Labour policy on open access

[43066]

The biggest difference from negotiations has been that management actually sit down with the union and make things work. My previous TOC didn't care if we cancelled trains or went on strike.

Thanks - useful insight from someone who actually works for an OA operator - and very much confirming what I said above.

 

[weeklycommuter]

With regard to the Labour Government's policy on open access as stated in the following letters from the Transport Secretary on 6 January 2025 and from the Department for Transport on 4 February 2025 to the Office of Rail and Road the quoted section of the second letter in which the Department for Transport state they no longer support the Alliance Rail open access application to run 5 daily return new services between Cardiff and Edinburgh (having previously supported it because of the policy of promoting direct train services between Cardiff and Edinburgh) illustrates the conflict between the Government wanting to discourage the awarding of more paths for open access train services but not fully restoring train services that ran pre-pandemic. There are officially six train paths an hour each way for long distance high speed train services on the East Coast Mainline between York and Newcastle and before 2020 these were taken by two LNER trains between London Kings Cross and Edinburgh, two Transpennine Express trains connecting Liverpool and Manchester with Newcastle and the Cross Country Trains Edinburgh to Plymouth and Newcastle to Reading services. In December 2025 LNER will take three paths with an additional London Kings Cross to Newcastle service each hour while Transpennine Express will only take one path and will only restore the second Manchester to Newcastle service when the seventh path each hour between York and Newcastle becomes available. The Cross County Trains hourly Edinburgh to Plymouth service has already been restored in full but as the link below to the December 2025 timetable information makes clear Cross Country Trains will then still only have restored about half of the Newcastle to Reading services. This has clearly prompted Alliance Rail to apply to use the paths which would be used by the services not restored for their applied for five trains a day each way between Cardiff and Edinburgh. It may be that the Office of Rail and Road declines to approve the Alliance Rail application anyway because of the overall shortage of paths on the East Coast Mainline for December 2025 or because of the other issues raised by the Department for Transport but leaving paths unused by declining to fully restore the services that used them before 2020 is an open invitation for open access train operators to apply for the paths to run their own proposed train services.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/677bc388d119b345376654a4/dft-letter-sos-orr.pdf

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-02/2025-02-04-live-open-access-applications-dft-letter.pdf

Alliance Rail, Section 17 Application
The Department provided response to the original Network Rail consultation regarding this application on 11 December 2023. The application seeks to run 5 daily return new services between Cardiff and Edinburgh with calls at Cardiff Central, Newport, Severn Tunnel Junction, Gloucester, Birmingham New Street, Derby, Sheffield, Doncaster, York, Newcastle and Edinburgh. Alliance intends to use diesel stock and are seeking a 7-year access contract commencing in 2025.
The Department’s previous response provided support in principle for this application based upon it improving connectivity between Cardiff and Edinburgh and more broadly contributing towards better service provision outside of London. Whilst the Department remains committed to improving regional connectivity, these benefits must outweigh costs to taxpayers and impacts to the ability to operate the network effectively. Upon further review and assessment of the fiscal and operational landscape since December 2023, we would take this opportunity to raise the concerns below. In December 2024 CrossCountry (XC) introduced a weekday service each way between Edinburgh and Cardiff in line with the requirements of their 2023 National Rail Contract. This was achieved without the operator requiring additional paths on the ECML or at Sheffield. Noting stakeholder aspirations, XC is assessing options to add further services between South Wales and destinations beyond Derby without needing additional paths.
DfT analysis suggests that this application does not meet the 0.3 NPA threshold as set out in the ORR’s guidance. We predict an NPA ratio of 0.21 rising to 0.24 after factoring in an estimation of the Infrastructure Cost Charge that Alliance would pay, with estimated annual abstraction of approximately £38m from other operators against just £7.9m of new revenue generated. This represents a significant impact to funds available to the Secretary of State, leaving taxpayers to make up unacceptable levels of shortfalls.
Our original response letter to Network Rail highlighted our expectation that the operational consequences of this application must be fully considered, particularly regarding capacity and performance so that a robust timetable is delivered.
Following further assessments, the Department is particularly conscious of capacity constraints at the north end of the ECML between York, Newcastle and Edinburgh, and the Department does not believe there is sufficient capacity to introduce new services north of York without significant infrastructure intervention. This is evidenced by Transpennine being unable to operate York Newcastle services for which it already has access rights. We also have concern over available capacity between Cardiff and Severn Tunnel Junction, where Grand Union Trains (since purchased by FirstGroup) have been approved to operate new Open Access services from December 2027. Further, we are aware of existing performance challenges around Birmingham and Sheffield, and with platforming at Doncaster. All of these issues would be made worse by the introduction of new Open Access services in these areas.
As stated above, XC are currently reinstating long-established Reading-York/Newcastle trains that stopped running during the COVID-19 pandemic, in a phased way, in line with demand (which has returned to pre-covid levels). These are compatible with the ECML timetable upgrade in December 2025. It seems unlikely that there would be capacity for these services both north and south of York if this Open Access service is agreed.
The corridor south of Birmingham is also a concern, with new services on the Camp Hill Line to Kings Norton due to start in 2025 and West Midlands Trains working with West Midlands Rail Executive (WMRE) on plans to restore six trains per hour on the CrossCity Line, which is the level of service that the new fleet of Class 730/0 trains has been sized for (as well as being a Mayoral priority).
Adding additional services to already congested areas risks train service performance and passenger impacts across the route. Delay in one location is likely to create substantial secondary delays across the route, and additional services on such a busy section of the network is likely to have knock-on impacts on other operators such as XC and vice versa.
For the reasons outlined above and in line with the priorities of ensuring appropriate consideration of taxpayer and performance impacts as outlined in the Secretary of State’s recent letter to the ORR, we are no longer able to support this application from Alliance Rail.

East Coast Main Line December 2025 Timetable

East Coast Main Line December 2025 Timetable

ecmltimetable.info

CrossCountry
There is an uplift in train services per day between Newcastle / York, Birmingham, Oxford and Reading to create a 2-hourly service via Doncaster. There will be some additional infills providing some 60-minute intervals.
The existing hourly services linking Edinburgh with Plymouth via Leeds, Birmingham and Bristol will continue to operate.
On weekdays one train each way will link Edinburgh and Cardiff, via Leeds and Gloucester (starts December 2024).

 

[357]

And OA staff have real jeopardy - they can lose their jobs, whereas TOC staff know they can let their employer go bust and get safely TUPEd onto the next one

That works both ways - OA management know they have to treat their staff well for the same reasons, hence why there was no protracted industrial dispute at any OA operators. TOC management have no such concerns.

But OA can’t go on strike knowing that they are invulnerable and the taxpayer will just pick up the tab.

And the management can’t sit back and let the workforce strike, without negotiating or attempting to end the dispute, safe in the knowledge that the taxpayer will bail out any revenue loss for months and years on end.

Because it’s the most important difference- TOC staff know they are invulnerable, OA staff know killing the company means end of job. And they know OAs have to make money without political bailout or no job.

However there’s also more risk of OA going bust due to poor management decisions, or external economic factors irrespective of anything the staff do. If my TOC employer went bust tomorrow, I’d keep turning up to work and being paid, hence why many TOC staff aren’t keen to move to OA.

Exactly. It's the same with the freight operators, too, for the same reasons.

Someone needs to tell First Group...

Train drivers to strike on Hull Trains | ASLEF

Drivers at Hull Trains will strike on Fridays and Saturdays in March and April after the company unfairly sacked a train driver who raised a safety concern and has done nothing wrong

aslef.org.uk

Train drivers to strike on Hull Trains​

12/02/2025 -
Drivers at Hull Trains will strike on Fridays and Saturdays in March and April after the company unfairly sacked a train driver who raised a safety concern and has done nothing wrong

Drivers at Hull Trains - an open access operator owned by FirstGroup, the rail and bus giant which also owns Avanti West Coast, GWR, Lumo, and London Tramlink - will strike on each Friday from 7th March until 25th April and each Saturday from 8th March until 26th April after the company unfairly sacked a train driver who raised a safety concern and has done nothing wrong.
ASLEF has 100 per cent membership at Hull Trains, and drivers there voted overwhelmingly to take action in support of their colleague.
Mick Whelan, ASLEF's general secretary, said: 'The company's failure to act responsibly has impacts not just for rail workers and passengers at Hull Trains but right across the wider rail industry.
'We have a culture on the railway designed to keep everyone safe. Anyone who works on the railway should be able to report a safety concern without fearing they will be penalised, punished, or lose their livelihood.'
Nigel Roebuck, ASLEF's full-time organiser in the north-east of England, and our lead officer with Hull Trains, said: 'The company has got this completely wrong. It has ridden roughshod over the rule book, and all our agreements, and needs now to have a sensible rethink and do the right thing.'

 

[mrg9999]

Someone needs to tell First Group...

Train drivers to strike on Hull Trains | ASLEF

Drivers at Hull Trains will strike on Fridays and Saturdays in March and April after the company unfairly sacked a train driver who raised a safety concern and has done nothing wrong

aslef.org.uk

Train drivers to strike on Hull Trains​

12/02/2025 -
Drivers at Hull Trains will strike on Fridays and Saturdays in March and April after the company unfairly sacked a train driver who raised a safety concern and has done nothing wrong

Drivers at Hull Trains - an open access operator owned by FirstGroup, the rail and bus giant which also owns Avanti West Coast, GWR, Lumo, and London Tramlink - will strike on each Friday from 7th March until 25th April and each Saturday from 8th March until 26th April after the company unfairly sacked a train driver who raised a safety concern and has done nothing wrong.
ASLEF has 100 per cent membership at Hull Trains, and drivers there voted overwhelmingly to take action in support of their colleague.
Mick Whelan, ASLEF's general secretary, said: 'The company's failure to act responsibly has impacts not just for rail workers and passengers at Hull Trains but right across the wider rail industry.
'We have a culture on the railway designed to keep everyone safe. Anyone who works on the railway should be able to report a safety concern without fearing they will be penalised, punished, or lose their livelihood.'
Nigel Roebuck, ASLEF's full-time organiser in the north-east of England, and our lead officer with Hull Trains, said: 'The company has got this completely wrong. It has ridden roughshod over the rule book, and all our agreements, and needs now to have a sensible rethink and do the right thing.'

What was the safety concern in detail?

 

[357]

What was the safety concern in detail?

I don't think the info has been made public yet.

In this sort of situation it would be very easy to accuse staff members of bringing the company into disrepute unless you tread very carefully.

 

[mrg9999]

I don't think the info has been made public yet.

In this sort of situation it would be very easy to accuse staff members of bringing the company into disrepute unless you tread very carefully.

Nearly all the companies I've worked in since the 90s there have been anonymous reporting systems and anything that could affect safety was positively encouraged if it was a system failure. It was more difficult if it involved an individual and working practices and the personnel involved needed to be interviewed.

 

[OneOfThe48]

I don't think the info has been made public yet.

In this sort of situation it would be very easy to accuse staff members of bringing the company into disrepute unless you tread very carefully.

ASLEF's press release said the comments were made in a company meeting about fatigue, but don't give any more detail about what the comments actually were than that.

Hero from Hull: Train driver who suffers from PTSD after 7/7 fired for raising safety concerns | ASLEF

ASLEF, the train drivers’ union, is calling for a driver – fired by First Group’s Hull Trains after raising a safety concern – to be reinstated.

aslef.org.uk

08/01/2025 - ASLEF, the train drivers' union, is calling for a driver – fired by First Group's Hull Trains after raising a safety concern – to be reinstated.

The driver has experienced several suicides during their shifts and suffers from PTSD following the 7/7 bombing.

During a company briefing about fatigue the driver shared concerns – but, rather than being offered the support they needed and deserved, Hull Trains dismissed the driver.

ASLEF is calling on First Group's Hull Trains to explain why it has manifestly failed in its duty to operate safely on the railway.

This failure to act responsibly has impacts not just for rail workers and passengers on Hull Trains, but, potentially, across the wider industry. Alongside fair reporting practices, operators need to hire enough drivers to run their services so they don’t have to rely on overtime – known as rest day working in the rail industry – which can lead to fatigue.

Mick Whelan, ASLEF's general secretary, said: 'First Group and Hull Trains need to explain why they feel they’re different from other operators in our industry. We have a culture on the railway that’s there to keep everyone safe. Anybody who works on the railway should be able to report a safety concern without fear or favour. Not to fear that they cannot speak up and report problems under threat of losing their livelihood.

'Hull Trains have demonstrated through this incident a lack of understanding of key health and safety principles. First Group needs to explain why they have failed, on safety, and why they have failed their employees and the travelling public. And why they have broken every agreed procedure they have with us.'

Nigel Roebuck, ASLEF'S full-time organiser in the north-east of England, and lead officer for First Group's Hull Trains, said: 'This driver – our member – has done nothing wrong. He has broken no rule or regulation. He was not involved in an incident. But, simply because of something he said at a meeting, he has been sacked. That is, quite clearly, wrong. We have agreements and procedures in place to deal with such matters and the company has ignored them, ridden roughshod over this.

'I fear that First Group and Hull Trains are not taking fatigue seriously – but, rather than help, they want to sweep the problem under the carpet.'

 

[357]

Nearly all the companies I've worked in since the 90s there have been anonymous reporting systems and anything that could affect safety was positively encouraged if it was a system failure. It was more difficult if it involved an individual and working practices and the personnel involved needed to be interviewed.

We have the same in our industry however we are encouraged to raise things via the normal routes first.

I only know of one person who's ever needed to report something to CIRAS and to be fair it was less of a safety issue and more of a personal crusade. He never told us the outcome.

 

[Meerkat]

Someone needs to tell First Group...

That isn’t about pay, which I think makes quite a difference .
Also being a cynic I wonder if the unions are bolder because they think they can force a GBR takeover of the OAs and force them out the game.

 

[43066]

That isn’t about pay, which I think makes quite a difference .

It makes no difference at all to the fact that there is jeopardy on both the employee and management side, in a way there isn’t with TOCs.

Also being a cynic I wonder if the unions are bolder because they think they can force a GBR takeover of the OAs and force them out the game.

Hard to see how that would benefit the union or its members.

 

[mrg9999]

We have the same in our industry however we are encouraged to raise things via the normal routes first.

I only know of one person who's ever needed to report something to CIRAS and to be fair it was less of a safety issue and more of a personal crusade. He never told us the outcome.

We had something called continuous improvement across all sectors. In rail track especially they had a whole team of people publishing stats about safety and how many death free days we had had, although accidents were quite high.I used to like delivering safety inductions and going around looking for issues, reporting and fixing before they became an incident.

 

[43066]

We had something called continuous improvement across all sectors. In rail track especially they had a whole team of people publishing stats about safety and how many death free days we had had, although accidents were quite high.I used to like delivering safety inductions and going around looking for issues, reporting and fixing before they became an incident.

This kind of thing is encouraged in most parts of the railway, albeit anything that involves spending money is difficult to achieve.

 

[Meerkat]

It makes no difference at all to the fact that there is jeopardy on both the employee and management side, in a way there isn’t with TOCs.

Jeopardy doesn’t lead to no strikes, it just raises the bar. Pay is one thing, but your colleagues getting unjustifiably sacked over safety matters is something you can’t really ignore.

Hard to see how that would benefit the union or its members.

I know they are different unions but it’s hard to see why the RMT thinks nationalisation will benefit it’s members but it has been their crusade for years.

 

[Cowley]

As this just seems to have turned into another debate about unions we’re going to lock it for now.

If anyone has anything that would spark some interesting and relevant debate about Labour’s policy on open access operations then please use the report function to get in touch.

Thanks