Times business article today re Open Access on WCML

[Elecman]

Interesting article in today's business section of The Times claiming parts of the Conservative party are in uproar over the ORR refusing GNWR paths for its Blackpool and Leeds to Euston services, pointing out that despite the Conservatives being the party of competition that the only Open Access services were set up and agreed under the previous Labour government! It infers that the ORR is more concerned in protecting the incumbent TOCs and their premise payments to the Treasury than servicing the needs of passengers.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/transport/article4312756.ece

Tories attack snub to new train route to rival Virgin

The future of competition on the railways has been dealt a serious blow by a decision to block a new independent train operator on the west coast main line to rival Virgin Trains.

The ruling by the rail regulator has sparked a rift in the Conservative party with demands for an answer to the question of why a Tory-led coalition government is failing to promote competition among train companies.

Last summer, Great North Western Railway, a start-up subsidiary of DB, won agreement by Network Rail to run six daily return services each between London Euston and Blackpool via Preston...

 

[The Planner]

And if this was after the election they wouldnt even be bothered....

 

[Masbroughlad]

Does seem a very negative stance on WCML open access.

 

[Carlisle]

It infers that the ORR is more concerned in protecting the incumbent TOCs and their premise payments to the Trwasury than servicing the needs of passengers.

Which is quite likely to be true even if virtually no major player or person in the industry today would say so publicly

 

[route:oxford]

Interesting article in today's business section of The Times claiming parts of the Conservative party are in uproar over the ORR refusing GNWR paths for its Blackpool and Leeds to Euston services, pointing out that despite the Conservatives being the party of competition that the only Open Access services were set up and agreed under the previous Labour government! It infers that the ORR is more concerned in protecting the incumbent TOCs and their premise payments to the Trwasury than servicing the needs of passengers.

Perhaps they should grab a path on the E-W link and route into Paddington?

Post electrification of course.

 

[ainsworth74]

Which is quite likely to be true even if virtually no major player or person in the industry today would say so publicly

Do they need to? When one of the main tests made of potential open access applications is that they are 'not primarily abstractive' then the ORR are always going to be looking to see if the application will have a negative impact on incumbent TOCs.

If open access was truely about open access then the only test would be 'are their paths available?' if the answer is 'yes' then the service can go ahead (as long as the applicant can sort out the logistics like stock, staff and safety cases).

As long as one the main tests is the abstraction test then it's going to be about protecting the incumbent TOCs and the Treasury. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being hopelessly optimistic/naive.

 

[Carlisle]

As long as one the main tests is the abstraction test then it's going to be about protecting the incumbent TOCs and the Treasury. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being hopelessly optimistic/naive.

So in reality we have what amounts to a continuation of Virgins former "moderation of competition " rule just worded slightly differently nowadays

 

[ainsworth74]

Potentially. Though as seen on the ECML it is possible to set up open access services whereas when the moderation of competition clause was in effect it would have been totally impossible to have any open access on the WCML.

 

[pdeaves]

despite the Conservatives being the party of competition that the only Open Access services were set up and agreed under the previous Labour government!

Perhaps they should set up a competing ORR...:grin:

 

[BantamMenace]

Does seem a very negative stance on WCML open access.

Probably due to Euston being pretty full as it is and about to be choked for the construction of HS2.

After HS2 there might be more room at Euston but no demand for the OA.

 

[WatcherZero]

The open access test is weighted in the applicants favour by 2:1, don't see how they could make it any easier. A comparison could be councils approval of hot food takeaway licenses, if there is too many in one place and they believe that more would be harmful to the community or health of the existing businesses they can refuse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The open access test is weighted in the applicants favour by 2:1, don't see how they could make it any easier. A comparison could be councils approval of hot food takeaway licenses, if there is too many in one place and they believe that more would be harmful to the community or health of the existing businesses they can refuse.

Though with trains the presence of a Blackpool to Euston service isn't going to make more people use VT as well, or I wouldn't have thought so. With shops, however counter-intuitive it may seem, the presence of more than one (even selling vaguely similar things) tends to attract significantly increased footfall by creating a centre that people will travel to from further away.

One example is that near me there has for years been a smallish Co-op. A new development with a Tesco Express opened right next to it - locals thought it would kill the Co-op off. Quite the opposite (and the staff agree if you ask them) - it has attracted more business to both because people now know if one hasn't got what they want, the other likely has.

Neil

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

My reading of the rejection letter is that the Leeds route is more troublesome than the Blackpool.
With all the issues over TP electrification and the Northern Hub "6tph" plan, the view seems to be that there are no free paths and if there were they would be abstractive of TPE between Manchester and Leeds, to the extent that they would undermine the Northern Hub investment.
For Blackpool, the proposals were pretty much neutral, but there was only one off-peak hourly path available, even before the Euston reconstruction limitations kick in.

Alliance also clearly wants approval for services before the next WCML timetable revision is agreed.
In some (understandable) ways they are trying to bounce the ORR into letting them have their paths before other operators get their shout.
I can see why, overall, the ORR has rejected the bid for now.
But it must seem a tad "unfair" to the outsider.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Perhaps they should grab a path on the E-W link and route into Paddington?

Or combine with a CrossCountry service via Oxford (owner: Arriva) or a Chiltern service into Marylebone (owner: Arriva). Yes, I know it's not that simple.

 

[Chester1]

My reading of the rejection letter is that the Leeds route is more troublesome than the Blackpool.
With all the issues over TP electrification and the Northern Hub "6tph" plan, the view seems to be that there are no free paths and if there were they would be abstractive of TPE between Manchester and Leeds, to the extent that they would undermine the Northern Hub investment.
For Blackpool, the proposals were pretty much neutral, but there was only one off-peak hourly path available, even before the Euston reconstruction limitations kick in.

Alliance also clearly wants approval for services before the next WCML timetable revision is agreed.
In some (understandable) ways they are trying to bounce the ORR into letting them have their paths before other operators get their shout.
I can see why, overall, the ORR has rejected the bid for now.
But it must seem a tad "unfair" to the outsider.

I agree, there was legitmate reasons for it to fail narrowly. I think they will submit a third application and probably get it, getting from 27% new customers to 30% is doable. I am concerned though about the sixth TPE path argument. Providing that enough disel trains could be found, couldn't an extra Liverpool-Manchester service be introduced along the CLC to replace the loss of part of the sixth service? The GNWR service from Leeds would be 5 coaches and probably 10 in the future so more capacity than TPE is offering. Another factor is whether there needs to be more capacity on Manchester-London services, whether a 4th Piccadilly service is possible and if not is there any other option than a Victoria-London service.

Also, do you think there is any possibility of First Hull trains running a Liverpool-Hull service? If they pay for Selby-Hull electrification then extra services could help pay back the money. I know Alliance looked at it but decided that the extra TPE services made it unprofitable. It would make sense for First to hedge its bets over losing the TPE franchise and tie up 30 year contracts on Hull-London/Liverpool services. It would also block Alliance from using the paths.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I agree, there was legitmate reasons for it to fail narrowly. I think they will submit a third application and probably get it, getting from 27% new customers to 30% is doable. I am concerned though about the sixth TPE path argument. Providing that enough disel trains could be found, couldn't an extra Liverpool-Manchester service be introduced along the CLC to replace the loss of part of the sixth service? The GNWR service from Leeds would be 5 coaches and probably 10 in the future so more capacity than TPE is offering. Another factor is whether there needs to be more capacity on Manchester-London services, whether a 4th Piccadilly service is possible and if not is there any other option than a Victoria-London service.

Also, do you think there is any possibility of First Hull trains running a Liverpool-Hull service? If they pay for Selby-Hull electrification then extra services could help pay back the money. I know Alliance looked at it but decided that the extra TPE services made it unprofitable. It would make sense for First to hedge its bets over losing the TPE franchise and tie up 30 year contracts on Hull-London/Liverpool services. It would also block Alliance from using the paths.

In a Northern Hub context, CLC-Leeds is out because it repeats the congestion outside Piccadilly that the Hub is supposed to avoid.
CLC-Sheffield is OK but is still hard to handle across Manchester/Stockport.
I don't really understand the 6tph Leeds thing because 4tph with longer trains would surely be more efficient, and leave paths for others?
They still seem to have a short train mindset even in an electric era.

No open access applications have been made that don't include London.
I doubt if FHT would want to take the risk of Hull-Liverpool.

Alliance still has its ECML application in though (King's Cross-Edinburgh).
That might tell us if the ORR is anti-open access or not.

 

[BantamMenace]

Wouldn't a Hull, Brough, Selby, York, Thirsk, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Berwick, Dunbar, Edinburgh then further north in Scotland or over to Glasgow be a better prospect. Hull to the North east and Scotland isn't a catered for market yet and is awkward to do by rail.

Similarly a Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Sunderland, Newcastle and onto Scotland service.

 

[IanXC]

Also, do you think there is any possibility of First Hull trains running a Liverpool-Hull service? If they pay for Selby-Hull electrification then extra services could help pay back the money. I know Alliance looked at it but decided that the extra TPE services made it unprofitable. It would make sense for First to hedge its bets over losing the TPE franchise and tie up 30 year contracts on Hull-London/Liverpool services. It would also block Alliance from using the paths.

As I understand it the project is based on a commitment for the Northern, Transpennine and East Coast franchisees to use electric stock once the wires are in place - so they're already capturing that benefit for the project.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

Surely the article makes a rather basic error - that privatisation was designed to create genuine competition. When you look at industry after industry and note that what's been created is a cartel, why should competition be allowed?

 

[muddythefish]

They still seem to have a short train mindset even in an electric era.

In a nutshell, this is why the rail network is overcrowded. Too many trains, running too frequently, that have too few coaches.

 

[3141]

In a nutshell, this is why the rail network is overcrowded. Too many trains, running too frequently, that have too few coaches.

Aren't there two different issues in that?

One is whether there are too many trains running too frequently. Experience has shown that a more frequent service can attract more passengers. The situation can vary - every 30 minutes offers more convenience than every hour, but on the whole every 10 minutes (6 tph) won't provide a great deal more convenience than every 15 minutes (4 tph), and you can have as much capacity with 4 x 3 coaches per hour as with 6 x 2 coaches per hour.

That leads to the second issue, which is about how the total capacity of the trains running on a route matches the demand for travel. The "network" may be overcrowded, as a result of frequent trains, but that's not the same as the trains being overcrowded because they're too short. You could ease the pressures on the network by halving the number of trains, and maintain the capacity by doubling the length of each train. If the available capacity was insufficient to meet the demand whichever way it was done, no-one would have benefitted and some would have been inconvenienced because they now had to wait longer.

On the east coast route, I suspect that the demand for places to Hull and to Bradford via Halifax does not usually exceed the capacity of a 5-coach DMU, but I agree that there are sections of the line nearer to London where a 5-coach train occupying a path prevents more capacity being offered to passengers who want places like Hitchin or Huntingdon, assuming somebody had the 10 or 12 spare coaches to fill that path more economically.

 

[nuneatonmark]

Getting back to the original point of this post. Ok so according to their calculations it's marginal, 'cost' wise BUT the ORR recognises the significant benefits to passengers of the proposed new services. So, why not put the passengers first for a change. Give GNWR a good go at making it work without screwing anything else up with no other cost to the taxpayer. If they don't do what they say they are going to do then let them take the risk that the 'licence' won't be renewed after say 5 years. Ok, we accept a small risk to other operators etc, but why not?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That leads to the second issue, which is about how the total capacity of the trains running on a route matches the demand for travel.

Also because the demand for travel is elastic. Ignoring very unremunerative local services for a minute, there is a very large amount of car travel competing with the railway on pretty much every line. Therefore for each improvement you make to the railway, some of that car traffic will transfer in, as will some traffic from other lines and from coaches etc.

I've often said that the MK-Kensington Olympia-Clapham Jn service needs to either be 8 car hourly (currently 5 off peak and 8 peak, though 4 is insufficient at any time) or 8 car half hourly. I'm certain that upping the frequency to a more turn up and go one will attract so many more passengers that going 4-car half hourly would be even more overcrowded than 4-car hourly, where the low frequency is a barrier to travel.

The same happened with Virgin XC. Improve the service, you have to also improve the capacity unless you operate compulsory reservations (in which case you have the incentive to improve the capacity so you can take more bookings).

Neil

 

[Geezertronic]

What stock do they propose to use for these services?

 

[The Planner]

Give GNWR a good go at making it work without screwing anything else up with no other cost to the taxpayer. If they don't do what they say they are going to do then let them take the risk that the 'licence' won't be renewed after say 5 years. Ok, we accept a small risk to other operators etc, but why not?

Except they wouldnt go anywhere near it with the capital cost outlay of rolling stock if they have only 5 years to make it work. The "we" doesnt really come into it as the other operators wouldnt accept the risk if it goes wrong even though they would get compensated.

 

[Bald Rick]

I say let them have the paths on the conditions that

a) they pay the same rate per path as Virgin do for similar services
b) they have the same £/min rate in their contract for delays on the network as Virgin do for similar services

Level playing field and all that.

 

[Chester1]

In a Northern Hub context, CLC-Leeds is out because it repeats the congestion outside Piccadilly that the Hub is supposed to avoid.
CLC-Sheffield is OK but is still hard to handle across Manchester/Stockport.
I don't really understand the 6tph Leeds thing because 4tph with longer trains would surely be more efficient, and leave paths for others?
They still seem to have a short train mindset even in an electric era.

No open access applications have been made that don't include London.
I doubt if FHT would want to take the risk of Hull-Liverpool.

Alliance still has its ECML application in though (King's Cross-Edinburgh).
That might tell us if the ORR is anti-open access or not.

There are other through routes possible to avoid terminating at Piccadilly e.g. another Sheffield, Airport, Crewe. There is certainly ways of getting 6 trains from Manchester to Leeds with a Victoria to London GNWR service and adding another Liverpool to Manchester (but via CLC rather than Chat Moss).

As I understand it the project is based on a commitment for the Northern, Transpennine and East Coast franchisees to use electric stock once the wires are in place - so they're already capturing that benefit for the project.

East Coast is only running one token service a day. Northern is probably going to seriously contribute through fees though. Id imagine if First lose the transpennine Franchise that First would be better off running a transpennine open access service rather than letting a new a new franchise holder run 6tph across the pennines. Thinking about it, First Hulls best transpennine open access route would be Hull-Victoria-London (rather than my intial suggestion of Liverpool). It would probably have slightly more new users than GNWRs rejected application so go above 30%, would give First a foot hold on the WCML and stop GNWR for good.

 

[Class 170101]

Interesting article in today's business section of The Times claiming parts of the Conservative party are in uproar over the ORR refusing GNWR paths for its Blackpool and Leeds to Euston services, pointing out that despite the Conservatives being the party of competition that the only Open Access services were set up and agreed under the previous Labour government! It infers that the ORR is more concerned in protecting the incumbent TOCs and their premise payments to the Treasury than servicing the needs of passengers.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/transport/article4312756.ece

Unfortunately whilst the Consrvatives preach about competition when it comes to premiums and subsidies the Tories do NOT wish to lose the premiums received or turn down a chance to reduce subsidy on the railways.