Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Would be good to see something like a Hull - Birmingham route - maybe something for Hull trains. Get East Yorkshire and Doncaster more connected to Birmingham and cities along that route. Give CrossCountry some competition as their prices are so high
Many will say it wouldn't be profitable as it doesn't include London.
Although using Open-Access tenders for more Intercity services avoiding London could be a good idea with the state of available capacity in other places of the network and take stuff from XC which appears to be deliberately supressed. If it makes money great it's a useful service. If it doesn't there has been no subsidy. If they are willing to contribute to line upgrades like Hull Trains wanted to do but were turned down about even better.
Although using Open-Access tenders for more Intercity services avoiding London could be a good idea with the state of available capacity in other places of the network and take stuff from XC which appears to be deliberately supressed. If it makes money great it's a useful service. If it doesn't there has been no subsidy. If they are willing to contribute to line upgrades like Hull Trains wanted to do but were turned down about even better.
The issue with this is still the abstraction test - Will the revenue from Hull outweigh the revenue that switches from XC to the new OAO on the other legs? (FWIW I think the abstraction test is too heavy-handed but that isn't my decision).
Would be good to see something like a Hull - Birmingham route - maybe something for Hull trains. Get East Yorkshire and Doncaster more connected to Birmingham and cities along that route. Give CrossCountry some competition as their prices are so high
Like the idea of this, assuming it would stop at Doncaster, Sheffield, and Derby (maybe even Chesterfield, Tamworth, and Burton), has the opportunity connect some big cities at a better price than XC.
Also improving the frequency, particularly from East Yorks/Doncaster, to a massive market in Birmingham and HS2.
Needless to say also, the service quality would be much better than the XC Voyagers and any thing Northern have to offer.
It isn't surprising, because the demand can be covered by the services from Oxford to Didcot, and Didcot to Swindon and Bristol.
When it was tried in the late 1990s, the demand didn't fill a two-coach train, and it was decided that the line capacity would be better used by services to London.
No it wasn't. It was decided that the line capacity would be better used by nothing. FGW/Thames didn't scrap it in order to run more London services. Rather, it was a deliberate decision by the SRA to reduce congestion after Potters Bar. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2664821.stm
I travelled on the Oxford–Bristol services often and they were reasonably well loaded in the peaks and shoulder-peaks. Mid-afternoon journeys would be quieter but that was the case for much of the GW network back then - you could travel on an afternoon HST to Bristol and be one of only a few people in the carriage. (By the same token, for a year in the late 90s I commuted contra-peak on the 08.00 out of Paddington and would regularly be the only person in carriage A - try doing that now!)
A standalone Oxford–Bristol would do significantly better now even without station openings - the regional economy has grown in the intervening years. But as ever, it's an indictment of our sclerotic railway system and government that there are so many slam-dunk potential station locations along the GWML between Didcot and Chippenham which will inevitably fail to get funding.
Would be good to see something like a Hull - Birmingham route - maybe something for Hull trains. Get East Yorkshire and Doncaster more connected to Birmingham and cities along that route. Give CrossCountry some competition as their prices are so high
Like the idea of this, assuming it would stop at Doncaster, Sheffield, and Derby (maybe even Chesterfield, Tamworth, and Burton), has the opportunity connect some big cities at a better price than XC.
Also improving the frequency, particularly from East Yorks/Doncaster, to a massive market in Birmingham and HS2.
Needless to say also, the service quality would be much better than the XC Voyagers and any thing Northern have to offer.
While it's an interesting Idea - Hull is a good potential market for OAO as a port and large city that's underserved to the wider country. However is the market big enough to sustain a service that covers the overheads? A separate OAO Toc takes on lots of admin cost that an extension of XC trains wouldn't need to worry about.
Although using Open-Access tenders for more Intercity services avoiding London could be a good idea with the state of available capacity in other places of the network and take stuff from XC which appears to be deliberately supressed. If it makes money great it's a useful service. If it doesn't there has been no subsidy. If they are willing to contribute to line upgrades like Hull Trains wanted to do but were turned down about even better.
If it was tendered some authority would need to specify what they wanted in an invitation to tender, so in my opinion that would no longer be open access.
While it's an interesting Idea - Hull is a good potential market for OAO as a port and large city that's underserved to the wider country. However is the market big enough to sustain a service that covers the overheads? A separate OAO Toc takes on lots of admin cost that an extension of XC trains wouldn't need to worry about.
It would have new admin costs but with the state XC is in the demand appears to be there but deliberately not catered to as it might stimulate growth outside of London and we can't be having that.
To try and get round the abstraction the same way Lumo did with adding Morpeth they could have a pattern of Hull, Goole, Rotherham, Sheffield, Derby, Burton-On-Trent, Tamworth, Water Orton, Birmingham New Street.
Rotherham is a good add as it's 266,000 people served by Tram Trains and stopping services with no distance services at all.
If it was tendered some authority would need to specify what they wanted in an invitation to tender, so in my opinion that would no longer be open access.
Would be good to see something like a Hull - Birmingham route - maybe something for Hull trains. Get East Yorkshire and Doncaster more connected to Birmingham and cities along that route. Give CrossCountry some competition as their prices are so high
As someone who does travel from Selby to Birmingham, that would be great for me (although I'm not sure that my 1 or 2 journeys a year would be enough to sustain it )
If XCountry went back to running 2 tph on the north-east axis with an hourly service via Doncaster and not running single 4-car units then it probably wouldn't be necessary – there's already a decent service between Hull and Doncaster with 2 or 3 tph (including an hourly service to Sheffield), and reinstating the full XC timetable with adequate capacity would probably cover off most of the needs here. But in the absence of that, then yes please, bring it on!
Like the idea of this, assuming it would stop at Doncaster, Sheffield, and Derby (maybe even Chesterfield, Tamworth, and Burton), has the opportunity connect some big cities at a better price than XC.
Also improving the frequency, particularly from East Yorks/Doncaster, to a massive market in Birmingham and HS2.
Needless to say also, the service quality would be much better than the XC Voyagers and any thing Northern have to offer.
Would a calling pattern something along the likes below work?
Hull, Brough, either Selby or Goole, Doncaster, Rotherham Masborough (new parkway station slightly along from the original, also for interchange with Sheffield Supertram), Killamarsh & Halfway (the former Midland Killamarsh station reopened, also interchange for Sheffield Supertram), Chesterfield (for Bakewell and Bolsover bus link), Alfreton or Derby, East Mids Parkway, Loughborough, Leicester, Nuneaton, and Birmingham.
It would have new admin costs but with the state XC is in the demand appears to be there but deliberately not catered to as it might stimulate growth outside of London and we can't be having that.
To try and get round the abstraction the same way Lumo did with adding Morpeth they could have a pattern of Hull, Goole, Rotherham, Sheffield, Derby, Burton-On-Trent, Tamworth, Water Orton, Birmingham New Street.
Adding Rotherham would be a performance nightmare northbound because of the conflicting moves. Hull, Selby, Swinton, Sheffield, Chesterfield, Derby, Tamworth*, Water Orton, New Street would be my preference. But either way it isn't going to happen.
To try and get round the abstraction the same way Lumo did with adding Morpeth they could have a pattern of Hull, Goole, Rotherham, Sheffield, Derby, Burton-On-Trent, Tamworth, Water Orton, Birmingham New Street.
That’s primarily abstractive. Indeed almost entirely abstractive.
Bear in mind Hull trains supports 7 trains each way a day between Humberside and the largest economic centre in Western Europe. Humberside to Birmingham is a rather smaller market.
That’s primarily abstractive. Indeed almost entirely abstractive.
Bear in mind Hull trains supports 7 trains each way a day between Humberside and the largest economic centre in Western Europe. Humberside to Birmingham is a rather smaller market.
What does Hull Trains accounts look like though and is that the limit due to paths available on the ECML.
Also Hull Trains stopping at Grantham, Retford and Doncaster isn't abstractive at all from LNER only the section from Doncaster to Hull/Beverley is then. 1h 50m from Kings Cross to Doncaster on Hull Trains which definitely isn't entirely abstractive of LNER and their 1h 45m services along the same line stopping at Retford and Grantham still: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:G23368/2023-06-13/detailed#allox_id=0
It is slower to be abstractive but not by much so a service which connects stations without direct connections should be at least the same level of abstraction.
Regarding calling points along the ECML, are the Open Access operators banned from calling at Peterborough, or have I confused myself somewhere along the way?
If that is indeed the case, I am surprised at that being as the track layout there does allow for overtaking moves so as not to get in the way of the non OA services.
It would make sense where if paths could be found, airlines ran branded trains as connections from flights (luggage cars potentially?) from places such as Heathrow to destinations it serves and replaces the flights such as: "Platform 2 for the xx:xx British Airways service to Edinburgh calling at: flight destination A, flight destination B and Edinburgh, this train is formed of X coaches"
What do you plan on doing from places like London Gatwick? Run THREE separately branded services per hour/two hours/whatever frequency you had in mind? Because easyJet and Ryanair passengers will not get on a train called the "British Airways service" as they won't have a British Airways flight ticket and won't think they can use it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
And thus proved @zwk500 's point that Heathrow is horrible for getting to anywhere other than Paddington or Crossrail. No one said it was impossible, just very awkward. And navigating the route you have just indicated would be just that, very awkward.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes, frankly I'm surprised they're not made to run non stop from Selby to London, or to call somewhere like St Neots or Hitchin instead of major LNER stations like Doncaster and Grantham. (LNER neglects Retford enough for it to be reasonable for HT to stop there, I think) I assume it's because they'd make barely any money these days.
Do many people even travel London - Selby/Brough/Hull/Beverley in full these days, or is it primarily used as A) a cheaper alternative than LNER in getting to Grantham, Retford and Doncaster and B) a more comfortable, slightly faster alternative to TransPennine Express and Northern between Doncaster and East-most Yorkshire? I've travelled on Hull Trains twice to go from London to Doncaster (both times half left at Grantham and then the train pretty much emptied out with me at Doncaster) and once between Selby and Doncaster, on a very lightly loaded 802 that only started to take on a decent load at Doncaster.
Regarding calling points along the ECML, are the Open Access operators banned from calling at Peterborough, or have I confused myself somewhere along the way?
If that is indeed the case, I am surprised at that being as the track layout there does allow for overtaking moves so as not to get in the way of the non OA services.
Overtaking capability has nothing to do with. Peterborough to London is a huge revenue stream. OA would of course like to call there to have some of that cash, as it would go straight on their profit line (and out of the industry) for almost no cost. But even taking a small % of it (which would be entirely abstractive) would up their total abstraction significantly.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Difference is LNER require public subsidiy, so if they abstract revenue from an OAO it's a net gain to the public purse, whereas an OAO abstracting from a Franchised TOC is a net loss to the public purse.
Overtaking capability has nothing to do with. Peterborough to London is a huge revenue stream. OA would of course like to call there to have some of that cash, as it would go straight on their profit line (and out of the industry) for almost no cost.
You must be joking! Two measly, pick up only, five car services, and only on Sundays? Compared to all day 2tph LNER, as well as evening peak Newcastles?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Difference is LNER require public subsidiy, so if they abstract revenue from an OAO it's a net gain to the public purse, whereas an OAO abstracting from a Franchised TOC is a net loss to the public purse.
Mind you, it’s funny to think it’s the complete opposite view when it comes to supermarkets. Any major takeover and a company is forced to sell some of its new stores to moderate competition.
Overtaking capability has nothing to do with. Peterborough to London is a huge revenue stream. OA would of course like to call there to have some of that cash, as it would go straight on their profit line (and out of the industry) for almost no cost. But even taking a small % of it (which would be entirely abstractive) would up their total abstraction significantly.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I don’t know about the others, but Grantham had a pretty decent service, which a handful of Hull trains barely augmented.
Is it relevant that the very first Hull Trains services were formed of relatively small capacity 100 mph DMUs? It wouldn’t have been physically possible for them to make major inroads into the overall capacity of the route, so maybe the open calls at relatively major stations were seen in a different way to what they would be today.
Is it relevant that the very first Hull Trains services were formed of relatively small capacity 100 mph DMUs? It wouldn’t have been physically possible for them to make major inroads into the overall capacity of the route, so maybe the open calls at relatively major stations were seen in a different way to what they would be today.
Im not sure about that. If they could have stopped at Peterborough they would have sought the rights to do so, even if they had not exercised them. It is the track and station access rights that are the primary asset for OA operators.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
let’s say an OA operator abstracts £5m revenue off the Government contracted operators by being permitted to call at Peterborough where previously it couldn’t. The extra cost to the OA operator will be the station access rights, some extra staffing time for the longer journey, and a little more diesel / electricity and brake pad. All of that will add up to a few hundred k at most.
The rest is pure profit, and goes direct to the bottom line, and thus the OAs owners ie their shareholders, ie out of the industry.
Meanwhile, the Government contracted operators have lost £5m revenue; as these operators pass all their revenue through to Government, Government has just lost £5m income. So, effectively, the additional profit to the OA shareholders is funded by us taxpayers.
Im not sure about that. If they could have stopped at Peterborough they would have sought the rights to do so, even if they had not exercised them. It is the track and station access rights that are the primary asset for OA operators.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes out of the industry.
let’s say an OA operator abstracts £5m revenue off the Government contracted operators by being permitted to call at Peterborough where previously it couldn’t. The extra cost to the OA operator will be the station access rights, some extra staffing time for the longer journey, and a little more diesel / electricity and brake pad. All of that will add up to a few hundred k at most.
The rest is pure profit, and goes direct to the bottom line, and thus the OAs owners ie their shareholders, ie out of the industry.
Meanwhile, the Government contracted operators have lost £5m revenue; as these operators pass all their revenue through to Government, Government has just lost £5m income. So, effectively, the additional profit to the OA shareholders is funded by us taxpayers.
Mind you, it’s funny to think it’s the complete opposite view when it comes to supermarkets. Any major takeover and a company is forced to sell some of its new stores to moderate competition.
Supermarkets do not receive public subsidy. It's also a very different market, the Home office does not allocate certain stores/towns to each supermarket and then tell it how long to open at each place, or how big the store can be.
If it's new revenue, that's passenger business that ultimate benefits the railway through things like buying a sandwich at a station or using a connecting service. The price of the profit is worth the benefit for that passenger being on the trains.
Is it relevant that the very first Hull Trains services were formed of relatively small capacity 100 mph DMUs? It wouldn’t have been physically possible for them to make major inroads into the overall capacity of the route, so maybe the open calls at relatively major stations were seen in a different way to what they would be today.
I don't think it's relevant. They started small because they were able to sub-lease a handful of Turbostars from Anglia who had them surplus to requirements and that was the cheapest way to get wheels on the track. OOA was unproven at that stage and it would have been a huge risk to acquire bigger, faster and more expensive trains until they had established a viable business model.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That isn't what Rick said.
If an OOA turns a profit by bringing in new passengers who wouldn't previously have travelled by train, by offering a new service that facilitates journeys that were not convenient before, then they are not abstracting money from the industry. Sure, any new service is likely to have some level of abstraction from existing franchised services, but the track access charges can be used to bring that money back home.
Whether it's acceptable that the franchised operations are passing up the opportunity to open up new markets and bring in additional passengers is a different question! Not only does it mean that the industry is losing out on the profit that the OOA is making, but it also means that those routes – which over time become an established and integral part of the network – don't have the security that other routes do. If Hull Trains folded tomorrow, what would happen to their services? As far as I can see, they would simply disappear with no guarantee that LNER or any other operator would take them on, leaving a big hole in the network. Which we saw during Covid, the OOAs had no recourse to financial support other than to keep the business on ice, and so those services packed up completely for the duration. Had I needed to get the train to work during that period, I would have been completely stuffed. As a passenger, I'm not too keen on this lack of long-term security!
You must be joking! Two measly, pick up only, five car services, and only on Sundays? Compared to all day 2tph LNER, as well as evening peak Newcastles?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Mind you, it’s funny to think it’s the complete opposite view when it comes to supermarkets. Any major takeover and a company is forced to sell some of its new stores to moderate competition.
Remember that the York/Lincoln slows we see today came after, largely as a response to the likes of HT/GC offering intra-ECML calls and additional London services to some overlooked stations. Stevenage had a very poor, peak-only service before those.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
