New Open Franchise for East Coast

[whole diary]

[simonw]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36273407

I was under the impression that the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) had THREE primary long distance franchises. If FG are allowed to start a ^25 service from Edinburgh to London, can someone do this for Bristol to London?

[ChrisB]

They can request paths from NR^» (Network Rail - home page), and subject to their, and the ORRs^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) approval, yes.

[IndustryInsider]

To my knowledge, nobody has ever shown any real interest in open access on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) - the closest being the hopelessly optimistic Go-Op Yeovil to Birmingham via Oxford service.  That could be because the paths into Paddington aren't available, or there isn't a big enough market from the satellite routes - traditionally open access operators serve large places that don't have a direct service but are close to the main line.  I can't think of too many of them that are big enough and would be able to use the GWML.  Melksham aside of course! 

[ChrisB]

Extracting revenue from current franchisee(s) was (still is?) a golden rule that open access operators weren't allowed to do.

I suspect First's argument that they won't is their stoppong pattern (Stevenage, Morpeth) and that the majority of London <>Edinburgh pax currently fly. By offering average ^25 fare, they will argue that they are extracting from the airlines, not the franchisee. And that First sre offering an earlier arrival than the franchisee is willing to run.

Looking forward to seeing their argument in court evidence as I can't see Virgin East Coast not challenging this

[stuving]

But isn't it always a laugh when someone you know would argue all day in favour of free markets starts bleating about too much competition being bad for customers (and for themselves)?

[JayMac]

Richard Branson was well known for bleating about the iniquity in the airline market when he was trying to compete with the state backed operators.

Now Virgin is a state backed rail operator I hope he doesn't make a big deal out of experiencing free market competition. Healthy competition is good news for passengers. Although history tells us that Virgin Trains don't like competition. Rigourously enforcing (with DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) back up) the 'Moderation of Competition' cluase in the West Coast franchise.

[ChrisB]

Oh, I'm also all in favour of competition!

[Rhydgaled]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) link

Virgin Trains East Coast has also won permission to increase its services on the line and its branches between Edinburgh and London, effective from May 2019 at the earliest and by May 2021.

Do I take this to mean that the full service promised in the Virgin East Coast bid (including half-hourly Edinburgh-London services if I recall correctly) has been authorised, or will only some of Virgin's services be going ahead?

No mention in the article of the other open access operator that applied to run new services on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line), which I believe planned Pendolinos from Kings Cross to Edinburgh. Are we to assume that hasn't been granted paths.

To my knowledge, nobody has ever shown any real interest in open access on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) - the closest being the hopelessly optimistic Go-Op Yeovil to Birmingham via Oxford service.  That could be because the paths into Paddington aren't available, or there isn't a big enough market from the satellite routes - traditionally open access operators serve large places that don't have a direct service but are close to the main line.  I can't think of too many of them that are big enough and would be able to use the GWML.  Melksham aside of course! 

I've never heard of an open-access proposal on the GWML, but I've read forum posts describing the weekdays only PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-Cardiff services as 'open access blockers', suggesting that they only exist to take up paths into PAD which otherwise might have been available for open access. Looking at Hull Trains, they run additional London services to/from a place the franchise only serves once a day, so perhaps Carmarthen might be an open access target? Another idea might be Hereford, would it be faster via Abergavenny and Bristol Parkway than the current Cotswolds route?

[ChrisB]

No mention in the article of the other open access operator that applied to run new services on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line), which I believe planned Pendolinos from Kings Cross to Edinburgh. Are we to assume that hasn't been granted paths.

I read somewhere ()press release) that the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) had refused the third operator's request.

To my knowledge, nobody has ever shown any real interest in open access on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) - the closest being the hopelessly optimistic Go-Op Yeovil to Birmingham via Oxford service.  That could be because the paths into Paddington aren't available, or there isn't a big enough market from the satellite routes - traditionally open access operators serve large places that don't have a direct service but are close to the main line.  I can't think of too many of them that are big enough and would be able to use the GWML.  Melksham aside of course! 

I've never heard of an open-access proposal on the GWML, but I've read forum posts describing the weekdays only PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-Cardiff services as 'open access blockers', suggesting that they only exist to take up paths into PAD which otherwise might have been available for open access. Looking at Hull Trains, they run additional London services to/from a place the franchise only serves once a day, so perhaps Carmarthen might be an open access target? Another idea might be Hereford, would it be faster via Abergavenny and Bristol Parkway than the current Cotswolds route?

And the demand from those destinations would be? Tiny, IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), even speeded up.

[grahame]

To my knowledge, nobody has ever shown any real interest in open access on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) - the closest being the hopelessly optimistic Go-Op Yeovil to Birmingham via Oxford service.  That could be because the paths into Paddington aren't available, or there isn't a big enough market from the satellite routes - traditionally open access operators serve large places that don't have a direct service but are close to the main line. ...

I've never heard of an open-access proposal on the GWML, but I've read forum posts describing the weekdays only PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-Cardiff services as 'open access blockers', suggesting that they only exist to take up paths into PAD which otherwise might have been available for open access....

There is a surprisingly large market for services via Westbury, Swindon and Oxford to Birmingham, and for intermediate traffic, and at the time that the current TransWilts trial service was being formulated and put together, there was a need to be balanced in outlook and look at three different potential operators. The hurdle of impartiality was only finally crossed positively and certainly a few weeks before the December 2013 service start, and could have been the rock the whole thing foundered on.

An extra hourly London to Cardiff trains seems an awfully expensive way of blocking open access - suggesting that there's considerable commercial mileage in the services running.  And on present service of a train every 2 hours from Paddington to Gloucester and Cheltenham, wouldn't the path of that service be available in the 'other' hour. But not sure where the service would go - Lydney and Chepstow?  Parkway, Henbury, Avonmouth and Clifton Down? (I can quite imagine a through London service from the north west of Bristol being attractive)

[paul7575]

No mention in the article of the other open access operator that applied to run new services on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line), which I believe planned Pendolinos from Kings Cross to Edinburgh. Are we to assume that hasn't been granted paths.

I read somewhere ()press release) that the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) had refused the third operator's request.

Mentioned very early in ORR's decision letter.   Always better to go to the source, the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) probably saw 'GNER^▸ (Great North Eastern Railways)' and ignored it as being out of date info... 

2. We have approved the applications made by VTEC and FirstGroup to run new services between London and Edinburgh, Harrogate, Lincoln and Middlesbrough, though some access rights will have to start later than the applicants requested due to the timing of necessary enhancements. We have rejected the GNER applications. This letter explains the reasons for our decision.
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/21885/2016-05-12-ecml-decision-letter.pdf

[JayMac]

To my knowledge, nobody has ever shown any real interest in open access on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) - the closest being the hopelessly optimistic Go-Op Yeovil to Birmingham via Oxford service.  That could be because the paths into Paddington aren't available, or there isn't a big enough market from the satellite routes - traditionally open access operators serve large places that don't have a direct service but are close to the main line. ...

I've never heard of an open-access proposal on the GWML, but I've read forum posts describing the weekdays only PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-Cardiff services as 'open access blockers', suggesting that they only exist to take up paths into PAD which otherwise might have been available for open access....

There is a surprisingly large market for services via Westbury, Swindon and Oxford to Birmingham, and for intermediate traffic, and at the time that the current TransWilts trial service was being formulated and put together, there was a need to be balanced in outlook and look at three different potential operators. The hurdle of impartiality was only finally crossed positively and certainly a few weeks before the December 2013 service start, and could have been the rock the whole thing foundered on.

An extra hourly London to Cardiff trains seems an awfully expensive way of blocking open access - suggesting that there's considerable commercial mileage in the services running.  And on present service of a train every 2 hours from Paddington to Gloucester and Cheltenham, wouldn't the path of that service be available in the 'other' hour. But not sure where the service would go - Lydney and Chepstow?  Parkway, Henbury, Avonmouth and Clifton Down? (I can quite imagine a through London service from the north west of Bristol being attractive)

Cardiff - Paddington has a Service Level Commitment franchise requirement of half hourly between 0545-1845 Mon-Fri. And in the other direction, half hourly between 0730-1930. So if any open access blocking is being done it is at the behest of the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about). GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) aren't running the half hourly service because they want to. They have to.

An other hourly path between Cheltenham/Gloucester and London via Kemble may be available now, but won't be from 2018. The franchised service is planned to be hourly when the Class 800s are introduced.

[grahame]

Cardiff - Paddington has a Service Level Commitment franchise requirement of half hourly between 0545-1845 Mon-Fri. And in the other direction, half hourly between 0730-1930. So if any open access blocking is being done it is at the behest of the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about). GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) aren't running the half hourly service because they want to. They have to.

They do now, but it's not always been that way. It was a priced option in the 2006 franchise, so until 2013 (or 2016 if the full ten years had been taken) it wasn't totally up to the DfT.   But clearly First bid a price that the SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) felt able to work with, even though a lot else was lost at around that time.

London ^ Cardiff service

A reduction in the London ^ Cardiff and vv service frequency, in the off-peak, from half-hourly to hourly. The half-hourly services were introduced to the timetable in 2001, but the SRA considers that they might not represent good value for money. By requesting a priced option, it will know the definite costs of the service, to allow a decision on their future.

http://www.assembly.wales/Committee%20Documents/EDT(2)%2009-05%20Paper%204%20-%20Strategic%20Rail%20Authority-29062005-21056/n0000000000000000000000000032993-English.pdf

[Bmblbzzz]

But not sure where the service would go - Lydney and Chepstow?  Parkway, Henbury, Avonmouth and Clifton Down? (I can quite imagine a through London service from the north west of Bristol being attractive)

If you're calling at small stations in Bristol, why not do the same at the other end? I'm imagining something like a Clifton Down to Dagenham Dock service. 

[grahame]

But not sure where the service would go - Lydney and Chepstow?  Parkway, Henbury, Avonmouth and Clifton Down? (I can quite imagine a through London service from the north west of Bristol being attractive)

If you're calling at small stations in Bristol, why not do the same at the other end? I'm imagining something like a Clifton Down to Dagenham Dock service. 

The interesting thing is to see where people want to go where they're not catered for and where is practical.  That whole expanse of the city of Bristol, including the chic and green-tending Clifton crowd, would likely love to go straight on the train.   Where in London?   Well Paddington's too far west for lots of people, Waterloo's done.   How about West Brompton (folding cycles only at that station), Peckham Rye and Lewisham? Stabling at Hither Green, or is there no space any more?