Were there ever plans for open access on the MML?

[YorksLad12]

Hello,

While drawing out the diagram of ECML departures from King's Cross to post in a different thread, it occurred to me how... odd the GC route to Bradford is. LDHS north to Wakefield/Pontefract, then effectively a local service from there via Mirfield, Brighouse, Halifax and Low Moor to Bradford Interchange. I idly wondered why it went down the ECML at all; from Bradford it could go to Wakefield, reverse, call at Barnsley and Sheffield and on to St Pancras. But that would mean using the MML.

So: has anyone ever applied for an OA service on the MML? Would there be scope for one once EMR gets its 810s?

 

[Domh245]

Hello,

While drawing out the diagram of ECML departures from King's Cross to post in a different thread, it occurred to me how... odd the GC route to Bradford is. LDHS north to Wakefield/Pontefract, then effectively a local service from there via Mirfield, Brighouse, Halifax and Low Moor to Bradford Interchange. I idly wondered why it went down the ECML at all; from Bradford it could go to Wakefield, reverse, call at Barnsley and Sheffield and on to St Pancras. But that would mean using the MML.

So: has anyone ever applied for an OA service on the MML? Would there be scope for one once EMR gets its 810s?

With how busy Canal Jn - Luton is, and how space limited St Pancras itself is, any prospective OA would struggle to get paths south of Bedford!

 

[tommy2215]

When Kings Cross is closed, Hull Trains sometimes run a couple of trains per day to/from St Pancras. So in a way yes!

 

[Iskra]

I think the GC service is essentially supported economically by calling at Doncaster and being non-stop between there and London, hence why it runs on the ECML.

GC running via the MML would make through travel to Bradford significantly slower compared to changing at Leeds.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jan 2021 ==

Also were some of the old MML (TOC) service extensions run as Open Access?

 

[ASharpe]

Slightly related but is there a max length for GC services?

I'm sure the HSTs were quite a bit shorter than typical and 180s are only 5 car.

I know they are short enough use the "local" platforms and KGX and fit into the main platforms with a 4 car. Is it that part of the access agreement?

I'm guessing there is not the platform space at STP for a reversing open access service.

 

[Iskra]

Slightly related but is there a max length for GC services?

I'm sure the HSTs were quite a bit shorter than typical and 180s are only 5 car.

I know they are short enough use the "local" platforms and KGX and fit into the main platforms with a 4 car. Is it that part of the access agreement?

I'm guessing there is not the platform space at STP for a reversing service.

They have previously operated 10 car sets out of Kings Cross.

 

[30907]

Also were some of the old MML (TOC) service extensions run as Open Access?

Don't think so. The Leeds and Scarborough are ex BR anyway, which leaves Burton and Barnsley - ORCATS raids perhaps, like other interesting routings around then.

As to the OP's question - I don't recall anything for the MML, and as it would have to pass the non-abstraction question I can't think what might have been suggested: Mansfield-London via Trowell and Melton M? (Sorry for soundijg flippant!)

 

[YorksLad12]

Thanks all. I did think that the southern end would be an issue (if not platform availability itself) - so great an issue that no-one ever put forward a sensible service to run!

 

[HarryL]

Could an OAO not run via the MML but then divert off and end at Kings Cross instead of St Pancras? I imagine it's been considered and there's reasons it hasn't happened but would solve the station problem surely.

 

[JonathanH]

Could an OAO not run via the MML but then divert off and end at Kings Cross instead of St Pancras? I imagine it's been considered and there's reasons it hasn't happened but would solve the station problem surely.

No. There isn't a suitable link from the Midland Line into Kings Cross.

If it was just about platform capacity, consideration could be given to terminating at Kentish Town for the Northern Line connection, in the same way one of the WCML open access operators was looking at using Queens Park.

 

[HarryL]

No. There isn't a suitable link from the Midland Line into Kings Cross.

Fair enough, realised after posting that there doesn't appear to be many links between the two. It does seem a bit weird not to have links though given how close the stations are and if St Pancras ever had issues that prevented trains stopping, they couldn't easily divert them.

 

[JonathanH]

if St Pancras ever had issues that prevented trains stopping, they couldn't easily divert them.

If St Pancras had those kind of issues, West Hampstead (or somewhere further north) would be the terminating point. Diversions into another London Terminal aren't considered.

 

[Bald Rick]

The OA boys, well one of them anyway, have looked at OA on pretty much every route with decent passenger flows. But they need two things:

1) the paths, and those don’t exist on the MML.
2) a market sufficiently different to that served by franchised operators to tap into, such as to pass the ’primarily abstractive’ test. That doesn’t exist on the MML either, as the MML is relatively well served throughout, and if you branch off a little way in either direction you run into the ECML or WCML.

If you look at where OA operators have succeeded, they have all served big centres of population without good London services: Hull and Humberside; Sunderland, Hartlepool and west Teeside; Halifax, Dewsbury Etc. There’s nowhere like that on the MML.

 

[Energy]

The OA boys, well one of them anyway, have looked at OA on pretty much every route with decent passenger flows. But they need two things:

Ian Yeowart submitted them as well!

 

[Bald Rick]

Ian Yeowart submitted them as well!

I wasn’t going to name names...

 

[Energy]

I wasn’t going to name names...

I think he is well known enough on this forum to not need to name him... to be fair though he hasn't submitted an open access operator on the MML yet.

 

[cle]

The OA boys, well one of them anyway, have looked at OA on pretty much every route with decent passenger flows. But they need two things:

1) the paths, and those don’t exist on the MML.
2) a market sufficiently different to that served by franchised operators to tap into, such as to pass the ’primarily abstractive’ test. That doesn’t exist on the MML either, as the MML is relatively well served throughout, and if you branch off a little way in either direction you run into the ECML or WCML.

If you look at where OA operators have succeeded, they have all served big centres of population without good London services: Hull and Humberside; Sunderland, Hartlepool and west Teeside; Halifax, Dewsbury Etc. There’s nowhere like that on the MML.

The other angle might be alternative routings (different intermediate journeys) - and competition of speed vs price. Chiltern to Birmingham, especially once they made a proper go off it, service and time-wise.

MML - I know there are numerous reasons why it isn't possible, but I agree there aren't large unserved (from London) markets. Maybe Barnsley and Rotherham are largest, but they are not huge sources of London travel. So it would be non-London.

It does crops up a lot, I know, but I always thought the best shot for an 'innovative' service would be a pair of services: London to Manchester and to Leeds, both via Leicester and Derby. The Leeds as an extension of the fastest Sheffield (maybe via Barnsley). Manchester via Dore (direct, no Sheffield) and only calling at Stockport.

It would give Leicester and Derby connections to Stockport and Manchester. Those are pretty big underserved non-London markets.

The Leeds would connect Leicester to Leeds and (Barnsley)/Wakefield. Derby would be additional frequency due to XC.

Both could have calls south of Leicester if demand was there - Luton or Bedford ideally. Stevenage still justifies a good amount of calls north. That is a fair amount of new journey pairs - plus London services to Stockport/Manchester/Leeds which could compete on price, knowing they're a little slower (much like Chiltern). If a path for the Manchester could one day become available, and I was the MML franchise owner, I'd be curious.

 

[Bald Rick]

It does crops up a lot, I know, but I always thought the best shot for an 'innovative' service would be a pair of services: London to Manchester and to Leeds, both via Leicester and Derby. The Leeds as an extension of the fastest Sheffield (maybe via Barnsley). Manchester via Dore (direct, no Sheffield) and only calling at Stockport.

London - Leeds would be primarily abstractive (very). The only flow it would serve anew is Leicester to Leeds, and that is tiny compared to London - Leicester - Derby - Sheffield - Leeds etc. The only way to avoid that is to not stop at Derby or Sheffield, and even then it would fail, badly. Not least because almost no one would use it north of Leicester.

London - Manchester would have a better chance. But not much. You have to consider the markets it is serving (even ‘unintentionally’), and fares. E.g. offering a cheap London - Manchester fare is all well and good (and abstractive), but that means you would need to offer cheap London - Leicester / Derby fares, which would also be abstractive, very, and possibly into the realms of predatory pricing.

In any event, this isn’t how most of the OA operators come up with their proposals. They don’t look for underserved markets. They look for big existing flows that they can take a share of existing revenue, but then tag on other, underserved, markets that will help build the case to be ‘Not primarily abstractive’. Without their cut of the Doncaster and Grantham flows, Hull Trains wouldn’t exist.

 

[cle]

London - Leeds would be primarily abstractive (very). The only flow it would serve anew is Leicester to Leeds, and that is tiny compared to London - Leicester - Derby - Sheffield - Leeds etc. The only way to avoid that is to not stop at Derby or Sheffield, and even then it would fail, badly. Not least because almost no one would use it north of Leicester.

London - Manchester would have a better chance. But not much. You have to consider the markets it is serving (even ‘unintentionally’), and fares. E.g. offering a cheap London - Manchester fare is all well and good (and abstractive), but that means you would need to offer cheap London - Leicester / Derby fares, which would also be abstractive, very, and possibly into the realms of predatory pricing.

In any event, this isn’t how most of the OA operators come up with their proposals. They don’t look for underserved markets. They look for big existing flows that they can take a share of existing revenue, but then tag on other, underserved, markets that will help build the case to be ‘Not primarily abstractive’. Without their cut of the Doncaster and Grantham flows, Hull Trains wouldn’t exist.

To me, that's what competition on London-Leicester and Derby might bring. Possibly abstractive though, yes. And have to be priced below Manchester/Leeds.

I'd say the same services would far better under the MML operator, not OA. As diversifying their own business and range of services. Luton or Bedford calls on the Manchester might create new markets - abstracting some 'South Midlands' / Home Counties demand to Manc which might have gone via MK, but that is purer competition!

It's not so different to Chiltern (same with Leeds, which always had a few tpd, yes for depot reasons) - add an hour, halve your fare.

 

[Energy]

To me, that's what competition on London-Leicester and Derby might bring. Possibly abstractive though, yes. And have to be priced below Manchester/Leeds.

I honestly don't think there is the demand, Leicester gets 4tph and Derby 2tph.

 

[Bald Rick]

Possibly abstractive though, yes.

Definitely abstractive!

It's not so different to Chiltern

Chiltern is, of course, specified by the Government, who have elected to encourage that competition. Or at least they did, the world could conceivably change in that respect.

 

[YorksLad12]

I will admit to being curious about the need and/of efficacy of GC's West Riding route (and not just because it annoys me from a mapping perspective). Brighouse gets a direct service to London; Huddersfield doesn't. In a joined-up world, GC could take over Northern's hourly service from Hudds to Kirkgate, instead of starting from Bradford Interchange - or as well as. If it's going to provide wholly local services between Bradford and Pontefract why not go the whole hog?

But it also illustrates a point about "the railway" being a finite resource versus the desire to have competition, which you can't really have because of the "not primarily abstractive" condition. So we end up with these odd services. GC to Sunderland, and Hull Trains - I get those. GC to Bradford and FEC I don't - especially given the reports that the state-approved company wants to offer a similar service to FEC and that they will be running to Bradford every two hours from the next major rewrite.

 

[Glenn1969]

GC gives Kirklees (at Low Moor and Mirfield) and Calderdale (at Brighouse and Halifax) a London service we wouldn't have were it not for open access. I would say these stations (particularly Halifax which has ridership of approaching 2m pax a year) should be able to sustain a London service. FEC I would say is 95% abstractive so am surprised it passed the test

 

[cle]

Definitely abstractive!



Chiltern is, of course, specified by the Government, who have elected to encourage that competition. Or at least they did, the world could conceivably change in that respect.

Yep. But it's grandfathered in, and they have cleaned up with Banbury, Leamington (both former GWR territory), the Warwicks and there is Solihull. And people commute to either end. So that service won't be going anywhere.

And now they have Oxford too. Funnily enough, some of the only genuine competition out there!

Even Glasgow via ECML is now discouraged, and Edinburgh was never truly WCML. Today's Brum doesn't count. Of course that'll change with HS2.

 

[Bald Rick]

So that service won't be going anywhere

Oh I quite agree the service will remain - assuming demand returns of course. But I suspect that competing for end to end Birmingham - London traffic will be, ahem, less forceful. Particularly when HS2 opens.

 

[Shred Metal]

Not sure about Open Access, but has an extension of the EMR Connect / Electrics been considered to Burton, with a split from the Corby-bound unit/s at Kettering?

I can imagine it would be the best case scenario for the Burton to LC (Ivanhoe line), providing the former with a direct connection to London - as a copycat of the Corby re-opening project.

It would beg the question of how it would link with the MML without the need for a new curve + turn back.. or a new ‘South Leicester / Freeman’s Common’ Station.

Thoughts?

 

[30907]

Not sure about Open Access, but has an extension of the EMR Connect / Electrics been considered to Burton, with a split from the Corby-bound unit/s at Kettering?

I can imagine it would be the best case scenario for the Burton to LC (Ivanhoe line), providing the former with a direct connection to London - as a copycat of the Corby re-opening project.

It would beg the question of how it would link with the MML without the need for a new curve + turn back.. or a new ‘South Leicester / Freeman’s Common’ Station.

Thoughts?

There was a service to Burton, but it ran via Derby.
The Ivanhoe line junction faces South at Leicester, so your idea is possible in theory. The problem is that running to London misses Leicester, which is the obvious market (leaving aside issues about electrification etc).

 

[Shred Metal]

The problem is that running to London misses Leicester, which is the obvious market (leaving aside issues about electrification etc).

Acknowledged.

I suppose it’s worth knowing if the prospective Burton to London commuters care about access to an original station in Leicester, or would mind a ‘City South’, with an idea that it would improve journey times from the lack of a northbound curve + turnback.

Would be interesting to know how many stops a direct service could make before loosing competitiveness to a Burton-Derby-London journey.

 

[JonathanH]

Would be interesting to know how many stops a direct service could make before loosing competitiveness to a Burton-Derby-London journey.

Or Burton-Tamworth-London.

I suspect the issue is line speed on the route via Coalville as well as station stops. Having checked the Sectional Appendix, this seems to be no more than 45 mph on any part of the route and as low as 20 mph in places.

 

[Shred Metal]

Or Burton-Tamworth-London.

Ahh yes. But am I right to believe Burton is managed by EMR already? Would certainly score some boardroom points if so.

as low as 20 mph in places.

Yep, and some of these would be the area drivers affectionately refer to as ‘the alps’.

Although I also hear that the NMT frequently traverses these mountains..

The track alignment seems generous enough for adequate line speed upgrades. Just a few public and road crossings to overhaul.

I will believe in this.. ha!