West Coast Mainline 'super franchise'

[Philip]

In a similar theme to the questions about merging Northern and TPE together, I'm wondering whether people think, in hindsight, it would've worked better or worse if there had just been one operator running the WCML services; so the West Coast franchise covering both the express services and the WCML-based LNWR and ScotRail services?

Would the fares structure have been better or worse for example, and is it likely that Virgin Trains would've ordered half-length Pendolinos for the slower/stopping services instead of 350s and Turbostars? Again would this have been better or worse?

 

[py_megapixel]

Overall it would have been worse for the passenger in my opinion. The WCML - particularly the south - is one of the few places where we see any approximation to the actual free-market that privatisation tried (and for the most part failed) to deliver - as in different companies running the same routes in a slightly different niche aimed at different customers, and actually competing with each other. This leads LNR and their predecessors to offer cheap LNR-only fares for those on a budget, while Avanti and Virgin offer extra comfort and features to entice people to pay the extra for their services.

is it likely that Virgin Trains would've ordered half-length Pendolinos for the slower/stopping services instead of 350s and Turbostars?

I highly doubt it. Don't forget that especially at peak times, many of the LNR services out of Euston are busy commuter trains with dozens and dozens of people boarding and alighting at one stop, and the extremely long dwell times of Pendolinos and the narrow doors would make it impossible to run the service efficiently.

 

[NoRoute]

Worse, because there wouldn't be any competition to force down fares and keep the operators efficient. Without competition fares rise.

Whenever I've compared fares to London on the WCML where there are two operators competing, to comparable trips on the MML where there is no competition on the route, I've always found WCML significantly cheaper, typically the LNWR offering quite good value fares on their slower services, but nothing similar on MML's slower services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The reason Avanti West Coast walk up fares are cheaper than other routes (and thus Advances have an effective lower cap) is because Virgin Trains abolished SuperSavers and reduced the price of Savers, and then that fare became regulated so couldn't go back up. It has basically nothing to do with competition; the two TOCs really split the market rather than competing.

The answer is probably that if you did that you might as well call it British Rail. It's not a simple route-and-branches like GWR is.

 

[A0]

Worse, because there wouldn't be any competition to force down fares and keep the operators efficient. Without competition fares rise.

Whenever I've compared fares to London on the WCML where there are two operators competing, to comparable trips on the MML where there is no competition on the route, I've always found WCML significantly cheaper, typically the LNWR offering quite good value fares on their slower services, but nothing similar on MML's slower services.

The competition is part of it - but the two lines aren't really comparable.

What is common is they both have a part which is in the old 'Network South East' / London commuter area - Bedford on the MML and Northampton on the WCML. But once you headed north the dynamics changed - the MML was a pure 'inter city' railway, run solely by Inter City in BR days with the fares to reflect that.

Whereas on the WCML you had the Inter City services heading to Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham etc, but you also had Birmingham commuter services from Northampton with fares 'limited' in the WMPTE area - the MML had nothing like that.

 

[SynthD]

Either Chiltern don’t have competitors, or are an Avanti competitor. They are usually the cheapest so I don’t agree with the reasoning above.

 

[NoRoute]

The competition is part of it - but the two lines aren't really comparable.

I rather think they are comparable, travelling down to London from the Midlands on a journey from say Tamworth to London, is quite comparable to a journey from Loughborough or Leicester to London. Both trains stopping at major towns along the route, the WCML service doesn't go via Birmingham. Significant difference in pricing, certainly on advanced tickets.

The status at privatisation isn't really relevant anymore, that's over 20 years ago now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Either Chiltern don’t have competitors, or are an Avanti competitor. They are usually the cheapest so I don’t agree with the reasoning above.

The above (with regard to the Off Peak walk up fares) is fact, not just reasoning - it is the reason why WCML Off Peak walk-ups are a bit lower than the equivalent on most other routes. It doesn't of course affect their Advance offering other than providing a cap above which nobody would buy the Advance as it would be cheaper to buy a walk-up.

While LNR splits the market (there are very few people outside enthusiast circles who would likely consider both for the same journey, particularly for very long distance journeys like Euston-Liverpool) Chiltern is perhaps a bit closer, but that only means there is competition on one route, not all of them.

Of course there is a far more effective competitor against every single railway line in the country - the car - and it's that that is far more significant than minor spatting between TOCs on a few routes.

Back to the original point, if you did it you'd need to include as a minimum LNR, WMR, Northern (West) and a chunk of ScotRail if you wanted to "ape" GWR with Avanti - hence why you'd be getting quite close to just being BR. That isn't even nearly feasible. GWR is much simpler - basically a few main routes with simple branches.

 

[Philip]

Northern wouldn't come into it as they don't operate any services contained within the WCML, only part using it and then going off elsewhere.

WMT/LNWR do run services which start and end on the WCML (London-Birmingham, London-Northampton, London-Crewe, Liverpool-Birmingham at a stretch) and I was thinking of these services joining the express services under one operator.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Northern wouldn't come into it as they don't operate any services contained within the WCML, only part using it and then going off elsewhere.

They operate connections to it - the GWR model has them operating those connecting branches too.

WMT/LNWR do run services which start and end on the WCML (London-Birmingham, London-Northampton, London-Crewe, Liverpool-Birmingham at a stretch) and I was thinking of these services joining the express services under one operator.

That would be less of a bind but I suspect it would just end up as two business units anyway.

I'd probably say Liverpool to Brum would be the best fit as that is a sort-of-intercity service.

 

[Philip]

They operate connections to it - the GWR model has them operating those connecting branches too.



That would be less of a bind but I suspect it would just end up as two business units anyway.

I'd probably say Liverpool to Brum would be the best fit as that is a sort-of-intercity service.

And Crewe to London surely?

I forgot the TPE Scotland service, this seems suitable to join the West Coast franchise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And Crewe to London surely?

That's a secondary regional express service so only if the other south WCML services are. The LNR Liv-Brum is the primary service between the two.

I forgot the TPE Scotland service, this seems suitable to join the West Coast franchise.

Yes, that is, and HS2 is proposed to change it to a London-Manchester-Scotland through service, though who knows what will happen by then!

 

[SargeNpton]

I rather think they are comparable, travelling down to London from the Midlands on a journey from say Tamworth to London, is quite comparable to a journey from Loughborough or Leicester to London. Both trains stopping at major towns along the route, the WCML service doesn't go via Birmingham. Significant difference in pricing, certainly on advanced tickets.

The status at privatisation isn't really relevant anymore, that's over 20 years ago now.

You may be surprised at just how much the situation at privatisation still affects fares today.

 

[JonathanH]

If they do form this WCML super franchise, they will need to learn from the mistakes of the Thameslink / Southern / Gatwick Express combination and remove the LNR differential fares on day 1 (or maybe before) so that people don't start raising the same issues about the legality of different brands having different fares.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If they do form this WCML super franchise, they will need to learn from the mistakes of the Thameslink / Southern / Gatwick Express combination and remove the LNR differential fares on day 1 (or maybe before) so that people don't start raising the same issues about the legality of different brands having different fares.

As franchising is dead I can pretty much categorically confirm this won't happen. They might end up being the same concession, but concessions don't set fares anyway, and the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement will be torn up anyway.

 

[Meerkat]

As franchising is dead I can pretty much categorically confirm this won't happen. They might end up being the same concession, but concessions don't set fares anyway, and the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement will be torn up anyway.

Wouldn’t WCML be one of the first operators likely to return to franchise, or pretty close, status?
GBR isnt all some assume (hope) - the Government said at launch that some operators would get more freedom once things settled down post Covid.

 

[NoRoute]

While LNR splits the market (there are very few people outside enthusiast circles who would likely consider both for the same journey, particularly for very long distance journeys like Euston-Liverpool) Chiltern is perhaps a bit closer, but that only means there is competition on one route, not all of them.

I'd have thought the general public were more likely to consider both than the rail enthusiast. A member of the general public with little interest in rail goes onto National Rail or Trainline, sees the prices for the journeys, the rail operators change names so frequently so the companies have zero brand recognition, these companies are not household names, just made-up titles which change every few years. The general public don't know what particular class of train the companies run, what will turn up and what difference it makes, they likely just select on price, choosing the cheaper company.

It's actually the rail enthusiast and the frequent rail traveler who knows the companies, the trains, the service differences to make the distinction between them.

Of course there is a far more effective competitor against every single railway line in the country - the car - and it's that that is far more significant than minor spatting between TOCs on a few routes.

No I think that is wrong, certainly for journeys into London where heavy road congestion along with parking difficulties and ULEZ zones etc make the car a poor competitor. For those journeys there isn't significant competitive pressure from the car, so having 2 competing TOCs on the same route for travel into London provides more downward pressure on prices than the option to take the car. I see that in the Midlands travelling to London, comparing say Tamworth to (Avanti and LNR) to Leicester or Loughborough (Midland Mainline only).

Railway companies are no different to any other business, it's competition which forces them to keep their prices down and compete for customers. Take away or reduce the competition and they push up their prices, because they can.

 

[JonathanH]

I'd have thought the general public were more likely to consider both than the rail enthusiast. A member of the general public with little interest in rail goes onto National Rail or Trainline, sees the prices for the journeys, the rail operators change names so frequently so the companies have zero brand recognition, these companies are not household names, just made-up titles which change every few years. The general public don't know what particular class of train the companies run, what will turn up and what difference it makes, they likely just select on price, choosing the cheaper company.

The far greater problem is that those members of the general public see the cheap LNR fare and then decide to travel on an Avanti service, thinking the trains are all the same and completely not understanding that there is a difference. They then complain when they are treated as if they have no ticket. I expect this 'confusion' is rife on the WCML.

35. Fares will be simplified
Confusing fares undermine trust and damage passengers’ confidence that they are getting the right fare. Great British Railways will use its leadership role to simplify the current mass of complicated fares and tickets, ending the uncertainty and confusion about whether passengers are using the right train company. It will set most fares under a clear framework agreed with Ministers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd have thought the general public were more likely to consider both than the rail enthusiast. A member of the general public with little interest in rail goes onto National Rail or Trainline, sees the prices for the journeys, the rail operators change names so frequently so the companies have zero brand recognition, these companies are not household names, just made-up titles which change every few years. The general public don't know what particular class of train the companies run, what will turn up and what difference it makes, they likely just select on price, choosing the cheaper company.

Nope.

People choose based on criteria important to them. I agree brand is probably of low consequence, but there are basically three groups of customers on long distance rail:

1. Low budget requiring flexibility (competitor: the old banger)
2. Low budget requiring speed but not flexibility (competitor: road coach)
3. Higher budget, speed and flexibility important (competitor: BMW/Merc or air)

Those in group (1) will be directed onto LNR. Those in group (2) onto Avanti Advances, or LNR Advances if on a really tight budget. Those in (3) will rock up at the station and buy a walk-up ticket, or their work travel agency will do so for them.

It's incredibly effective market segmentation which grows the market, not true competition (which tends to just cause cost-cutting which is not always a good thing). And I'd be surprised if GBR entirely removed it - it's the pointless "save 50p" ones like TPE vs. Northern that need to go. Deutsche Bahn does it to itself, with cheaper regional-train-only fares, for example. Or Stagecoach "competing with itself" with Magic Bus (which came about as true competition, but has remained despite this no longer really being a massive thing on the routes concerned).

I would be wholly unsurprised to see "regional trains only", "not InterCity" or similar tickets on the WCML being a thing under GBR. And that, unlike the petty spatting over 50p, would be a good thing.

 

[JonathanH]

I would be wholly unsurprised to see "regional trains only", "not InterCity" or similar tickets on the WCML being a thing under GBR. And that, unlike the petty spatting over 50p, would be a good thing.

That is still going to be confusing for passengers, perhaps more so.

Which bit of the quote from the Williams-Shapps report quote does that fit in with? It seems highly likely that there is going to be no price differentiation for a journey between two given stations.

In that context, perhaps Avanti and LNR (and TPE's West Coast services) should be combined in a single concession.

As discussed before, it will be completely inappropriate if HS2 is not the cheapest way to travel between Birmingham and London in the future (at fares close to current 'Any Permitted' levels) and that needs all the cheaper fares currently on offer to be removed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is still going to be confusing for passengers, perhaps more so.

How? With clear train categorisation (Regional, Regional Express, InterCity) it is incredibly clear what is what.

Which bit of the quote from the Williams-Shapps report quote does that fit in with? It seems highly likely that there is going to be no price differentiation for a journey between two given stations.

In that context, perhaps Avanti and LNR (and TPE's West Coast services) should be combined in a single concession.

Who operates what is utterly irrelevant to fares under GBR. Whether that should happen or not is purely whether it makes operational sense or not,

As discussed before, it will be completely inappropriate if HS2 is not the cheapest way to travel between Birmingham and London in the future (at fares close to current 'Any Permitted' levels) and that needs all the cheaper fares currently on offer to be removed.

This would result in more car journeys due to the loss of market segmentation, so is not the right choice.

 

[JonathanH]

How? With clear train categorisation (Regional, Regional Express, InterCity) it is incredibly clear what is what.

There will still be people who see a 'Regional' fare and board the faster train, no matter how clear it is made. It also runs into that issue when the Intercity train starts calling at all the same stations as the Regional one. What about a journey like London to Walsall where a change needs to be made from the Intercity train into a Regional one for the final part?

For all its positives, market segmentation also leads to confusion for passengers, aggrevation for revenue staff, complaints to politicians and general bad feeling.

What do you think the politicians are trying to address when they write the piece in my message above? It won't just be 50p differentials in operator-specific fares in the North. It will be complaints about stuff like London to Birmingham fares as well.

 

[Meerkat]

People choose based on criteria important to them. I agree brand is probably of low consequence, but there are basically three groups of customers on long distance rail:

1. Low budget requiring flexibility (competitor: the old banger)
2. Low budget requiring speed but not flexibility (competitor: road coach)
3. Higher budget, speed and flexibility important (competitor: BMW/Merc or air)

But there will be people moving between the groups. If Avanti fares are too high people will decide their time isn’t worth the difference in price, even if they would prefer to get there a bit earlier (or more likely leave later).

I would be wholly unsurprised to see "regional trains only", "not InterCity" or similar tickets on the WCML being a thing under GBR.

Doesn’t the system need fare differentials, to stop intercity trains being full of short distance commuters?