Labour policy on open access

[weeklycommuter]

Try telling the people of Sunderland that losing Grand Central was in the interests of "efficiency".

If the services to Sunderland were run by LNER as part of its core timetable, would the people of Sunderland have a problem with that?

Who said Sunderland would lose services?

LNER withdrew their direct train services between Sunderland and London in the December 2024 timetable change so the people of Sunderland are likely to conclude that if the open access Grand Central service were ended there would be no Government run direct train service between Sunderland and London from LNER or any other Government train operator to replace the Grand Central service.

 

[Bald Rick]

LNER withdrew their direct train services between Sunderland and London in the December 2024 timetable change so the people of Sunderland are likely to conclude that if the open access Grand Central service were ended there would be no Government run direct train service between Sunderland and London from LNER or any other Government train operator to replace the Grand Central service.

But would they conclude that if theywere told the services would continue?

 

[HSTEd]

It wouldn't cost much to run trains to Sunderland, even if they are just extensions of a Newcastle service - or even a single set detached.

 

[takno]

What’s not to like?

The seats on the Azumas. If we lost Lumo I'd have to fly.

 

[Dr Hoo]

It wouldn't cost much to run trains to Sunderland, even if they are just extensions of a Newcastle service - or even a single set detached.

And what about Hartlepool (and some other calls on other OA routes)?
I don’t doubt that ‘replacement’ GBR services might be cobbled together by means of portion working or alternative, regular ‘hourly’ semi-fasts that look nice and tidy on a taktfahrplan (at least until a range of Class 4 and Class 6 freights over a variety of different part-routes and varying loading or traction characteristics come along) but it really would be more convincing if people could actually produce such a proposed ‘solution’ (with comparative costing) first.

 

[JonathanH]

Sending the York semi-fast on towards the Durham coast would be a much more efficient way of providing the service than having Grand Central use an extra path between London and York. Likewise LNER combining a Hull and West Yorkshire service splitting at Doncaster and all the paths from Kings Cross in a neat coordinated pattern. Likewise, LNER able to run York, Newcastle, Edinburgh fast services.

 

[swt_passenger]

It wouldn't cost much to run trains to Sunderland, even if they are just extensions of a Newcastle service - or even a single set detached.

It would cost paths on the Newcastle - Sunderland line that are used by Metro and Northern. The once per day LNER extensions were at the start and end of day eg in the morning when the full timetable wasn’t really going yet, using stock that came off the depot early. That doesn’t mean stock was available at other times of the day. I think if theoretically LNER took Sunderland on it would have to run via Northallerton and Hartlepool in the former GC timings and therefore need to use an equivalent amount of additional rolling stock.

 

[Meerkat]

The issue is - as you say - the OA calling patterns which are (very carefully) designed to meet the revenue abstraction tests.

So the answer is to do a deal where in exchange for timetable changes the OAs get better calling patterns, which might well lead to them using longer trains too.
Proper competition for the benefit of the public.

 

[HSTEd]

So the answer is to do a deal where in exchange for timetable changes the OAs get better calling patterns, which might well lead to them using longer trains too.
Proper competition for the benefit of the public.

Competition does not benefit the public, it might benefit a small subset of the population who travels on these trains, but competition is likely to punish the public.

The public, after all, is providing indirect subsidies to these services that far exceed their supposed operational surplus.

Unification and rationalisation of the timetable will almost certainly deliver a better position for the public overall.

 

[camflyer]

Competition does not benefit the public, it might benefit a small subset of the population who travels on these trains, but competition is likely to punish the public.

The public, after all, is providing indirect subsidies to these services that far exceed their supposed operational surplus.

Unification and rationalisation of the timetable will almost certainly deliver a better position for the public overall.

"Competition" is one of the most scary words possible to a trade union official or public sector mandarin. They much prefer it when the public have to accept what they are given and don't have the choice to use an alternative.

Just look what competition has done on some European rail routes where there is a choice of operator.

 

[HSTEd]

"Competition" is one of the most scary words possible to a trade union official or public sector mandarin. They much prefer it when the public have to accept what they are given and don't have the choice to use an alternative.

Just look what competition has done on some European rail routes where there is a choice of operator.

Functionally multiple rail operators provide little more competition than that already provided by alternative transport modes.

And that is extra quanta of competition is provided at great expense to the taxpayer.
Once you account for the Network Rail grant, the farebox recovery of Hull Trains is likely to be around 35% or so.

Total income of £38m, "other" (predominantly access charges) costs are £25.60m, but track access charges are around a quarter of what they should be. So the notional operational surplus of £12.4m is really a deficit, subsidised by the taxpayer of around £60m.

Grand Central is even worse.

The only open access operator with a farebox that could even cover their true access charges is Lumo.

 

[Meerkat]

Competition does not benefit the public, it might benefit a small subset of the population who travels on these trains, but competition is likely to punish the public.

I find it weird how so many train fans decry expensive fares and expect the taxpayer to subsidise them…. until it’s suggested an OA would reduce fares.

The public, after all, is providing indirect subsidies to these services that far exceed their supposed operational surplus.

Are they - new ones have to pay their way don’t they? And they could pay more if they had their calling patterns freed up.

Unification and rationalisation of the timetable will almost certainly deliver a better position for the public overall.

But the passenger will get price gouged as per LNER under government control

 

[HSTEd]

I find it weird how so many train fans decry expensive fares and expect the taxpayer to subsidise them…. until it’s suggested an OA would reduce fares.

Half my posts on this website these days are about the necessity to reduce costs so I don't think that is fair at all.

Are they - new ones have to pay their way don’t they? And they could pay more if they had their calling patterns freed up.

No, because the government has spent the last two decades using subsidies to Network Rail to avoid subsidies to train operators. In my opinion, to maintain the legal fiction of private sector TOCs paying premiums to the taxpayer.

Track access charges are set far below cost recovery and I can't see that changing because it would destroy the open access and freight operators.
Open Access operators pay more than freight operators, but only because freight operators pay essentially nothing.

And it seems unlikely that the increased charges would exceed the losses in additional abstraction - because otherwise the open access operators would be unlikely to agree to it.

But the passenger will get price gouged as per LNER under government control

The alternative is that the taxpayer gets gouged.

 

[camflyer]

But the passenger will get price gouged as per LNER under government control

And no alternative if the service isn't up to scratch.

Go to Spain and you have the choice of 4 operators between Madrid and Barcelona. Not only is competition good for service and prices but also discourages flights and car journeys on the route

 

[Bletchleyite]

Go to Spain and you have the choice of 4 operators between Madrid and Barcelona. Not only is competition good for service and prices but also discourages flights and car journeys on the route

The petty spatting does work to an extent, but I'd rather see one railway actually motivated to try to gain the huge amount of custom that is there in cars on the roads. InterCity was getting quite good at this. What that does mean is motivation is needed to increase capacity, though - one of the aspects of the LNER fare increase trial is that there's scarcity - most trains are full, so the only way to grow revenue is to jack the prices up and so price people into cars, onto flights and onto Avanti's slower Edinburgh service, and the only way to avoid overcrowding is to make reservations effectively compulsory* and turn people away if a different train doesn't suit. That of course also means a lack of room for open access (and that you'd be a lot better off with a double LNER 80x in Lumo's paths than a single Lumo one).

* Because the only affordable fares are Advances.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

And no alternative if the service isn't up to scratch.

Go to Spain and you have the choice of 4 operators between Madrid and Barcelona. Not only is competition good for service and prices but also discourages flights and car journeys on the route

The OA operators cherrypick the best paths, requiring RENFE to receive even more taxpayer subsidy to maintain a decent, comprehensive timetable throughout the day and on less favoured routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The OA operators cherrypick the best paths, requiring RENFE to receive even more taxpayer subsidy to maintain a decent, comprehensive timetable throughout the day and on less favoured routes.

I can't help but giggle at the idea that RENFE (and for that matter SNCF) might ever do that.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The only open access operator with a farebox that could even cover their true access charges is Lumo.

No, it wouldn’t cover the “true” figure, if by that you mean full recovery of fixed costs by all passenger operators.

On a train mile basis the average additional cost per mile would be over £22 and there isn’t an operator in the country that could afford that.

 

[Bald Rick]

So the answer is to do a deal where in exchange for timetable changes the OAs get better calling patterns, which might well lead to them using longer trains too.
Proper competition for the benefit of the public.

Seems a rather one sided deal to me!

 

[The Ham]

I bet they're taking plenty away from LNER too. Though I hate to think what LNER would charge without the competition, they really are a bunch of scroungers under the fare increase trial.

And yet LMER have seen their passenger numbers increase year on year since Lumo started services.

It's entirely possible that they could have seen higher growth without Lumo, however given they have higher passenger numbers than pre COVID (not something that many other TOC's can say) it doesn't appear to be harming them that much.

 

[camflyer]

And yet LMER have seen their passenger numbers increase year on year since Lumo started services.

It's entirely possible that they could have seen higher growth without Lumo, however given they have higher passenger numbers than pre COVID (not something that many other TOC's can say) it doesn't appear to be harming them that much.

Classic "Induced demand" by Lumo. They aren't taking market share off LNER but they bringing new people to the railways by creating a new market for people who are attracted by their lower fares but would not consider the higher LNER ones.

Same as which happens with the budget airlines. The likes of BA, Air France and Lufthansa are still doing well in a world of Ryanair and EasyJet. More choice equals more customers.

 

[Harpo]

Classic "Induced demand" by Lumo. They aren't taking market share off LNER but they bringing new people to the railways by creating a new market for people who are attracted by their lower fares but would not consider the higher LNER ones.

But Lumo’s fares would doubtless match or exceed LNER’s if they had to make a realistic track access contribution.

 

[Dr Hoo]

But Lumo’s fares would doubtless match or exceed LNER’s if they had to make a realistic track access contribution.

Would you advocate that new/ incremental GBR services, e.g. Portishead re-opening or more LNER extensions to Bradford, should also be assessed and costed on the basis that they have to generate a similar ‘realistic track access contribution’?
Would freight, charters, on-track plant moves and so on also be charged under an equivalent structure?

 

[HSTEd]

Would you advocate that new/ incremental GBR services, e.g. Portishead re-opening or more LNER extensions to Bradford, should also be assessed and costed on the basis that they have to generate a similar ‘realistic track access contribution’?
Would freight, charters, on-track plant moves and so on also be charged under an equivalent structure?

Yes, all revenue services, freight and passenger, charter and regular schedule, should be costed on the basis of generating a realistic contribution to industry costs.

Transparent decisions can then be made on whether the subsidies required can be justified by the wider public interest.

Concealing costs or deliberately obfuscating them, or setting charges to arbitrary levels by government fiat is a terrible way to run a railway. In my view it is one of the major sources of the railway's problems today.

 

[stevieinselby]

"Competition" is one of the most scary words possible to a trade union official or public sector mandarin. They much prefer it when the public have to accept what they are given and don't have the choice to use an alternative.

Emotive hyperbole. What makes someone working in the public sector a "mandarin"?
People responsible for running the railway much prefer it when they have the freedom to develop a total service package that makes best use of the available resources, which they can't do as easily if they have to accommodate OAAs cherry picking a handful of services on the busiest routes.

I find it weird how so many train fans decry expensive fares and expect the taxpayer to subsidise them…. until it’s suggested an OA would reduce fares.

Are they - new ones have to pay their way don’t they?

OOAs, pretty much by definition, only cover a very small proportion of passenger journeys, and so any contribution they may make to lowering the overall/average fares is minimal and marginal. I would much rather see structural solutions to the problem of high fares rather than this scrappy sticking-plaster approach that can never work at scale.

OAAs don't pay their full share of the infrastructure costs, no, and so they are (indirectly) subsidised by the taxpayer. Now there's a separate discussion to be had around whether that's fair, and whether it's right that they only need to cover the marginal costs and not all the fixed costs, but we need to be honest about the fact that they have a lower cost base as a result, and so if they offer cheaper fares then it is likely to be at least in part because of this discrepancy.

 

[The Ham]

Yes, all revenue services, freight and passenger, charter and regular schedule, should be costed on the basis of generating a realistic contribution to industry costs.

Transparent decisions can then be made on whether the subsidies required can be justified by the wider public interest.

Concealing costs or deliberately obfuscating them, or setting charges to arbitrary levels by government fiat is a terrible way to run a railway. In my view it is one of the major sources of the railway's problems today.

All revenue services should cover ALL industry costs?

In which case it's reasonable:

- for English services to cover the costs of Welsh and Scottish enhancements and support for their TOC's (even though it's devolved)?

- for them to pay their share of the £8.5bn for HS2?

- for them to cover their share of other TOC's staff costs?

I'm being deliberately difficult I know, but the point is, if we can exclude the above then there's likely to be other items we can justify that we exclud.

Looking at it from the other way. Many of the Network Rail costs would be the same if we ran 1 train a day as if we run 18,000 trains a day nationally, and a few of the other costs don't have a lot of difference if there's 1tph on a line or 6tph.

As has been identified, unless there's data to the contrary, Lumo hasn't appeared to negatively impact LNER's passenger numbers, with them seeing passenger numbers increasing every year that Lumo has been running.

If by running more services we don't negatively impact the numbers of passengers on the TOC run services, they why not assume that there's some level of government spending which would be needed regardless and set a fair value excluding that amount.

That may well mean that the costs go up a bit for OAO's but it may also mean we don't get so fixated on the railways covering 100% of their costs as we'd only be worried about (say) £18bn out of the £26bn total which was spent.

By doing so the playing field can be explained as being level and the prices set accordingly.

However, what will then likely change over time in that (assuming that increasing frequencies makes rail more attractive) if there's more services there'll be less support needed and so everyone wins.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Emotive hyperbole. What makes someone working in the public sector a "mandarin"?
People responsible for running the railway much prefer it when they have the freedom to develop a total service package that makes best use of the available resources, which they can't do as easily if they have to accommodate OAAs cherry picking a handful of services on the busiest routes.

Are you trying to suggest that one of the prime reasons for (nationalised) Northern’s problems is that they are constrained by having to share tracks with Grand Central in bits of West Yorkshire or on the Durham Coast then?
What sort of things would Northern be able to achieve if Grand Central weren’t there?
(A similar issue might arise in East Yorkshire with Hull Trains, I know.)

 

[camflyer]

Emotive hyperbole. What makes someone working in the public sector a "mandarin"?
People responsible for running the railway much prefer it when they have the freedom to develop a total service package that makes best use of the available resources, which they can't do as easily if they have to accommodate OAAs cherry picking a handful of services on the busiest routes..

In other words they want a monopoly without having to worry about competition or customers/passengers having a choice. Yes, I'm sure every business would love that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Feb 2025 ==

Yes, all revenue services, freight and passenger, charter and regular schedule, should be costed on the basis of generating a realistic contribution to industry costs.

So travel by train - as well as freight - should be more expensive?

 

[JonathanH]

So travel by train - as well as freight - should be more expensive?

I don't think they are necessarily arguing for that, rather they want industry costs to be reduced and subsidy made more transparent.

If it was more transparent that for a particular journey the taxpayer is paying 40% and the user paying 60%, and another the taxpayer is paying 5% and the user paying 95%, fares could be unchanged, but users would know that they aren't paying the economic cost of their travel.

Often people ask why they are paying so much for travel, yet even with those high fares, may not actually be meeting the economic cost.

 

[Clarence Yard]

OAAs don't pay their full share of the infrastructure costs, no, and so they are (indirectly) subsidised by the taxpayer. Now there's a separate discussion to be had around whether that's fair, and whether it's right that they only need to cover the marginal costs and not all the fixed costs, but we need to be honest about the fact that they have a lower cost base as a result, and so if they offer cheaper fares then it is likely to be at least in part because of this discrepancy.

The fairness aspect was examined in detail in the landmark 2006 High Court Case, which determined it was fair. This was because everyone only paid marginal costs, Fixed Track Access being determined as effectively being another form of NR Grant, “an artificial construct” in the words of the Judge.

Currently, the legal position is that you can only charge above marginal rates “where the market can bear”. That legal position is expected to change and then the fun will start because where do you pitch the charge. Does it cover short run marginal costs, and/or long run marginal costs, and/or short run fixed costs, and/or long run fixed costs? Will it be line or line type specific or will it be jam spread within region?

Currently Lumo pays £5 a train mile in ICC, more than LNER pays in FTA per train mile but if full cost recovery of FTA and Network Grant is effectively £22 per train mile for passenger operators (assuming freight remains as is), it won’t take too much of a new path charge to completely wipe out OA, with the possible exception of Heathrow Express.