Open Access Operators

[NSE]

Hey,
Been reading some pages about prospective operators on wikipedia (I know they have some very thin, watery and far out plans) and I've been wondering if they were all to get the rights, surely it would undermine the franchises. For any of you who haven't seen, most of them centre around the ECML and are slowly running an alternative operator for everyone of their services.
Personally I think that a service to an area that has no other access to London i.e. Wrexham and Shropshire is worth it. However the proposed ones to Aberdeen with only two trains a day seems pointless, with an East Coast already.
Anyway those are my views and just interested to see what anyone else has to say on the issue (what you'd propose or change as well as your views).

Cheers.

 

[GNERman]

That must be Platinum Trains who had their plans refused by the ORR early in 2009. The plan was to compete with the airlines but I also thought it was quite impractical, and no money was being taken from ORCATS!

It has shown though that targeting areas with little or no services to London is worth it. Hull Trains is doing very well, after Hull only having one service a day, GC is doing well with 4 to SUdnerland and the newly introduced 3 Bradford runs.

 

[NSE]

Yeah I agree some do work, like Hull Trains. But the platinum trains one seemed very odd. The main reason was that there was no way that a non-stop path from Waverly to Kings Cross could happen. The only way would be maybe to run it on some very long elongated route half way round the country.

 

[CarterUSM]

Let them try it, however questionable it may seem, they will sink or swim.

 

[NSE]

Evidently it will be swim in the case of Platinum trains, but the Humber Coast one seems interesting. But again an odd choice of route. Check them out on Wikipedia and see what you think.

 

[rail-britain]

Personally, the railway is still far too regulated and anti-competitive
However, the bus and coach industry went through the same process and has been left with the same lack of competition

If a company wants to commence a "new" route, then they should be encouraged to do so
The ORR tend to refuse many applications as the existing TOC are protecting their revenue, in effect they are being anti-competitive
Even where a "new" route does not directly compete the same objections are raised, as Grand Central found with GNER (although the only station points of overlap were Kings Cross and York)

Stations of excess demand should be identified, and new operators encouraged to commence new services there
However again the existing TOC would object as that is their revenue

(apologies, had to post early and not complete my reply) :
The next issue is rolling stock, or the lack of it
There appear to be vast amounts put into storage but once there it rarely reappears for operational use again

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Hey,
Been reading some pages about prospective operators on wikipedia (I know they have some very thin, watery and far out plans) and I've been wondering if they were all to get the rights, surely it would undermine the franchises. For any of you who haven't seen, most of them centre around the ECML and are slowly running an alternative operator for everyone of their services.
Personally I think that a service to an area that has no other access to London i.e. Wrexham and Shropshire is worth it. However the proposed ones to Aberdeen with only two trains a day seems pointless, with an East Coast already.
Anyway those are my views and just interested to see what anyone else has to say on the issue (what you'd propose or change as well as your views).

Cheers.

Most Open Access Operators seem obsessed with running to and from London, which is fine but London already has very good links to the rest of the country.

What is desperately needed is a DECENT open access operator on some cross country inter urban routes, as most of these services are overcrowded and over priced.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

That's EXACTLY my view!

There is a proven high demand for some of those XC routes (and some similar non-London journeys). Its surely easier to come up with a business plan that generates a profit on these crowded routes than on a yet-another-town-to-London service.

 

[Pumbaa]

The problem with that though is that TOCs will go squeeling to ORR about ORCATS extraction. Just won't happen!

 

[me123]

There is a proven high demand for some of those XC routes (and some similar non-London journeys). Its surely easier to come up with a business plan that generates a profit on these crowded routes than on a yet-another-town-to-London service.

The proposed Glasgow Trains service (linking Glasgow to Liverpool and Nottingham) would certainly have filled in a much needed gap in the market. Whilst it would have certainly been well used, it doesn't seem to have gone very far. It's pretty disappointing; it's the only serious proposal so far which avoids London.

I think there would also be a demand for Glasgow-Leeds via the Settle and Carlisle line, which could take advantage of a huge business market, the scenery on the S&C line, and the cheap day return fare available on this particular route.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The problem with that though is that TOCs will go squeeling to ORR about ORCATS extraction. Just won't happen!

Not necessarily.
First (and this was my point above) there appears to be the potential for routes which could be operated viably.
Second, if these don't correspond to existing franchised routes, then what basis would any franchisee have for argument?

Maybe it is NOT possible to make a profit from a rail service anywhere in the UK which isn't a franchise, but THAT's the issue which good market research and costings should be establishing in a business plan.

 

[Failed Unit]

Part of the problem I guess is with rolling stock. I know you can hire some coaches from cargo d and a loco from DBS. But the start up costs are very high. Hull trains had a fairly low risk start if it failed the 170s just went back to anglia. It wasn't until later the took the risk on leasing new stock. The perfect stock for Glasgow Leeds would be some form of sprinter. Shame there are none spare

 

[Pumbaa]

Not necessarily.
First (and this was my point above) there appears to be the potential for routes which could be operated viably.
Second, if these don't correspond to existing franchised routes, then what basis would any franchisee have for argument?

Maybe it is NOT possible to make a profit from a rail service anywhere in the UK which isn't a franchise, but THAT's the issue which good market research and costings should be establishing in a business plan.

I quite agree with you Dave, but my point is that there are so many hurdles to overcome on a cross-country OA operation; London flows are much simpler to overcome in comparison.

Constructing an imaginary OAO here: Chester - Runcorn East - Warrington BQ - Newton-le-Willows - Manchester - Stockport - Hazel Grove - Sheffield - Doncaster - Goole - Hull.

No particular reason for this, just the first idea that came through to me. You have here 6 operators that you're pinching money from; EMT, NT, TPE, HT, XC, ATW (and VT slightly as well). Compared to London OAO - GC have EC, NT, TPE (3); HT have NT, EC, TPE (3); WSMR have ATW, CR, XC, LM (4). Out of those three, WSMR had the biggest ORR difficulties to overcome as they couldn't satisfactorily overcome ORCATS potential. One of the reasons they won the toss was because ATW flows on Shrews - Wrexham weren't considered of vital importance to the health of the All-Wales franchise. Remember despite the fact a route doesn't exactly map an existing service, doesn't mean it doesn't bring a pretty penny into a franchise.

Off the top of my head here, TPE who price flows into Hull, the fares are considerably inflated above normal, and the same is true where they price flows that nominally receive only 1tph operated by TPE.

You probably could justify an OAO running at a profit, and I think it would be quite easy to make a satisfactory business case. But existing TOCs won't allow it to get a look-in.

 

[p.d87]

Part of the problem I guess is with rolling stock. I know you can hire some coaches from cargo d and a loco from DBS. But the start up costs are very high. Hull trains had a fairly low risk start if it failed the 170s just went back to anglia. It wasn't until later the took the risk on leasing new stock. The perfect stock for Glasgow Leeds would be some form of sprinter. Shame there are none spare

i would try and get the 170/3s from scotrail for this as you could then offer a better onboard service using the mini buffet i.e complimentary hot meals for 1st class. Using a sprinter would offer at best a trolley with a limited catering supply of stock.

 

[rail-britain]

The Renassaince Trains proposal, between Glasgow and Nottingham, basically reintroduces a service that was withdrawn in the late 1980s
This service was withdrawn basically for Sprinter introduction and no other reason
In effect it was replaced by a Stranraer - Newcastle service, which was seen as a better utilisation of the rolling stock, rather than looking at an actual route

However this proposal faces stiff objections, albeit they are mostly unfounded
Virgin Trains, FTPE, and FSR would object on the Glasgow - Carlisle section
Northern would object on the Carlisle - Leeds section
Equally, the freight companies can argue that paths are at a premium on these routes

If a DMU was used, then it may as well be routed via the GSW
Although the service would take about an hour longer than via the WCML, this offers more onward connections (Kilmarnock for Ayrshire)

On the plus side, I suspect that in a few years time there will be a surplus of suitable DMU as electrification projects start to be commenced
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

try and get the 170/3s from scotrail for this as you could then offer a better onboard service using the mini buffet

FSR would be very reluctant to give up any Class 170 DMU, more likely to reliniquish Class 158 DMU
Equally, in a few years time there will be a surplus of Class 156 DMU on FSR, a decision has still to be made whether to cascade these within FSR (to displace the Class 158) or simply return them to lease
I suspect a cascade is the preferred option as the Class 156 can be used to strengthen existing routes where the Class 156 has to be used (GSW and WHL)

 

[NSE]

I do think that was an interesting point, about a service not going to London. I appreciate the other point about plenty more TOC's to consider. But Its does seem abit stupid, that the quickest way from Cambridge to Birmingham (Cambridge being a station I frequently use) is to go to London and back up, despite the direct XC service. This takes almost three hours.

An OAO could really find a niche in the market there, however it would need to be quicker than going down to London and back up.

 

[rail-britain]

Cambridge to Birmingham despite the direct XC service An OAO could really find a niche in the market there, however it would need to be quicker than going down to London and back up

If the service already exists, ie XC, then why would another operator be interested in this?
Presumably this is the former Central Trains route?

 

[NSE]

Sorry, didn't mean that an OAO should take that route, but just highlighting the lack of attention that is often given to non-London services.

 

[Pumbaa]

If the service already exists, ie XC, then why would another operator be interested in this?
Presumably this is the former Central Trains route?

Yes - and the XC service already takes a pretty direct route. There isn't a lot more you could squeeze out of it. You could go from Peterborough to Stamford - Oakham - Syston - Leicester then back on route, but thats not where the money is. It makes more sense going Peterborough - Grantham - Nottingham - Leicester; which is what it does already.

 

[HITMAN]

Some of them are a bit dim tbh, for example that one that was going to go from Lincoln to London via Cambridge and therefore take twice as long as changing at Newark would. You've also got Bradford trains which take advantage of a gap in the market providing a slower service from Bradford to London via backward and slower route, as such that with every service you can set of later and arrive earlier with an EC service. Then there was first Harrogate trains which was going to give minor hamlets like Cattal the direct service to London that they so desperately don't need.
Hull trains was quite a good idea, as Hull is a big enough city to deserve an appropriate IC rail link to the south, although I'm not sure GC despite being a good company is really necassary. A direct Nottingham to Glasgow rail link would be a good idea I think, and it could replace Northerns service between Sheffield and Nottingham to allow stock to be used on more congester areas. You would use either 222 Meridians or 221 tilting trains and it would probably be a good idea to couple it with speed increases on the SC

 

[NSE]

Yes - and the XC service already takes a pretty direct route. There isn't a lot more you could squeeze out of it. You could go from Peterborough to Stamford - Oakham - Syston - Leicester then back on route, but thats not where the money is. It makes more sense going Peterborough - Grantham - Nottingham - Leicester; which is what it does already.

The Service doesn't run via Grantham, it runs from Stamford through Lecister.
I do believe so anyways

 

[HITMAN]

The Service doesn't run via Grantham, it runs from Stamford through Lecister.
I do believe so anyways

It does yeah, it leaves the ECML just north of Peterborough whereas the EM service continues to Grantham

 

[Pumbaa]

D'oh! Not my side of the country - thought they ran through Nottingham. Which now I remember is served by separate XC terminators.

 

[rail-britain]

Hull trains was quite a good idea, as Hull is a big enough city to deserve an appropriate IC rail link to the south

Hull Trains were on a winner as they basically reintroduced a previously withdrawn service
It was only withdrawn as Intercity had to reduce the number of HSTs in favour of IC 225s, as their HSTs were being cascaded to IC Western and IC XC

A direct Nottingham to Glasgow rail link would be a good idea I think, and it could replace Northerns service between Sheffield and Nottingham to allow stock to be used on more congester areas

As above, it would also be reintroducing a previously withdrawn service
However, there weren't that many people that used it, BR used it simply to cut down on loco changes at Carlisle and Leeds
Equally, it wouldn't release that many units from Northern if the service ran one or two times a day (as it is quite a long journey time)