Grand Central to Blackpool denied

[Zoe]

Yes indeed. Please no more Open Access which is just an existing service with a little bit extra tacked on to make it look like something new draining precious paths and rolling stock. Now if an OAO was to suggest something like linking Glasgow and Liverpool or a similar brand new cross country route I might (only might mind you) be interested.

Scotland and the North West of England to the South West of England via the WCML is an obvious one but getting hold of high speed stock wouldn't be easy and I expect XC would oppose service south of Birmingham.

 

[rail-britain]

I suspect Grand Central / Alliance Rail misunderstood what the opening up of the WCML meant
The ORR refusal is not a surprise, based on the business case, however Grand Central should have expected this given the same experience on the ECML
The new West Coast Trains franchisee could easily argue that revenue would be lost between Preston and Euston to this new operator, and the same could apply to the regional operators along the entire route

Equally, the DfT will be looking at maximising the return or reducing the subsidy it has to provide to franchisees
Grand Central has clearly exploited this with the passenger flows along the ECML, and clearlt the ORR/DfT wanted to put an end to this

The next issue for the ORR is as to why two companies would be competing for the same route corridor, ie Euston - Blackpool
Although as already mentioned, the application made by Alliance Rail was not very detailed, and Grand Central have already gone so far as to secure rolling stock

Therefore expect a revised plan from Grand Central by the end of this month
If this too is refused, then the proposal would probably be dropped

 

[tbtc]

Yes indeed. Please no more Open Access which is just an existing service with a little bit extra tacked on to make it look like something new draining precious paths and rolling stock. Now if an OAO was to suggest something like linking Glasgow and Liverpool or a similar brand new cross country route I might (only might mind you) be interested.

Totally agree

I mentioned Liverpool - Shrewsbury - Welsh Borders - Bristol as an example on the other thread recently of what might be a real alternative. Instead, what we have is "London to Doncaster with a bit tacked on" / "London to York with a bit tacked on" and now an application for "London to Preston with a bit tacked on"...

 

[TDK]

In summary:

- Transferring 1tph from Birmingham to Preston REJECTED

Can you put up the official ORR rejection document on this part please
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Funny how enthusiasts don't criticise GNER for objecting to the "competition" from GC, but most seem to dislike Big Bad Virgin for objecting to the "competition" of WSMR... :roll:

I do not see WSMR mentioned in the post you have replied to - trolling I believe :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

W&S started serving Wrexham before Virgin but Virgin weren't happy because they had 'plans' to serve Wrexham.

Arriva certainly complained about Virgin taking 'their passengers' and using 'their space' to store units.

Virgin had no intention of serving Wrexham until WSMR put in the bid to the ORR for the route

Arriva gave the path to Virging to run the wrexham service with no strings attached to try and oust WSMR

 

[tbtc]

I do not see WSMR mentioned in the post you have replied to - trolling I believe :roll:

I was drawing a parallel to the mention of GNER complaining about GC (which people forget about) compared to Virgin and WSMR - seems appropriate on a thread talking about Virgin and "competition" on the WCML...

 

[TDK]

It is stated in the ORR report - is that not a good enough source?

Yes I believe so can you post the link to report please?

 

[swt_passenger]

Can you put up the official ORR rejection document on this part please

The letter (found from the link in the first post) covers it here:

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/wcml-orr-letter-020311.pdf

Para 11(g) and Annex A para 1(d)(ii)

 

[tbtc]

Virgin had no intention of serving Wrexham until WSMR put in the bid to the ORR for the route

Virgin did not serve Wrexham until after WSMR did, but how does anyone know that they had no plans to?

 

[TDK]

I was drawing a parallel to the mention of GNER complaining about GC (which people forget about) compared to Virgin and WSMR - seems appropriate on a thread talking about Virgin and "competition" on the WCML...

Virgin, LM and Arriva all opposed WSMR and Virgin and Arriva knocked heads with the forfeit of paths to try and oust WSMR, slightly different from the current situation with VT with GC & Alliance. However the Dft order virgin to protect their rights and revenue so it not really the fault of Virgin but the Dft, I will be surprised if the moderation of competition clause is sustained in 2012 as it has been publically quoted that it will be dropped however there will in effect be a moderation of competition in place if the ORR/DFT scupper any applications regarding the WCML - through the back door I would say

 

[GNERman]

Can you put up the official ORR rejection document on this part please

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/wcml-orr-letter-020311.pdf

Quote PDF attachment with 30 interesting pages to read...

"refuse the London & Birmingham Railway Limited 22nd supplemental agreement"

Remember that Grand Central in part cost GNER the franchise as they couldn't afford to pay the premium. The franchised TOCs have good reason to oppose Open Access.

Did 6 extra services really kill off GNER??? You don't think that Hull Trains had NO effect on GNER's revenue stream? The premium put down was too much, infact SeaCo's ex MD has been quoted saying this, but Open Access cannot be fully blamed for their demise...

 

[tbtc]

Did 6 extra services really kill off GNER??? You don't think that Hull Trains had NO effect on GNER's revenue stream? The premium put down was too much, infact SeaCo's ex MD has been quoted saying this, but Open Access cannot be fully blamed for their demise...

Open Access on the ECML certainly didn't help GNER. Neither did their optimistic maths, of course, but I wonder whether enthusiasts would have preferred to keep GNER longer (at the cost of no Open Access on the ECML)...

 

[swt_passenger]

I will be surprised if the moderation of competition clause is sustained in 2012 as it has been publically quoted that it will be dropped however there will in effect be a moderation of competition in place if the ORR/DFT scupper any applications regarding the WCML - through the back door I would say

I think the main difference is that under normal circumstances a franchised TOC can object to an OA proposal if and when made - and ORR will in any case test it against their abstraction rules. It is this process that will carry on.

DfT's MoC rules as applied to the WCML franchise (because of the WCML upgrade) prevented any OA Op even getting to the stage of an application, highlights of this procedure saw SN prevented from having open calls at Wembley Central even though DfT had effectively suggested them in the franchise spec, and allowed Chiltern to be banned from their previously agreed diversionary route to New St.

As you note, it's really only the latter type of 'automatic blanket ban' that will disappear.

 

[YorkshireRider]

I think it was the timing of the announcment that Grand Central were to be allowed open access on the ECML that stuck in the throat for GNER, just a couple of months after they had bid and won the franchise with a rather large bid of 1.3bn over 10 years. Some might suggest the timing was a little too convenient

But i would agree it would have been irrelevant anyway, the bid was too high, it beggars believe that Mr Bowker thought that bidding even more than that would work:roll:

I hope when both the east and west coast franschises come up the costings of the bid will be looked at very closely and anything based on silly projected growth figures be rejected, lets not have yet another farse.

 

[Zoe]

I think it was the timing of the announcment that Grand Central were to be allowed open access on the ECML that stuck in the throat for GNER, just a couple of months after they had bid and won the franchise with a rather large bid of 1.3bn over 10 years. Some might suggest the timing was a little too convenient

FGW also overbid but have made it a success. Virgin decided not to overbid and as result lost Cross Country. Had GNER not decided to overbid, they may have lost the franchise to First.

 

[tbtc]

I think it was the timing of the announcment that Grand Central were to be allowed open access on the ECML that stuck in the throat for GNER, just a couple of months after they had bid and won the franchise with a rather large bid of 1.3bn over 10 years. Some might suggest the timing was a little too convenient

But i would agree it would have been irrelevant anyway, the bid was too high, it beggars believe that Mr Bowker thought that bidding even more than that would work:roll:

I hope when both the east and west coast franschises come up the costings of the bid will be looked at very closely and anything based on silly projected growth figures be rejected, lets not have yet another farse.

Would any sensible business make a commitment for the next ten/fifteen/twenty years (depending on franchise length), involving turnover of billions during that time, with a competitive bid designed to offer just enough profit to underbid rivals, when you could see vital ORCATS flows being shared by upstart Open Access companies during that period?

If you want stable operators with incentive to invest then you need longer franchises and moderation of competition. If you want Open Access then you have to accept that it gives a lot less scope for any TOC to invest and make secure plans

Anyhow, the block on OA Blackpool services means that it should be a lot easier for Virgin (or the winner of the next WCML franchise) to plan for a Blackpool service once the wiring is completed

 

[rail-britain]

the block on OA Blackpool services means that it should be a lot easier for Virgin (or the winner of the next WCML franchise) to plan for a Blackpool service once the wiring is completed

Just because the wires are there, does not mean they have to use them
There are loads of other possible destinations along the WCML under the wires that are possible, but West Coast Trains don't serve them either...

Although the early morning / late evening Preston - Euston could be extended
However if it is not in the franchise, then I can see it only being a trial and then dumped "due to low passenger numbers"

 

[tbtc]

Just because the wires are there, does not mean they have to use them
There are loads of other possible destinations along the WCML under the wires that are possible, but West Coast Trains don't serve them either...

Although the early morning / late evening Preston - Euston could be extended
However if it is not in the franchise, then I can see it only being a trial and then dumped "due to low passenger numbers"

I'm not expecting any automatic Blackpool - London service, but there may well be some token extension as you suggest.

Bolton is a much bigger place, but I wouldn't expect it to get a direct London service either

 

[WatcherZero]

Well interestingly it said the Alliance proposal if it had been complete would have passed the abstraction rules. They predict it would have been unprofitable and possibly blocked for causing too much disruption to services but it would have passed :P

 

[jopsuk]

that was assuming that they would charge much higher ticket prices than GC though

 

[GNERman]

Yeh Alliance Rail admitted that they would not always be the cheapest option...

 

[TDK]

FGW also overbid but have made it a success. Virgin decided not to overbid and as result lost Cross Country. Had GNER not decided to overbid, they may have lost the franchise to First.

I would say VT underbid XC to loose it in the first place, good move I would say as it is loosing stacks of money daily, Poor Richard (Branson) was after the ECML, dropped XC and then didn't get the ECML and was not ammused, if I remember correctly letters went out to the XC staff apologising for VT dropping them before the official announcement. It's all politics and down to privatisation I am afraid, I propose VT loosing the WCML to DB and then in turn gaining the ECML to have the tax payer upgrade or promise to to 140mph running, NR failing the task and Richard another 30m in pocket

 

[Zoe]

I would say VT underbid XC to loose it in the first place

Why would they have bid at all then if they didn't want to retain the franchise?

 

[TDK]

Virgin did not serve Wrexham until after WSMR did, but how does anyone know that they had no plans to?

How does anyone know they did have plans to, it was never proposed by VT until WSMR had put in their application to run from Wrexham to London.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why would they have bid at all then if they didn't want to retain the franchise?

If they had not bid there would have been trouble I would imagine, if they had wanted to keep XC they would have easily out bid Arriva Group, however didn't.

 

[Zoe]

gaining the ECML to have the tax payer upgrade or promise to to 140mph running, NR failing the task and Richard another 30m in pocket

At least they wouldn't get moderation of competition on the ECM, unless Grand Central and Hull Trains get booted off.

 

[FrozenPoints]

The ORR have killed Grand Central's Blackpool/Westcoast plan for being abstractive.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Notice that they've also killed Alliance Rail's plans as well- the end for Open Access?

In terms of being abstractive. Does this mean the benefits towards Grand Central is too low, i.e. 0.3 (the number quoted in the document)

OR

0.3 is the ratio to which the revenue would be taken away from the existing operator on the WCML

 

[WatcherZero]

0.3 is the ratio of new passengers to existing passengers, i.e. for every 10 passengers 3 or less would be new passengers attracted by the service to travel by rail while 7 would be existing passengers choosing a different operator. They seem to consider that if more than a third of passengers were newly attracted then it be a valuable addition to the network and wont be simply poaching.

Its an abstract ratio because your giving a comparable mathematical value to thousands of individiuals making dozens of different journeys for different reasons such as price, speed, conveniance, variety of choice.

 

[merlodlliw]

I think it was more Arriva than Virgin because they use Wrexham more than Virgin do

Good morning Ian.

As TDK pointed out, ATW gave up two paths to allow VT into Wrexham, this is fact, the sole reason was to damage W/S, the two paths given up by ATW off its own bat have since come back to haunt them.

If ATW had not given up the paths VT would not be in Wrexham now,as there is no spare capacity between Chester & Wrexham.

Bob

 

[tbtc]

I would say VT underbid XC to loose it in the first place, good move I would say as it is loosing stacks of money daily

If its losing money then thats because of the optimistic bid which Arriva made. The XC services are stupidly busy, it could be a very profitable franchise if realistically bid for
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How does anyone know they did have plans to, it was never proposed by VT until WSMR had put in their application to run from Wrexham to London

This is my point!

All the experts say that Virgin weren't interested in Wrexham until WSMR turned up. All we *know* is that they didn't run to Wrexham until WSMR turned up (they were more interested in the bigger task of upgrading the WCML, introducing brand new trains, increasing frequencies on the core routes). No point in proposing new links whilst you are taking on the massive regeneration which Virgin were going through on the main line. Once that was all completed they may well have taken an interest in expansion.

 

[Failed Unit]

FGW also overbid but have made it a success. Virgin decided not to overbid and as result lost Cross Country. Had GNER not decided to overbid, they may have lost the franchise to First.

A lot of stuff gone on behind the scenes we don't know about. We do know first have 80% revenue support and some deal was done at the time of the overcrowding issues as a result of First getting flak for taking all those coaches off least at DFTs instructions. GNERs demise I understand was more down to sea containers.

Back to Moderation of competition, how far do you go? Examples of what could be blocked as a result. We assume for the sake of the examples stock and paths can be found.

Arriva trains Wales decide to extend their existing services from Wales - Birmingham international onto London non stop from international. This is an extension of an existing service but would probably fail.

East midlands trains decide to bring in a Sheffield - Blackpool service extending the London - Sheffield service. This would fail as it is competition on London - Manchester.

Operator y wants scotland - Bristol, the would compete with the west coast at least some of the way. Would this be banned under moderation of competition.

Routes include.
Edinburgh - Leeds - Manchester - nuneaton - Oxford - Swindon - Bristol with west coast extraction down the Trent valley or Edinburgh - Preston - Crewe - Shrewsbury - Newport - Bristol with extraction between Crewe and Edinburgh.

It is not possible to do open access without extraction somewhere. If first decided to set up a London - Cleethorpes service using a FCC path to peterborough the via spading and Lincoln EMT would go mad, even if it did plug gaps in the service it provides!

 

[Masbroughlad]

The rules do not benefit passengers, just shareholders! Flawed system as far as service provision goes.