new city pairs to explore. There is no London, but these metros add up to significant populations without meaningful service to Western Scotland or Cumbria.

My other one on this, is another tired old chestnut - an iteration of Rio. St P pathing of course an issue - but London - Leicester/Derby to Stockport/Manchester - plus some competition for London-Manchester (acceptable for Birmingham/Chiltern, and in the interim, Avanti brand being in tatters too). And a service to the NW from either Bedford or a Luton in some hours.

Manchester must be Derby and Leicester's largest gaps - far more important than Nottingham/Sheffield to Glasgow, or even Leeds-Glasgow I would think.

 

[The Planner]

Appreciating it is a RUK-bingo chestnut - linking Nottingham/Sheffield/Leeds to Glasgow does seem like a reasonable set of new city pairs to explore. There is no London, but these metros add up to significant populations without meaningful service to Western Scotland or Cumbria.

My other one on this, is another tired old chestnut - an iteration of Rio. St P pathing of course an issue - but London - Leicester/Derby to Stockport/Manchester - plus some competition for London-Manchester (acceptable for Birmingham/Chiltern, and in the interim, Avanti brand being in tatters too). And a service to the NW from either Bedford or a Luton in some hours.

Manchester must be Derby and Leicester's largest gaps - far more important than Nottingham/Sheffield to Glasgow, or even Leeds-Glasgow I would think.

1 hour 33 seems to be the quickest time that Derby to Picc can be done at the moment. Going direct via Dore would save you about 15-16 minutes if the paths were there.

 

[tbtc]

Appreciating it is a RUK-bingo chestnut - linking Nottingham/Sheffield/Leeds to Glasgow does seem like a reasonable set of new city pairs to explore. There is no London, but these metros add up to significant populations without meaningful service to Western Scotland or Cumbria

Derby/ Sheffield/Leeds has a bi-hourly service to Glasgow with XC, pre Covid, presumably it’s official status is more like “going to get reinstated at some stage” rather than “been officially permanently scrapped”

As it was only a net cost of one unit (extending half of the Edinburgh services east of Waverley), it provided a lot more journey opportunities from the East Midlands/ Yorkshire to Clydeside than an equivalent “one unit” would provide over Ribblehead/ Beattock

But when it comes to long distance links, there are always going to be pairs of cities that we don’t have capacity to provide direct trains in between (the obvious two examples being the continual fascination on here with Brighton/ Liverpool etc, but see also Sunderland/ Hull/ Bradford/ Portsmouth…)

My other one on this, is another tired old chestnut - an iteration of Rio. St P pathing of course an issue - but London - Leicester/Derby to Stockport/Manchester - plus some competition for London-Manchester (acceptable for Birmingham/Chiltern, and in the interim, Avanti brand being in tatters too). And a service to the NW from either Bedford or a Luton in some hours.

Manchester must be Derby and Leicester's largest gaps

Nice in theory but…

1. There’s no capacity at the St Pancras for any more services (hence EMR having to order bespoke trains designed around the platform 240m lengths, rather than something like 802s that they could have in service already if they’d ordered “off the shelf”)

2. Given the number of Thameslink paths and the relative lack of demand for some intermediate journeys, all Leicester bound services run non stop to at least Kettering if not non-stop until Leicester - I don’t know if there’s going to be space to stop an OA service at Luton Airport/ Luton/ Bedford

3. If there is a lot of untapped demand for direct “Home Counties” to Manchester trains then why not stop more existing Manchester services at Watford etc? Maybe Bletchley too, once EW starts? Nuneaton and Tamworth for connections? Would be a lot easier than a whole separate service

4. In theory it’d provide competition from London to Manchester, but by the time you introduce such a service well soon be at the stage where Avanti becomes the cheaper/ slower alternative (to HS2) between the cities

5. The layout of lines/ stations in the East Midlands means that any “Manchester” service can only really service two of the “big three” (Leicester/ Nottingham/ Derby) - you seem to have decided that Leicester/ Derby need a Manchester service but Nottingham is there one in need of a Glasgow train - is that based on anything particular? Because if passengers from one of these cities would need to change to access your new service then that’s little difference to the (pre covid) timetable where Nottingham passengers could access Glasgow every couple of hours with one change at a Derby/ Sheffield and Leicester/ Derby passengers could access Manchester each hour with one change at Chesterfield/ Sheffield

6. Similarly, you mention “a service to the NW”, but terminating at Manchester leaves lots of places unserved (Liverpool, Blackpool etc), where do you draw the line in terms of trying to link pairs of places?

7. “Avoiding lines” seem to be a continual fascination on here (running from Huddersfield down the WCML avoiding Manchester by using the Denton line, avoiding Swansea by using the District Line, running straight from Bradford to the ECML by using the junction outside Leeds to avoid that station, there was a recent thread suggesting that we use the chord at Kensington Olympia to run services that run tantalisingly close to Central London without actually serving it). I get that It’d be faster for longer distance services (albeit you might be occupying the single track chord from Dronfield to Grindleford for chunks of each hour in each direction, a place that’s often used by a freight path that hasn’t got a MML timings that lined up perfectly with its Hope Valley path) but would the through passengers be more than using the resource for an East Midlands to Sheffield service and a Sheffield to Manchester service? Same goes with those who think the Milford Haven to a Cardiff passengers outweigh the Milford Haven to Swansea and Swansea to Cardiff trade etc.

I’m not totally against these two canards, there’s just about enough meat in the bones to warrant their regular discussion on here, the above is meant as constructive criticism rather than picking a fight, it’s just that I can’t see these two as a priority (even as a Scot living in Yorkshire who’d benefit from a cheaper “via Appleby” fare for journeys north of the border!)

 

[cle]

3. If there is a lot of untapped demand for direct “Home Counties” to Manchester trains then why not stop more existing Manchester services at Watford etc? Maybe Bletchley too, once EW starts? Nuneaton and Tamworth for connections? Would be a lot easier than a whole separate service

4. In theory it’d provide competition from London to Manchester, but by the time you introduce such a service well soon be at the stage where Avanti becomes the cheaper/ slower alternative (to HS2) between the cities

5. The layout of lines/ stations in the East Midlands means that any “Manchester” service can only really service two of the “big three” (Leicester/ Nottingham/ Derby) - you seem to have decided that Leicester/ Derby need a Manchester service but Nottingham is there one in need of a Glasgow train - is that based on anything particular? Because if passengers from one of these cities would need to change to access your new service then that’s little difference to the (pre covid) timetable where Nottingham passengers could access Glasgow every couple of hours with one change at a Derby/ Sheffield and Leicester/ Derby passengers could access Manchester each hour with one change at Chesterfield/ Sheffield

6. Similarly, you mention “a service to the NW”, but terminating at Manchester leaves lots of places unserved (Liverpool, Blackpool etc), where do you draw the line in terms of trying to link pairs of places?

I take your points and not as criticism, there's a fair few reasons why these things don't currently exist.

To some of these:

3. If a Watford Junction call could be added to an hourly Manchester, that would be a great thing. And in time, maybe Bletchley too, if there were enough tph. I think only 1 tph is currently slated post-HS2 via Stoke. Possibly, and in light of the competition, there could also/instead be a LNR service which hits Watford but also some Trent Valley calls too, going to Manchester. Another, or a Crewe extension.

4. HS2 - yes, and Chiltern will still exist for Birmingham once that is online too, as option #3. Same for Crewe/LNR.

5. Nottingham is a detour, but crucially, has its Manchester service already. Leicester and Derby don't and that routing is more direct for Dore.

6. NW - I meant somewhere vaguely on the WCML, which Manchester isn't really in practical/onward terms. Vs specific NW towns. Derby links to Crewe I suppose. That routing is nowhere near as well used as it might be.

 

[zwk500]

5. Nottingham is a detour, but crucially, has its Manchester service already. Leicester and Derby don't and that routing is more direct for Dore.

Why does every town need 'its' Manchester service?

6. NW - I meant somewhere vaguely on the WCML, which Manchester isn't really in practical/onward terms. Vs specific NW towns. Derby links to Crewe I suppose. That routing is nowhere near as well used as it might be.

It's worth considering whether the usage is poor because the service is poor or the service is poor because the usage will only ever go so high.

In my experience with family and friends, East Midlands to Lancashire is not a popular journey. I freely admit the limitations of this sample though.

 

[Bald Rick]

London - Manchester is the single biggest revenue ‘pair’ in the country, there is no chance of any open access between the two by any route. The abstraction, even if a small proportion of that flow, would dwarf any new to rail revenue.

 

[Iskra]

London - Manchester is the single biggest revenue ‘pair’ in the country, there is no chance of any open access between the two by any route. The abstraction, even if a small proportion of that flow, would dwarf any new to rail revenue.

There’s always Salford

 

[cle]

London - Manchester is the single biggest revenue ‘pair’ in the country, there is no chance of any open access between the two by any route. The abstraction, even if a small proportion of that flow, would dwarf any new to rail revenue.

We are talking a future with HS2 - even phase 1 - is likely to be a different operator to those with the Pendos. So competition will come eventually. Why not a slower WCML service, or a MML-connecting one (designed for some mid-sized unserved cities en route).

Why does every town need 'its' Manchester service?

Who said that? We're not talking Manchester Airport here. I referenced two fairly sizeable cities - once temporarily linked to Manchester and situated on one of the only alternative routes from London to Manchester. It's not so convoluted. People freak about many smaller places needing service to smaller places.

And see Bald Rick above - it's fair to say that Manchester is probably the largest business and 'inter-city' market after London. Or certainly close to/on a par with Birmingham. Nobody begrudges everywhere having a Birmingham service. And Derby/Leicester/Notts have 2tph as standard.

Manchester, as mentioned, is a larger business destination. Birmingham has higher rail usage, but a much larger intra-city network (similar with Glasgow).

 

[Bald Rick]

Manchester, as mentioned, is a larger business destination. Birmingham has higher rail usage, but a much larger intra-city network (similar with Glasgow).

Birmingham is a bigger business destination, but because it’s closer to London the average fare paid is lower. Hence Manchester is the biggest flow in revenue terms.