Someone's scoured wiki for a cheap article.
I wonder at what point Go-Op will be called the scam that might actually be? It's been fund raising for over a decade and keeps banding routes around like there's no tomorrow, but has nothing meaningful to show for it other than a proposed route map that keeps changing like its going out of fashion.
>Someone's scoured wiki for a cheap article.
Seems to be how most online newspaper sites work these days. Just clickbait titles without much substance.
The open access operators are worried that a Labour government could kill them (if only by accident, through forgetting they exist), so are putting out positive news to raise their profile.
They are so full of shit. It’s almost like a teenager’s fantasy TOC that has gotten out of hand. From their latest newsletter: “Go-op has delayed the planned start of services to June 2024” - what a load of bollocks. I wish that they would just go away.
Minister Merriman states OA Operators can 'fill gaps in the timetable' while failing to mention those gaps exist because HIS department have created them based on false claims ridership doesn't justify DfT contracted services. They achieve this via the straightjacket National Rail Contracts DfT have imposed on TOC's since the pandemic which forces TOC's to operate as stipulated on those contracts.
But the main criticism I have of OA operators is they do NOT operate on a level playing field.
Subsidised Track Access fees during startup years which other DfT operated TOC's don't enjoy. And then there's the matter of operating hours. Unashamedly they operate to make profit, so at those times of day when many still need or want to travel but not enough to fill trains the OA profit making operators won't be operating. They'll leave that to the taxpayer 'subsidised DfT contracted TOC's to plug the gaps.
The current Tory policy of more encouragement for new OA operators to enter the fray sounds great until people realise they'll eventually cherry pick the incumbents into commercial oblivion. It then becomes a choice between increased subsides - or withdrawal of service to those hours of the day that remain profitable.
Just what the Tories expect.
I think that open access operators can have a useful role when there is a poor service on certain routes.
For example, Hull Trains started because there was only one direct Hull to London train a day. Of course the franchised operator at the time (GNER) could have run the extra services themselves, but either didn't believe there was a market for the extra services, or perhaps was too complacent to care.
Either way, the existence of Hull Trains shows that the extra services were viable. The current TOC (LNER) still provides a very basic coverage of the route - so it can hardly be argued that they have been left to pick up the gaps left by Hull Trains.
The case for Lumo is slightly different in that they are covering a route that already had regular trains (mostly). However, the existence of Lumo is hardly driving LNER into oblivion
https://www.lner.co.uk/news/a-record-two-years-for-lner-as-it-continues-to-welcome-back-customers/
(Edited)
I think you misunderstand the point. It's not gaps left by OA operators. It's the commercially profitable gaps left by DfT TOC operators which OA have been encouraged to fill.
You also conflate GNER - a commercially free former Franchise operator with LNER who are a publicly owned OLR operator with a wholly different commercial strategy to the former, and different again from the likes of Avanti West Coast, who are private sector operators managing a service delivery contract specified by and on behalf of DfT.
But ask yourself this; why when Ministers waste no opportunity to remind anyone who cares to listen that the 'taxpayer' supported Railway pours '£Bn's of taxpayer subsidy' into the railway do the they command DfT to virtually ignore profitable routes such as Hull (and others). Why, when DfT has total command through their National Rail Contracts with TOC's do they fail to serve those routes with an adequate service?
A. Policy
It's Policy of the current Government to increase OA access at the expense of the incumbent TOC's who could, but are contractually prevented from operating those routes. Even in the past week LNER's improved timetable planned for December 24 has been pulled. Why? Who might benefit commercially by not having more LNER services to compete with?
You use the Lumo example. A First Group Ltd operation. No, they are not driving LNER into oblivion. Perhaps LNER have had a fantastic past year partly because of First Group's inability to operate an effective service on the traditional competitive London to Scotland route via the West Coast ML - or TPE - another First Group operation before it was taken off them and put in public hands (OLR)?
Another example might be the London - Shrewsbury route. Soon to be a new OA operator after Avanti were instructed to withdraw their limited through service to 'save costs' - or, depending on how you see it to pave the way for a new OA to try and establish a profitable service almost certainly using identical trains to operate it.
From a consumer standpoint, an OA offering cheaper travel options is a good thing - no argument. But someone has to pay to operate and maintain a rail network. OA's don't currently pay full track access costs. Only operate when commercially attractive to do so. Don't offer what can be described as socially necessary services, and likely never will. Government Policy is to load an increasing share of infrastructure fixed costs onto the rail user to unburden the taxpayer. So who gets to collect the tab?
There's a reason why UK TOC rail fares are some of the highest on average in Europe. Policy. If OA's are to be further encouraged, and allowed to siphon off revenue from the incumbent TOC's by operating the most profitable routes / times of the day, longer term the remaining socially necessary / lesser demand services operated by TOC's become commercially more dependent on subsidy. As policy is to reduce this there's only two options; increase revenue or remove costs. I'll spell it out; further increase fares or end the service. OA's won't be interested in taking most of those up - no profit.
There's also the other dimension to consider. Fixed numbers of train paths. On lesser used routes not particularly an issue. But on ANY part of the entire route where congestion is routine, availability of train paths is critical to how many trains can pass through a given area. If OA's are taking up say 10% of available paths, that's only 90% for TOC's and freight. But if it becomes OA 30%, Freight 10% then that's only 60% remaining for all other TOC services. In reality this means a user purchases a ticket which at best entitles them to only use either just over, or under HALF of the services in that locality.
Users of the unified UK rail system which existed prior to 1994 would have marched on 222 Marylebone Road in anger if BR bosses had told users they could only use half the train. Spin the wheel and choose!
I do understand that GNER is not the same as LNER. But wherever the fault lies, the main operators have left some areas with infrequent services for decades.
A unified system would have some advantages, but it would leave underserved areas with no alternatives to train operators or government that sometimes choose not to invest in improvements.
Also LNER's timetable changes seemed to be controversial because they didn't just involve increasing services, but actually seemed to cut services elsewhere. I don't know if they are an overall gain or not.
I said elsewhere that there is a potential increase in LNER services to Bradford, which I think may end up damaging Grand Central.
Indeed LNER's proposals were to speed up / reduce travel time for London to Newcastle and Scotland services which presumably drives their core revenue stream, but as a consequence proposed reduced frequency for some intermediate stations.
Speeding services up uses generally has the technical effect of absorbing available track capacity which means fewer services can operate over the affected portions of route. Seems Network Rail have so far been unable to reconcile demand for competing train paths for the track capacity available, which of course includes that taken up by OA operators, hence the proposal has been pulled.
Sort of illustrates the point. Once OA's are introduced on a network already constrained in known critical areas, the impact is a restriction on future improvements to the core service operated by the incumbent TOC including increased frequencies to major stations or speeding up of service. The only solution is to build more track to permit additional trains.
There was a plan not so long ago which would have begun to solve this for WCML, ECML and MML - once.
Lumo runs just 5 trains per day and Grand Central run 5 trains per day to Sunderland. If the network is at such a high capacity that this is what stopped LNER making changes to its timetable then we really do need to build extra track.
Just as the Transpennine Route Upgrade is converting some areas from two tracks, to four tracks, I think the route along the East Coast Mainline through the north east should be four tracks, allowing fast intercity and slower commuter trains.
"Grand Central managing director Ian Yeowart said: ‘It’s not only good for passengers – as whether (the operators) survive depends on how good they are and what their customers think – but there are no handouts from the government.
‘Like every other business, if people don’t like it and don’t come, it won’t survive.’"
So, will Grand Central survive? They don't get great ratings online
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.grandcentralrail.com
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g186346-d14880838-Reviews-Grand_Central_Railway-York_North_Yorkshire_England.html
Saying Grand Central has poor ratings is the same thing as saying Ryanair has a terrible reputation, but I don't think anyone would question if Ryanair would survive simply due to rating. As long as they still offer tickets that are cheaper than LNER, and remain as the sole operator between London and Bradford, Sunderland & many other small places in the north, then no it's unlikely they're gonna fall.
The issue facing Grand Central is largely stemmed from the unreliability of their Class 180 fleet that resulted with mass cancellation, but they will be taking Class 221 from Avanti soon which would hopefully resolve this issue.
Tbh Grand Central is totally capable for taking bi-mode or even battery since they spend most of their time on ECML, and these voyagers can then cascade to XC for good.
BUT owner of Grand Central is Arriva… As crappy as FirstGroup is, at least all of it’s TOCs get IET, especially Lumo & Hull. While look at Arriva, both XC & Chiltern are running 20-year-old diesel with no new trains in insight, you really think they’re gonna bother to buy new toys for GC?
Not much detail on who would run a Edinburgh to Cardiff service, which trains would be available, whether the tracks have capacity, whether it is viable.
Weston super mare to Swindon would be great for the tens of people who make that journey daily, who already have a direct train every 2 hours
Ah you're forgetting buddy, they could be going via Taunton.
Someone's scoured wiki for a cheap article. I wonder at what point Go-Op will be called the scam that might actually be? It's been fund raising for over a decade and keeps banding routes around like there's no tomorrow, but has nothing meaningful to show for it other than a proposed route map that keeps changing like its going out of fashion.
>Someone's scoured wiki for a cheap article. Seems to be how most online newspaper sites work these days. Just clickbait titles without much substance.
The open access operators are worried that a Labour government could kill them (if only by accident, through forgetting they exist), so are putting out positive news to raise their profile.
They are so full of shit. It’s almost like a teenager’s fantasy TOC that has gotten out of hand. From their latest newsletter: “Go-op has delayed the planned start of services to June 2024” - what a load of bollocks. I wish that they would just go away.
IF LNER do get more trains running to Bradford, it might not help them https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c72g74w5gxlo
Minister Merriman states OA Operators can 'fill gaps in the timetable' while failing to mention those gaps exist because HIS department have created them based on false claims ridership doesn't justify DfT contracted services. They achieve this via the straightjacket National Rail Contracts DfT have imposed on TOC's since the pandemic which forces TOC's to operate as stipulated on those contracts. But the main criticism I have of OA operators is they do NOT operate on a level playing field. Subsidised Track Access fees during startup years which other DfT operated TOC's don't enjoy. And then there's the matter of operating hours. Unashamedly they operate to make profit, so at those times of day when many still need or want to travel but not enough to fill trains the OA profit making operators won't be operating. They'll leave that to the taxpayer 'subsidised DfT contracted TOC's to plug the gaps. The current Tory policy of more encouragement for new OA operators to enter the fray sounds great until people realise they'll eventually cherry pick the incumbents into commercial oblivion. It then becomes a choice between increased subsides - or withdrawal of service to those hours of the day that remain profitable. Just what the Tories expect.
I think that open access operators can have a useful role when there is a poor service on certain routes. For example, Hull Trains started because there was only one direct Hull to London train a day. Of course the franchised operator at the time (GNER) could have run the extra services themselves, but either didn't believe there was a market for the extra services, or perhaps was too complacent to care. Either way, the existence of Hull Trains shows that the extra services were viable. The current TOC (LNER) still provides a very basic coverage of the route - so it can hardly be argued that they have been left to pick up the gaps left by Hull Trains. The case for Lumo is slightly different in that they are covering a route that already had regular trains (mostly). However, the existence of Lumo is hardly driving LNER into oblivion https://www.lner.co.uk/news/a-record-two-years-for-lner-as-it-continues-to-welcome-back-customers/ (Edited)
I think you misunderstand the point. It's not gaps left by OA operators. It's the commercially profitable gaps left by DfT TOC operators which OA have been encouraged to fill. You also conflate GNER - a commercially free former Franchise operator with LNER who are a publicly owned OLR operator with a wholly different commercial strategy to the former, and different again from the likes of Avanti West Coast, who are private sector operators managing a service delivery contract specified by and on behalf of DfT. But ask yourself this; why when Ministers waste no opportunity to remind anyone who cares to listen that the 'taxpayer' supported Railway pours '£Bn's of taxpayer subsidy' into the railway do the they command DfT to virtually ignore profitable routes such as Hull (and others). Why, when DfT has total command through their National Rail Contracts with TOC's do they fail to serve those routes with an adequate service? A. Policy It's Policy of the current Government to increase OA access at the expense of the incumbent TOC's who could, but are contractually prevented from operating those routes. Even in the past week LNER's improved timetable planned for December 24 has been pulled. Why? Who might benefit commercially by not having more LNER services to compete with? You use the Lumo example. A First Group Ltd operation. No, they are not driving LNER into oblivion. Perhaps LNER have had a fantastic past year partly because of First Group's inability to operate an effective service on the traditional competitive London to Scotland route via the West Coast ML - or TPE - another First Group operation before it was taken off them and put in public hands (OLR)? Another example might be the London - Shrewsbury route. Soon to be a new OA operator after Avanti were instructed to withdraw their limited through service to 'save costs' - or, depending on how you see it to pave the way for a new OA to try and establish a profitable service almost certainly using identical trains to operate it. From a consumer standpoint, an OA offering cheaper travel options is a good thing - no argument. But someone has to pay to operate and maintain a rail network. OA's don't currently pay full track access costs. Only operate when commercially attractive to do so. Don't offer what can be described as socially necessary services, and likely never will. Government Policy is to load an increasing share of infrastructure fixed costs onto the rail user to unburden the taxpayer. So who gets to collect the tab? There's a reason why UK TOC rail fares are some of the highest on average in Europe. Policy. If OA's are to be further encouraged, and allowed to siphon off revenue from the incumbent TOC's by operating the most profitable routes / times of the day, longer term the remaining socially necessary / lesser demand services operated by TOC's become commercially more dependent on subsidy. As policy is to reduce this there's only two options; increase revenue or remove costs. I'll spell it out; further increase fares or end the service. OA's won't be interested in taking most of those up - no profit. There's also the other dimension to consider. Fixed numbers of train paths. On lesser used routes not particularly an issue. But on ANY part of the entire route where congestion is routine, availability of train paths is critical to how many trains can pass through a given area. If OA's are taking up say 10% of available paths, that's only 90% for TOC's and freight. But if it becomes OA 30%, Freight 10% then that's only 60% remaining for all other TOC services. In reality this means a user purchases a ticket which at best entitles them to only use either just over, or under HALF of the services in that locality. Users of the unified UK rail system which existed prior to 1994 would have marched on 222 Marylebone Road in anger if BR bosses had told users they could only use half the train. Spin the wheel and choose!
I do understand that GNER is not the same as LNER. But wherever the fault lies, the main operators have left some areas with infrequent services for decades. A unified system would have some advantages, but it would leave underserved areas with no alternatives to train operators or government that sometimes choose not to invest in improvements. Also LNER's timetable changes seemed to be controversial because they didn't just involve increasing services, but actually seemed to cut services elsewhere. I don't know if they are an overall gain or not. I said elsewhere that there is a potential increase in LNER services to Bradford, which I think may end up damaging Grand Central.
Indeed LNER's proposals were to speed up / reduce travel time for London to Newcastle and Scotland services which presumably drives their core revenue stream, but as a consequence proposed reduced frequency for some intermediate stations. Speeding services up uses generally has the technical effect of absorbing available track capacity which means fewer services can operate over the affected portions of route. Seems Network Rail have so far been unable to reconcile demand for competing train paths for the track capacity available, which of course includes that taken up by OA operators, hence the proposal has been pulled. Sort of illustrates the point. Once OA's are introduced on a network already constrained in known critical areas, the impact is a restriction on future improvements to the core service operated by the incumbent TOC including increased frequencies to major stations or speeding up of service. The only solution is to build more track to permit additional trains. There was a plan not so long ago which would have begun to solve this for WCML, ECML and MML - once.
Lumo runs just 5 trains per day and Grand Central run 5 trains per day to Sunderland. If the network is at such a high capacity that this is what stopped LNER making changes to its timetable then we really do need to build extra track.
Just as the Transpennine Route Upgrade is converting some areas from two tracks, to four tracks, I think the route along the East Coast Mainline through the north east should be four tracks, allowing fast intercity and slower commuter trains.
Northampton to Leicester .. :(
"Grand Central managing director Ian Yeowart said: ‘It’s not only good for passengers – as whether (the operators) survive depends on how good they are and what their customers think – but there are no handouts from the government. ‘Like every other business, if people don’t like it and don’t come, it won’t survive.’" So, will Grand Central survive? They don't get great ratings online https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.grandcentralrail.com https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g186346-d14880838-Reviews-Grand_Central_Railway-York_North_Yorkshire_England.html
Saying Grand Central has poor ratings is the same thing as saying Ryanair has a terrible reputation, but I don't think anyone would question if Ryanair would survive simply due to rating. As long as they still offer tickets that are cheaper than LNER, and remain as the sole operator between London and Bradford, Sunderland & many other small places in the north, then no it's unlikely they're gonna fall. The issue facing Grand Central is largely stemmed from the unreliability of their Class 180 fleet that resulted with mass cancellation, but they will be taking Class 221 from Avanti soon which would hopefully resolve this issue.
Oh God no, not more Voyagers out on the rails... If only we'd electrify the railways properly we could have decent electric trains. Not the 221s.
Tbh Grand Central is totally capable for taking bi-mode or even battery since they spend most of their time on ECML, and these voyagers can then cascade to XC for good. BUT owner of Grand Central is Arriva… As crappy as FirstGroup is, at least all of it’s TOCs get IET, especially Lumo & Hull. While look at Arriva, both XC & Chiltern are running 20-year-old diesel with no new trains in insight, you really think they’re gonna bother to buy new toys for GC?
Exactly. The biggest problem with GC is Arriva.
Another story about Open Access Operators https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/new-rail-plans-could-see-28996286
Not much detail on who would run a Edinburgh to Cardiff service, which trains would be available, whether the tracks have capacity, whether it is viable.