Is Open Access abstractive or does it genuinely plug gaps?

[Bletchleyite]

I don't understand the DFT point of view here, OAO are plugging gaps in the market that the TOC's aren't, if the DTF are so anti OAO, why are they not providing the TOC's with the funding to plug the gaps themselves?

I think it's stretching it to say that Lumo is doing that to be honest. Is there really that much demand for Stirling to Euston or is it really just taking revenue for Preston south? And Lumo East Coast is in direct competition with LNER, it has filled one gap in terms of an early London to Scotland but I'm unconvinced it does otherwise.

Hull and Grand Central are probably the two that genuinely do plug gaps.

 

[Russel]

I think it's stretching it to say that Lumo is doing that to be honest. Is there really that much demand for Stirling to Euston or is it really just taking revenue for Preston south? And Lumo East Coast is in direct competition with LNER, it has filled one gap in terms of an early London to Scotland but I'm unconvinced it does otherwise.

Hull and Grand Central are probably the two that genuinely do plug gaps.

My view on it is that LNER and Avanti charge some eye watering fares, if Lumo can offer a service that is more affordable and potentially draw people out of their cars, then they've found a gap in the market...

I suppose the proof will be in how full their services are when up and running properly.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I feel like open access is still good for the railway as a whole, even if it's costing Avanti, LNER, or (in future) GWR money more trains is better in my view.
The South WCML can have passenger capacity issues at times and a few 5 car trains a day aren't a giant addition but won't go unappreciated, and if it brings more people to use rail then that works too!

The existing Open Access operators (excluding Lumo west coast which has had about 5 days of service so far) seem to be going strong, so if they ever get taken off the network I'd hope LNER and Avanti pick up the Staff and Trains and keep running the services.

 

[The exile]

At least with the railway being by nature a heavily regulated environment (both at signaller and ORR level) we are saved the rampant cherry picking that was so chaotic post bus deregulation.

 

[cj_1985]

I don't understand the DFT point of view here, OAO are plugging gaps in the market that the TOC's aren't, if the DTF are so anti OAO, why are they not providing the TOC's with the funding to plug the gaps themselves?

DfT will plead poverty... and would be accused of trying to monopolise the industry, despite that being exactly what they're clearly pushing for... they don't want any operator save for themselves, and the FOCs (and I'd bet they'd be happy without them if they could)...

 

[Bletchleyite]

At least with the railway being by nature a heavily regulated environment (both at signaller and ORR level) we are saved the rampant cherry picking that was so chaotic post bus deregulation.

I think it's also fair to say that competition works better for long distance transport - in cities you always want a coherent, connected network, not operators fighting over a 10 pence fare reduction while wasting buses parallelling railway lines.

 

[A S Leib]

How abstractive are open-access operators outside the UK? The only route I can think of which Flixtrain specifically provides over DB is Heidelberg / Darmstadt – Berlin / Hamburg (otherwise a single change at Mannheim / Frankfurt), and the limited Lindau / Stuttgart parts of Bregenz / Munich services for WestBahn are similar.

Eurostar at least offers routes not currently operated by anybody else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I feel like open access is still good for the railway as a whole, even if it's costing Avanti, LNER, or (in future) GWR money more trains is better in my view.
The South WCML can have passenger capacity issues at times and a few 5 car trains a day aren't a giant addition but won't go unappreciated, and if it brings more people to use rail then that works too!

The south WCML has more of a train capacity issue than a passenger capacity one. It would thus genuinely be better to have a spare path for resilience than a filthy 6 car DMU using it up duplicating Avanti.

I don't agree on overcrowding to be honest. I can't recall the last time I used an Avanti or WMT service with no spare seats at all, particularly since the hugely capacious 10 car 730/2 formations started running (almost half as many seats again as a 12 car 350 if I recall without significant reduction in comfort). The only time it was a real issue was 4 car sets, but there are hardly any 4 car diagrams now on the south WCML. There are some 5 car 730s, but these have about the same number of seats as 8.350.

 

[biggerisbetter]

My view is that if you are having to shift your stopping patterns around not being primarily abstractive rather than what would be the best calling patterns for the network as a whole then this is sub-optimal. Open access operators also tend to use shorter trains into termini with capacity constraints so arguably not always the best use of these scarce paths.

For example, would the netwotk as a whole be better served with Hull having a 9-car hourly LNER service but also calling at Peterborough and Newark or Sunderland with the same but also stopping at Doncaster and a couple of other places south of there?

Also you would think the overall duplication of marketing, HR, Admin, management, maintenance etc. functions for relatively small operations would not be as efficient as a single operator.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My view is that if you are having to shift your stopping patterns around not being primarily abstractive rather than what would be the best calling patterns for the network as a whole then this is sub-optimal. Open access operators also tend to use shorter trains into termini with capacity constraints so arguably not always the best use of these scarce paths.

For example, would the netwotk as a whole be better served with Hull having a 9-car hourly LNER service but also calling at Peterborough and Newark or Sunderland with the same but also stopping at Doncaster and a couple of other places south of there?

I think you'd struggle to justify 9 to Hull, but you might sensibly do a 10 car out of Kings Cross that splits to Hull and Bradford, say, ensuring best use of capacity on the core southern section of route?

Also you would think the overall duplication of marketing, HR, Admin, management, maintenance etc. functions for relatively small operations would not be as efficient as a single operator.

This is one reason I struggle to understand how European OAOs, other than Flix who clearly have a behemoth behind them, are even vaguely economic - you've got a huge backoffice to pay for with what is usually one train pair a day.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I think you'd struggle to justify 9 to Hull,

Tell that to Hull Trains, who run a couple 10 car services each day (and have ordered more stock to run more doubles).

Sundays seem to be a bit variable but sometimes they run more 10 cars than 5 cars on Sundays.

 

[brad465]

For the likes of Lumo, I wouldn't be surprised if they are more additional capacity than taking passengers off LNER, given how busy the London-Edinburgh route is. Edinburgh is the third-largest flow from Kings Cross, with over a million passengers in the latest data, while Newcastle is 6th with nearly 800k passengers a year. In the other direction, nearly 500k passengers went from Edinburgh-Newcastle. These numbers must be filling up almost every train there is. Whether OA remains or not, Lumo's services are needed and if anything most, if not all, of them could do with being double-sets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tell that to Hull Trains, who run a couple 10 car services each day (and have ordered more stock to run more doubles).

Sundays seem to be a bit variable but sometimes they run more 10 cars than 5 cars on Sundays.

They aren't however anywhere near hourly. If there was an hourly service 5 would probably suffice.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2026 ==

Whether OA remains or not, Lumo's services are needed and if anything most, if not all, of them could do with being double-sets.

I'd probably more be aiming for 4tph London-Edinburgh on GBR, all full length, with various calling patterns than a separate TOC that in Standard class doesn't offer much different from the incumbent bar an esoteric luggage policy and slightly, but not substantially, lower fares to compensate for it.

Like with the West Coast the slower services could have cheaper fares if there's plenty of spare capacity on them. And consider a dedicated 260m fleet for those services.

 

[biggerisbetter]

I think you'd struggle to justify 9 to Hull, but you might sensibly do a 10 car out of Kings Cross that splits to Hull and Bradford, say, ensuring best use of capacity on the core southern section of route?



This is one reason I struggle to understand how European OAOs, other than Flix who clearly have a behemoth behind them, are even vaguely economic - you've got a huge backoffice to pay for with what is usually one train pair a day.

I am not necessairly saying, 'it must be 9 cars to Hull' (and you weren't necesairly suggesting I was), but overall I like the ability of a national operator to be able to look at the whole picture and craft services to meet overall network demand.

For example, current services to Hull may not justify an hourly 9-car service but with a couple of additional stops (palatable to existing users due to increased frequency) you can improve frequency for places such as Peterborough and Newark and relieve other services through cheaper advances on this service to Doncaster/Retford/Grantham for example filling up your 9 cars and providing capacity on alternative services across the network by strenghthening others.

I'm not saying this Hull example is specifically the solution for that case but the overall approach allows an holisitc solution. With an open access operator, their only two questions are effectively 'What destinations and calling petterns will get this service approved?' and 'What is the most profitable?'. I don't think in the majority of circumstances the latter provides the best solution for the network as a whole.

In due course I think GBR should be asking what markets have open access operators sought to serve and what lessons can be learnt from this to better allow future GBR service to fill these gaps. The previous franchising model has not facilitated this which is why there was a case for open access operators previously. In a post GBR world I see this case receding.

 

[The exile]

This is one reason I struggle to understand how European OAOs, other than Flix who clearly have a behemoth behind them, are even vaguely economic - you've got a huge backoffice to pay for with what is usually one train pair a day.

The early German ones (even with large companies behind them) didn’t last long. However, the German IC market is (in theory at least) all run on a commercial basis.

 

[JonathanH]

On the left, the view is very much that passenger open access should cease at the end of the current track access agreements with operations and staff rolled into GBR via TUPE.

This was clear in Wednesday's debate.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...1360-E0F8-4D80-B4B4-E9EF69FA9B39/RailwaysBill
This amendment was tabled by Rachael Maskell

New clause 21—Transfer schemes relating to open access operators— “(1) The Secretary of State must make one or more schemes under which persons who are employees of open access operators (‘open access employees’) may become employees of GBR. (2) Any scheme under this section must— (a) include provision that is the same as, or similar to, provision made by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246); (b) provide that open access employees may become employees of GBR in the event that their employer ceases to operate. (3) Paragraph 2(b) applies regardless of whether GBR has taken over operation of any services previously run by the employer of those open access employees.” This new clause would enable employees of open access operators to transfer to GBR under TUPE should those operators cease to run services.

This contribution was made by Navendu Mishra.

Those who work for open-access railway companies do a great job, but open access injects unnecessary complexity and fragmentation into operations and operators cherry-pick the most profitable routes on our network. My view is that no further open-access contracts or extensions should be granted, and that existing services and jobs should be absorbed into GBR at the earliest opportunity.

However, the government's response was

I have always been clear that there is a role for open access operators on our network where they provide value for money.

 

[Russel]

On the left, the view is very much that passenger open access should cease at the end of the current track access agreements with operations and staff rolled into GBR via TUPE.

This was clear in Wednesday's debate.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...1360-E0F8-4D80-B4B4-E9EF69FA9B39/RailwaysBill
This amendment was tabled by Rachael Maskell

This contribution was made by Navendu Mishra.

However, the government's response was

Given Avanti have been told to cut services to save money, I'm struggling to believe that Open Access Operators would be rolled into GBR when their track access agreements end.

 

[HSTEd]

Given the low access charges that open access operators are charged, far below the fully burdened costs of those paths, I personally can't see how they can be considered anything other than abstractive.

Track access charges only cover a fraction of Network Rail's costs after all (last I checked it was ~25%).

 

[NCT]

Given the low access charges that open access operators are charged, far below the fully burdened costs of those paths, I personally can't see how they can be considered anything other than abstractive.

Track access charges only cover a fraction of Network Rail's costs after all (last I checked it was ~25%).

I struggle to identify a European country where infrastructure costs are expected to be fully recovered.

 

[Sorcerer]

I'm in two minds about open access. On the one hand it can plug gaps such as London-Hull or London-Stirling, and the competition can reduce fares and increase ridership like we saw in Italy between Trenitalia and Italo as well as in Spain between RENFE, Ouigo and Iryo, and in France between SNCF and Trenitalia. Even Eurostar might well end up with lower fares with Virgin entering the picture.

But on the other hand, railways by their nature are a bit more constrained than airlines and road transport, and competition will only really be a select few cherry-picked routes (the notable examples I cited are all high-yield high-speed routes like Paris-Lyon or Madrid-Barcelona) because obviously when you're accepting all the revenue risk, you need to maximise your return on investment.

Ideologically I think rail should be a public service first, but pragmatically open access can work for the benefit of the passenger. If the space is available then I suppose it's fine really, but you could still arguably claim open access is abstractive if it's competing with a state-operator like Lumo and LNER on high-yield routes like London-Edinburgh. The WCML equivalent would be London-Manchester.

 

[cle]

Nobody can argue that Hull was well served or cared for by BR or GNER. They may be the minority of OA, but Hull Trains actively built a business and a brand around this - are very well established and also added a lot of London journeys which were underserved on the mainline.

I would hate for these to all be absorbed and then we will eventually lose them, GC, Lincoln etc to 5tph Leeds, 5tph Edinburgh - or similar. Being somewhat glib.

But the ECML was massively underserved by BR overall, frequency-wise. Some hours, just 3-4 trains.

Elsewhere I think the value has been proven less. Virgin saturated the WCML and that is now the benchmark - maybe being eroded towards a 2tph future for Brum/Manc (back to 1 for Liv?) - they built Chester out. And now it's basically full. Could frequency changes be so that an extra Edinburgh could be added (now but also for a future HS2 slot?)

GWML is also a good service, but a solid 2tph service to at least Exeter / Newton Abbot would probably cover demand.

 

[Sorcerer]

Elsewhere I think the value has been proven less. Virgin saturated the WCML and that is now the benchmark - maybe being eroded towards a 2tph future for Brum/Manc (back to 1 for Liv?) - they built Chester out. And now it's basically full. Could frequency changes be so that an extra Edinburgh could be added (now but also for a future HS2 slot?)

Virgin didn't exactly saturate the WCML, they were the franchised operator who should naturally come first. They also had the moderation of competition clause which wasn't exactly unreasonable given a chunk of their franchise revenue would've been affected by the West Coast Route Modernisation. I think one could also argue the WCML is more important than the ECML but that's an entirely separate discussion on it's own.

 

[AnonymeggAB12]

I think it's stretching it to say that Lumo is doing that to be honest. Is there really that much demand for Stirling to Euston or is it really just taking revenue for Preston south? And Lumo East Coast is in direct competition with LNER, it has filled one gap in terms of an early London to Scotland but I'm unconvinced it does otherwise.

Hull and Grand Central are probably the two that genuinely do plug gaps.

And Eurostar and Heathrow Express
No franchise TOC offers direct services from central London to Heathrow Airport and mainland Europe

 

[A S Leib]

No franchise TOC offers direct services from central London to Heathrow Airport

How much difference to the state does it make that Elizabeth Line's a concession rather than a franchise?

 

[35B]

None of the discussion addresses the point that OAOs don't just abstract revenue, but they also grow the market for rail too. If you look at rail in isolation, Lumo may abstract from LNER. But if you look at the destinations they serve, and their marketing, the target is air travel - where they are boosting rail at the expense of the airlines.

Over 20 years Hull Trains have done more for travel to/from Hull than DfT were ever going to allow GNER/NXEC/VT/LNER to do, taking risk and building new markets.

In doing so, they've also provided a challenge to DfT's fare gouging of ECML travellers, providing an independent view of value for travellers to compare against.

The idea that there is "the industry" and it is entitled to income without challenge is one of the most dangerous to rail's sustainability. It's a mindset that leads to complacency and falling standards - the BR of "curly sandwich" memory, as opposed to the innovative bits of BR under the likes of Green and Prideaux.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And Eurostar and Heathrow Express
No franchise TOC offers direct services from central London to Heathrow Airport and mainland Europe

Neither of those is a true enterpreneureal OAO. In different political climes both would have been part of BR, funded by the airport in HEx's case, and a third share by BR with SNCF and SNCB/NMBS in the case of Eurostar.

 

[YorksLad12]

Nobody can argue that Hull was well served or cared for by BR or GNER. They may be the minority of OA, but Hull Trains actively built a business and a brand around this - are very well established and also added a lot of London journeys which were underserved on the mainline.

I would hate for these to all be absorbed and then we will eventually lose them, GC, Lincoln etc to 5tph Leeds, 5tph Edinburgh - or similar. Being somewhat glib.

But the ECML was massively underserved by BR overall, frequency-wise. Some hours, just 3-4 trains.

None of the discussion addresses the point that OAOs don't just abstract revenue, but they also grow the market for rail too. If you look at rail in isolation, Lumo may abstract from LNER. But if you look at the destinations they serve, and their marketing, the target is air travel - where they are boosting rail at the expense of the airlines.

Over 20 years Hull Trains have done more for travel to/from Hull than DfT were ever going to allow GNER/NXEC/VT/LNER to do, taking risk and building new markets.

My thinking here is that (G)BR introduces a "pathfinder" unit.

Taking Hull as the obvious example, run services for a couple of years to prove that the demand actually is there. Then, fold it into the main operation; which helps with stock utilisation (in the case of the 80x units), ticket acceptance, onward connections, the train plan, etc.

Lumo is slightly different. They're more like a reverse Seatfrog (or Tesco Mobile), in that they could sell spaces on existing services at a lower cost in order to fill them.

(Come to think of it, what happens to Seatfog in the Brave New GBR World...?)

 

[HSTEd]

I can't really think of any open access operator that has succesfully "built new markets" other than Hull Trains, which is also 20 years or more old a this point.

If there were lots of other gaps in the industry I would think that the open access operations would have appeared by now - so I'm not really sure I buy this argument.

Lumo might bring in a minor amount of new business by abstracting from domestic airlines on the Scotland route - but domestic air is not the major competitor to the rail industry, so I don't think it really matters much.

Competition within the rail industry might be a benefit to the small portion of the population that regularly uses long distance rail - but that isn't the same as saying it is in the public interest. And it is the public that pays for all this.

Personally I'm strongly in favour of vertical integration of the railway industry, and I can't see any way that that is compatible with the likes of open access operators running around.

 

[35B]

My thinking here is that (G)BR introduces a "pathfinder" unit.

Taking Hull as the obvious example, run services for a couple of years to prove that the demand actually is there. Then, fold it into the main operation; which helps with stock utilisation (in the case of the 80x units), ticket acceptance, onward connections, the train plan, etc.

Lumo is slightly different. They're more like a reverse Seatfrog (or Tesco Mobile), in that they could sell spaces on existing services at a lower cost in order to fill them.

(Come to think of it, what happens to Seatfog in the Brave New GBR World...?)

The idea of a pathfinder unit for GBR is IMHO an oxymoron. The point about Hull Trains was that it took genuine risks.

I can't really think of any open access operator that has succesfully "built new markets" other than Hull Trains, which is also 20 years or more old a this point.

If there were lots of other gaps in the industry I would think that the open access operations would have appeared by now - so I'm not really sure I buy this argument.

Lumo might bring in a minor amount of new business by abstracting from domestic airlines on the Scotland route - but domestic air is not the major competitor to the rail industry, so I don't think it really matters much.

Competition within the rail industry might be a benefit to the small portion of the population that regularly uses long distance rail - but that isn't the same as saying it is in the public interest. And it is the public that pays for all this.

Personally I'm strongly in favour of vertical integration of the railway industry, and I can't see any way that that is compatible with the likes of open access operators running around.

The public interest is broader than you allow. And, while I support vertical integration, the railways have always had to deal with penetrating services (e.g. L&Y services to York). Rigid vertical integration may work for the railway, but it is far from in the public interest.

More broadly, the railway industry has very high barriers to entry. It requires a lot of time and cash to get to the point of being able to launch (note the failure of Go Op), and then requires a lot of expenditure on people and kit to run a service, which isn't guaranteed to succeed and may take time to earn back the initial investment. Until the tail end of the last government, policy was hostile to open access, so the encouragement was slight.

Ultimately, the point is not whether a specific market is new, but whether the overall market for rail grows. And there, we have to acknowledge that the rigid approach of DfT to franchises even before Covid left increasingly limited room for entrepreneurial initiative.

 

[squingo44]

It's difficult to make a counterfactual comparison, but I don't see any reason why LNER couldn't have done a better job serving Hull if left to their own devices.

I'd venture that, as a simple heuristic, any open access operator running service over congested infrastructure is adding more cost to the system than value.