Recent content by Clarence Yard

There are two reasons for this. One is the large increase in FTAC and the other is the IEP contract. GWR has also suffered with the latter. They really are an expensive train which has ruined the overt economics of the two businesses, given the caveat that the wild fluctuations in VTAC make...

It isn’t fair to say Lumo is almost entirely revenue abstractive. That is just your assertion because you don’t like OA. It has no basis in fact - I have dealt with that on another thread - and political pressure was not applied to grant it rights (not a licence). You are absolutely correct...

Lumo’s business model isn’t revenue abstractive from rail. The push from aviation is both price and time led. Getting through airport security became a pain way before COVID and Lumo had their eyes on that issue before they had even operated a train. The airline analysts aren’t either fans or...

Stop the hate because it isn’t persuading anyone. Lumo has grabbed quite a bit of the London-Edinburgh air market, according to air analysts who study the domestic air market. Rail market share of the total London-Edinburgh transport market has risen in greater % numbers than on other...

Except that when the ORR crunched the numbers, it wasn’t. Virgin was £64.1m, WSMR was £11.7m and Lumo was £3.4m, all per annum figures. That isn’t so surprising as FG have years of experience when it comes to OA applications and revenue prediction.

Oh, Chris Green had plenty of money to spend - those were the years of plenty. After years of scrimping and saving, when the money taps were turned on again in the mid 1980’s, everyone took advantage. The amount of money we had to spend at NSE was positively obscene. And in each financial year...

It’s covered in part J4.3 in the Network Code. If the non-operation is due to non economic reasons beyond the beneficiary’s control and is temporary in nature then the rights position is protected.

No, that busts the relevant section of the Network Code. It’s a deliberate act to try and get round the “failure to use” provisions - specifically and explicitly banned in J4.2.4.

The board meeting has taken place and we may see Decision Letters this week for the WCML applications.

No, they couldn’t have just run a LE - that (an ancillary move) doesn’t count. You have to run passenger trains to retain your schedule 5 rights. You can’t sell rights either - that’s illegal. You have to sell the whole company, which is what Yeowart did in each case. Arriva would have had to...

Exactly, which is one of the reasons why the likes of Hull Trains had to promise to take inter-available before they could be awarded rights. IA isn’t worth a lot to OA these days but it is worth a lot more to punters who have to take more than one operators trains to get to their destination.

The ORR board have met in June and the announcement on the WCML applications is expected shortly, may even be this week. The ECML related applications were due to be discussed at the July ORR Board, unless they managed to sneak any into June.

It differs in one very important respect, the market it serves. That determines the charges it will have to pay, not the fact that it is an OA service.

NR could do that now, by invoking Part J of the Network Code - the “better use” provisions. That means you can alter or withdraw existing rights if a better proposition comes along. The disadvantaged operator gets compensation. Arguably NR should have invoked Part J (for several operators) in...

No, you can’t trace Network Grant/FTAC back and compare it like that. The variables in infrastructure maintenance both year on year and regulatory period to regulatory period preclude that. Logically if every operator only pays short run marginal charges, the long run incremental costs have to...