Future routes for Open Access operators

[Brubulus]

The OAO system needs to be massively reformed, with the revenue abstraction rules removed but operators required to pay for the full cost of their specific use of the infrastructure plus an annual fee for the path, which would be based on what government income would be predicted to be if that path had a service from a state/concession operator. There could also be a path subsidy, which would be the subsidy the state would have to pay, minus 10%, however this cannot be applied to new services. Furthermore a state/concession operator would be required to give up a path that an OAO is prepared to pay for at a higher rate/lower subsidy level. Any new service that requires government subsidy would have to be put to tender by GBR with a state/concession operator only used if cheaper than OAO operation. OAOs would be required to follow a general GBR colour scheme but be allowed to have their own branding and accept inter-avaliable tickets with no special restrictions. This means that there could be a significant liberalisation of the rail system, especially on intercity routes, but still not leading to a large increase in subsidies as operators would still have to subsidise unprofitable parts of the network.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2023 ==

Does anyone see any potential for OA competition on the MML?

London-Worksop with calls at Wellingborough, East Midlands Parkway, Ilkeston, Mansfield and Worksop. Abstraction could be an issue but this seems like the only thing that could possibly work (subject to pathing).

 

[JonathanH]

The OAO system needs to be massively reformed, with the revenue abstraction rules removed but operators required to pay for the full cost of their specific use of the infrastructure plus an annual fee for the path, which would be based on what government income would be predicted to be if that path had a service from a state/concession operator. There could also be a path subsidy, which would be the subsidy the state would have to pay, minus 10%, however this cannot be applied to new services. Furthermore a state/concession operator would be required to give up a path that an OAO is prepared to pay for at a higher rate/lower subsidy level. Any new service that requires government subsidy would have to be put to tender by GBR with a state/concession operator only used if cheaper than OAO operation. OAOs would be required to follow a general GBR colour scheme but be allowed to have their own branding and accept inter-avaliable tickets with no special restrictions. This means that there could be a significant liberalisation of the rail system, especially on intercity routes, but still not leading to a large increase in subsidies as operators would still have to subsidise unprofitable parts of the network.

How exactly would they compete? Paying their staff less?

You have that would have the same branding as GBR, accept interavailable tickets, pay more for the paths etc. What exactly would they be bringing to the table?

 

[Trainguy34]

The OAO system needs to be massively reformed, with the revenue abstraction rules removed but operators required to pay for the full cost of their specific use of the infrastructure plus an annual fee for the path, which would be based on what government income would be predicted to be if that path had a service from a state/concession operator. There could also be a path subsidy, which would be the subsidy the state would have to pay, minus 10%, however this cannot be applied to new services. Furthermore a state/concession operator would be required to give up a path that an OAO is prepared to pay for at a higher rate/lower subsidy level. Any new service that requires government subsidy would have to be put to tender by GBR with a state/concession operator only used if cheaper than OAO operation.

This definitely makes sense but it would take effort from the government putting the likelihood to 0

Also a route from Kent to GWR territory (best way I could sum it up) via the N Downs line and the Tonbridge - Redhill line would be nice

 

[JonathanH]

Also a route from Kent to GWR territory (best way I could sum it up) via the N Downs line and the Tonbridge - Redhill line would be nice

It may be nice for people living in Kent who have interests further west but it would lose its operator a lot of money.

 

[Bartsimho]

This definitely makes sense but it would take effort from the government putting the likelihood to 0

Also a route from Kent to GWR territory (best way I could sum it up) via the N Downs line and the Tonbridge - Redhill line would be nice

Dover Priory - Reading type of deal via Folkstone, Ashford International, Tonbridge, Redhill, Guildford, Farnborough North?

The only way i could see it working is if Redhill-Reading is upgraded to near 90mph and the price of direct trains into London is increased. The journey time comparison is helped by having to transit across London from the South-East facing Terminii to Paddington

 

[Trainguy34]

It may be nice for people living in Kent who have interests further west but it would lose its operator a lot of money.

It might be made better if they could make it go via Gatwick Airport without reversing 3 times as it would save people going into London

 

[Bartsimho]

It might be made better if they could make it go via Gatwick Airport without reversing 3 times as it would save people going into London

That is a pipe dream as I just can't see a way to hit Redhill and Gatwick without 3 reverses due to the built up nature of Redhill preventing new chords being built (I still can't see it even if it was flat farmland)

 

[JonathanH]

It might be made better if they could make it go via Gatwick Airport without reversing 3 times as it would save people going into London

There is no real evidence that the passenger flows exist in sufficient volume for journeys from the South East to the rest of the country without combining them with the flows into and out of London.

To the extent people from the West require Gatwick Airport, they know they can make a connection at Reading. Trying to run through trains onto the North Downs Line isn't clever because of the long signal sections. It was certainly one of the places where Operation Princess failed from a reliability perspective.

 

[zwk500]

It might be made better if they could make it go via Gatwick Airport without reversing 3 times as it would save people going into London

Whichever way you go you're stuck - Either Ashford-Redhill-Gatwick-Redhill or Ashford-Eastbourne-Redhill. OAOs are never going to be able to justify infrastructure intervention on their own account. Oh, and Redhill and Gatwick are formally declared congested, so OAOs would get fairly short shrift if asking to reverse there.

 

[philosopher]

Is there any chance of an Open Access Operator running services from London to Frankfurt using HS1 in the UK? I assume this one has no issues with abstraction, but may have issues with their being a sufficient market, particularly after Brexit.

 

[Bartsimho]

Is there any chance of an Open Access Operator running services from London to Frankfurt using HS1 in the UK? I assume this one has no issues with abstraction, but may have issues with their being a sufficient market, particularly after Brexit.

Deutsche Bahn had ideas of running through the Channel Tunnel but decided against it due to having to build Passport Control at the German side. Hence ideas of a Cheriton/Coquelles shuffle of leaving the train and walking through passport control but it was decided that wasn't good. (Although air travel only checks if you have a passport before it doesn't check right to enter a country and the airline gets fined if they do bring someone not allowed it).

Edit: Although on the other Schengen to non-Schengen train borders they so have get off the train and check the passports and baggage (i.e. Bulgaria and Turkey) it's more of a don't want to fund it rather than even impractical as it would be the UK border in Coquelles and the French border in Cheriton

 

[zwk500]

Is there any chance of an Open Access Operator running services from London to Frankfurt using HS1 in the UK? I assume this one has no issues with abstraction, but may have issues with their being a sufficient market, particularly after Brexit.

As an international service the revenue abstraction rules don't apply, AIUI.

Both DB and Eurostar have explored the idea in the past, but economics and the logistics of the border count against it. With Eurostar concentrating on solidifying their Amsterdam operation into the core market and the Thalys merger, I don't see them going for further expansion anytime soon (they'll expand in France back to Avignon and potentially to Bordeaux first before Germany would be my hunch). There is a decent market for Germany-UK train travel as shown by the numbers connecting at Brussels, but the question is whether enough of it can concentrate on Frankfurt or Cologne.
DB have issues getting platform capacity for the security sweeps and so on, I think it's been mentioned on other threads that Cologne would need some serious timetabling and possibly a few infrastructure works. Not sure about Frankfurt but you'd want the Hbf not the Airport so probably similar issues.

 

[Bartsimho]

As an international service the revenue abstraction rules don't apply, AIUI.

Both DB and Eurostar have explored the idea in the past, but economics and the logistics of the border count against it. With Eurostar concentrating on solidifying their Amsterdam operation into the core market and the Thalys merger, I don't see them going for further expansion anytime soon (they'll expand in France back to Avignon and potentially to Bordeaux first before Germany would be my hunch). There is a decent market for Germany-UK train travel as shown by the numbers connecting at Brussels, but the question is whether enough of it can concentrate on Frankfurt or Cologne.
DB have issues getting platform capacity for the security sweeps and so on, I think it's been mentioned on other threads that Cologne would need some serious timetabling and possibly a few infrastructure works. Not sure about Frankfurt but you'd want the Hbf not the Airport so probably similar issues.

For the demand at Frankfurt I think there would be enough due to the fact that people are willing to connect in Brussels so Cologne would have the demand as it is the central rail hub of the Rhineland. Although it wouldn't be Open Access unless the UK joined the European joint ticketing

 

[adrock1976]

The OAO system needs to be massively reformed, with the revenue abstraction rules removed but operators required to pay for the full cost of their specific use of the infrastructure plus an annual fee for the path, which would be based on what government income would be predicted to be if that path had a service from a state/concession operator. There could also be a path subsidy, which would be the subsidy the state would have to pay, minus 10%, however this cannot be applied to new services. Furthermore a state/concession operator would be required to give up a path that an OAO is prepared to pay for at a higher rate/lower subsidy level. Any new service that requires government subsidy would have to be put to tender by GBR with a state/concession operator only used if cheaper than OAO operation. OAOs would be required to follow a general GBR colour scheme but be allowed to have their own branding and accept inter-avaliable tickets with no special restrictions. This means that there could be a significant liberalisation of the rail system, especially on intercity routes, but still not leading to a large increase in subsidies as operators would still have to subsidise unprofitable parts of the network.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2023 ==


London-Worksop with calls at Wellingborough, East Midlands Parkway, Ilkeston, Mansfield and Worksop. Abstraction could be an issue but this seems like the only thing that could possibly work (subject to pathing).

Regarding London - Worksop, do you intend to also call at Corby and Melton Mowbray, assuming that would be your intended route?

 

[zwk500]

Regarding London - Worksop, do you intend to also call at Corby and Melton Mowbray, assuming that would be your intended route?

Surely if you're doing London-Worksop OAO you'd run ECML and Call Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Retford?

 

[adrock1976]

Surely if you're doing London-Worksop OAO you'd run ECML and Call Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Retford?

It was when I saw Wellingborough. East Mids Parkway, Ilkeston, and Mansfield in the previous post.

The ECML seems reasonable enough as Retford has loop platforms. I am unsure if there would be easy access to Thrumpton Jct though for the train to get downstairs to the former Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire/GC line.

 

[JonathanH]

I am unsure if there would be easy access to Thrumpton Jct though for the train to get downstairs to the former Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire/GC line.

Easy enough in one direction. Not so easy in the other.

 

[LUYMun]

London Waterloo to Weymouth could be a potential to compete with SWR's slow route. Could stop at Farnborough, Winchester, Southampton Central and Bournemouth along the way.

 

[zwk500]

London Waterloo to Weymouth could be a potential to compete with SWR's slow route. Could stop at Farnborough, Winchester, Southampton Central and Bournemouth along the way.

And how does that avoid abstracting revenue from SWR?

 

[Bartsimho]

And how does that avoid abstracting revenue from SWR?

I think it's ignoring abstraction rules but basing it off what Brubulus said:

The OAO system needs to be massively reformed, with the revenue abstraction rules removed but operators required to pay for the full cost of their specific use of the infrastructure plus an annual fee for the path, which would be based on what government income would be predicted to be if that path had a service from a state/concession operator. There could also be a path subsidy, which would be the subsidy the state would have to pay, minus 10%, however this cannot be applied to new services. Furthermore a state/concession operator would be required to give up a path that an OAO is prepared to pay for at a higher rate/lower subsidy level. Any new service that requires government subsidy would have to be put to tender by GBR with a state/concession operator only used if cheaper than OAO operation. OAOs would be required to follow a general GBR colour scheme but be allowed to have their own branding and accept inter-avaliable tickets with no special restrictions. This means that there could be a significant liberalisation of the rail system, especially on intercity routes, but still not leading to a large increase in subsidies as operators would still have to subsidise unprofitable parts of the network.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2023 ==


London-Worksop with calls at Wellingborough, East Midlands Parkway, Ilkeston, Mansfield and Worksop. Abstraction could be an issue but this seems like the only thing that could possibly work (subject to pathing).

We could ask what avoiding revenue abstraction Lumo, Grand Central or Hull Trains does from LNER as Grand Central and LNER compete on London-York non-stop:

Realtime Trains | 1600 London Kings Cross to Aberdeen | 15/05/2023

Real-time train running information for 1600 departure from London Kings Cross to Aberdeen on 15/05/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 1648 London Kings Cross to Sunderland | 15/05/2023

Real-time train running information for 1648 departure from London Kings Cross to Sunderland on 15/05/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

LNER and Hull Trains both run London-Doncaster:

Realtime Trains | 1530 London Kings Cross to Edinburgh | 15/05/2023

Real-time train running information for 1530 departure from London Kings Cross to Edinburgh on 15/05/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 1548 London Kings Cross to Beverley | 15/05/2023

Real-time train running information for 1548 departure from London Kings Cross to Beverley on 15/05/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

LNER and Lumo running London-Edinburgh:

Realtime Trains | 1448 London Kings Cross to Edinburgh | 15/05/2023

Real-time train running information for 1448 departure from London Kings Cross to Edinburgh on 15/05/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 1430 London Kings Cross to Edinburgh | 15/05/2023

Real-time train running information for 1430 departure from London Kings Cross to Edinburgh on 15/05/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

If we keep franchised operations an Open Access Operator should be used to keep the Franchise on it's toes regarding service and quality by not allowing a monopoly on the route.

 

[zwk500]

I think it's ignoring abstraction rules but basing it off what Brubulus said:

We could ask what avoiding revenue abstraction Lumo, Grand Central or Hull Trains does from LNER as Grand Central and LNER compete on London-York non-stop:

If we keep franchised operations an Open Access Operator should be used to keep the Franchise on it's toes regarding service and quality by not allowing a monopoly on the route.

Lumo avoid the 'not primarily' abstractive test by stopping at Morpeth and not stopping at York, as well as the argument that they're serving the Ryanair/Easyjet market which isn't really LNER's game at all.
GC & Hull beat the abstraction test by serving Selby/Hull Pontefract/Brighouse/Halifax/Bradford, or stations to Sunderland that didn't (at the time they started) get all-day direct London Trains.

SWR happen to have bagged the entirely set of services on SWML, so that any service running out of Waterloo is going to be primarily abstractive unless it goes off in a wacky direction. Discussion of what the tests should be is a separate topic. If you want to serve Weymouth with an OAO you'd need to come at it from a different angle - something like Paddington, Reading, Newbury, Westbury, Castle Cary, Yeovil PM, Dorchester South, Weymouth - but then you run into the Heart of Wessex line's single track sections.

 

[cle]

I wonder if somebody could make another go of the Waterloo-Bristol type services.

Run fast / pick up only (for abstraction BS) to Salisbury, then Warminster/Westbury/Trowbridge/Bradford (other than Westbury, without meaningful London services, especially Trowbridge, nudging 1m users pre-pandy) - Bath and Bristol. Onwards if useful. And the paths exist. Maybe Clapham if you could squeeze the call (as ironically it's bare abstractive as so much long distance skips it)

I also wonder, and this could be abstractive but possibly not as there is GWR competition, if the same service as above (running dual units non-stop to Salisbury and splitting) might also then run non-stop to Exeter Central and St D. Give a fast service on WoE which feels underused (add another Exeter choice) - but possibly continue somewhere else which GWR doesn't. Salisbury and Exeter only might be quite fast. I know there are single sections... calling at Yeovil or Honiton I think would be unlikely.

 

[Bartsimho]

I wonder if somebody could make another go of the Waterloo-Bristol type services.

Run fast / pick up only (for abstraction BS) to Salisbury, then Warminster/Westbury/Trowbridge/Bradford (other than Westbury, without meaningful London services, especially Trowbridge, nudging 1m users pre-pandy) - Bath and Bristol. Onwards if useful. And the paths exist. Maybe Clapham if you could squeeze the call (as ironically it's bare abstractive as so much long distance skips it)

I also wonder, and this could be abstractive but possibly not as there is GWR competition, if the same service as above (running dual units non-stop to Salisbury and splitting) might also then run non-stop to Exeter Central and St D. Give a fast service on WoE which feels underused (add another Exeter choice) - but possibly continue somewhere else which GWR doesn't. Salisbury and Exeter only might be quite fast. I know there are single sections... calling at Yeovil or Honiton I think would be unlikely.

The line speed of 85 for large sections would hamper it as it is the shorter route (The reason the line from Waterloo to Exeter was built to avoid the Great Way Round). It would be interesting to create a minimum time for it though.

 

[davo882000]

Would an open access route like Sunderland - to Edinburgh and Glasgow operated by Lumo or Grand Central

 

[Bartsimho]

Would an open access route like Sunderland - to Edinburgh and Glasgow operated by Lumo or Grand Central

It sounds like a route that should exist. Not sure it would make money though so it might have to be a TPE route rather than Open Access.

The issue of having Northern be a single entity without any Intercity operations means things like that don't exist as it isn't a core area.
I could see it as Sunderland, Newcastle, Morpeth, Berwick-Upon-Tweed, Dunbar, Edinburgh or splitting at Newcastle to have a Middlesbrough and Durham section as well although that would clash with XC a bit.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

This definitely makes sense but it would take effort from the government putting the likelihood to 0

Also a route from Kent to GWR territory (best way I could sum it up) via the N Downs line and the Tonbridge - Redhill line would be nice

I've read many times that Kent creates very little demand other than to/from London

 

[Clarence Yard]

The OAO system needs to be massively reformed, with the revenue abstraction rules removed but operators required to pay for the full cost of their specific use of the infrastructure plus an annual fee for the path, which would be based on what government income would be predicted to be if that path had a service from a state/concession operator. There could also be a path subsidy, which would be the subsidy the state would have to pay, minus 10%, however this cannot be applied to new services. Furthermore a state/concession operator would be required to give up a path that an OAO is prepared to pay for at a higher rate/lower subsidy level. Any new service that requires government subsidy would have to be put to tender by GBR with a state/concession operator only used if cheaper than OAO operation. OAOs would be required to follow a general GBR colour scheme but be allowed to have their own branding and accept inter-avaliable tickets with no special restrictions. This means that there could be a significant liberalisation of the rail system, especially on intercity routes, but still not leading to a large increase in subsidies as operators would still have to subsidise unprofitable parts of the network.

That is not going to work. What you are proposing is effectively slot bidding to operate part of a GBR operation. You might as well abolish OAO and run it yourself because it would be cheaper for you to do so. The OAO market won’t touch it with a barge pole, not with those costs and restrictions. They will want a better premium to run rail services and the freedom to do what they want.

OAO operators have already said they will pay their share of infrastructure charges and Lumo will shortly start paying the new ICC, which is a form of path charge. Extending that to all OAO operators and on more flows is expected (by those operators) to happen within a few years. As the ORR gives out access rights based on a level of return, it is also expected that those operators will have their access rights extended to hold them neutral.

But a private rail company paying a premium to effectively subsidise a state operation? Legally, a non starter. Again, if you want to cross subsidise, forget about OAO. They will cost their overheads into their bid and you are already paying yours - cheapest option is to do it yourself and internalise the cross subsidy.

 

[Bald Rick]

Does anyone see any potential for OA competition on the MML?

No, as it’s full For most of the day.

Furthermore a state/concession operator would be required to give up a path that an OAO is prepared to pay for at a higher rate/lower subsidy level.

Congratulations, you have just increased the subsidy required to run the rail network.

 

[cle]

The line speed of 85 for large sections would hamper it as it is the shorter route (The reason the line from Waterloo to Exeter was built to avoid the Great Way Round). It would be interesting to create a minimum time for it though.

It's fairly windy, I can't see it going up much over time. But it's direct, and if other routes are full (Paddington to Reading) - this might be an interesting route.

And the Bath/Bristol to Waterloo arm adds competition for those two cities (lots of demand, tourists, students, off peak etc) - which could be price or service based, also Paddington and Waterloo are opposite sides of Central London so catchments might vary) - but then also serves a few underserved Wilts places.

 

[JonathanH]

It's fairly windy, I can't see it going up much over time. But it's direct, and if other routes are full (Paddington to Reading) - this might be an interesting route.

And the Bath/Bristol to Waterloo arm adds competition for those two cities (lots of demand, tourists, students, off peak etc) - which could be price or service based, also Paddington and Waterloo are opposite sides of Central London so catchments might vary) - but then also serves a few underserved Wilts places.

Huh? Do you not think there would still be Waterloo to Bath / Bristol trains running if there was any market?

There are still cheaper Waterloo to Bath and Bristol via Warminster tickets than those available on the route via Reading, and no sign that a lot of people make that journey, although I appreciate connections can be poor.

https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=BTH&dest=WAT&grpd=1072&rte=800&tkt=SSR

Is Waterloo to Woking much less congested than Paddington to Reading?