How could Lumo expand/develop/improve?

[JonathanH]

The skies might empty.

That is probably unlikely, at least in the short term as there are clearly places in the catchment area of the London airports, and indeed the Scottish ones that are a fair distance from Kings Cross and Edinburgh Waverley.

 

[HullRailMan]

I think there is a complex mix here and it’s not as simple as some people suggest.

All three East Coast Mainline Intercity TOCs out of London that existed pre-covid are now carrying more passengers than before the pandemic. Lumo is then on top of that, so the ECML rail market has seen significant growth. I’d imagine it’s hard to tell if Lumo has stimulated the market or just been in the right place at the right time, but it’s also fair to say the leisure market has delivered the growth and that is who Lumo is targeted at.

The air market between London and Edinburgh has shrunk for three main reasons. BA no longer fly to Gatwick, business travel has dropped and the direct transatlantic market has boomed (EDI served by Delta, United, westjet and Air Canada with JetBlue joining this year) meaning fewer connections via London. Far too easy to say Lumo alone has shrunk the air market.

However, I’m a big fan of open access and I don’t understand the hostility shown by some. If the legacy TOCs were serving every market successfully, there’d be no space for open access.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My hostility towards it is based on wasting paths with short trains (Lumo and GC) and on things like non standard luggage allowances (Lumo) and unreliability (GC). To be honest I'm more hostile to GC because of their use of junk rolling stock (basically from day one) than Lumo who at least bought new. But I also find Lumo overdo the bluster - for instance Lumo's lack of a backup diesel engine isn't on environmental grounds, it was just cost.

 

[A S Leib]

instance Lumo's lack of a backup diesel engine isn't on environmental grounds, it was just cost.

Pushing passengers onto petrol cars / coaches / flights when there's engineering works, such as through Darlington this and next weekend, is probably less environmentally friendly than being able to divert via the Durham coast would be as well (ignoring that I don't think the Durham coast has enough space for more than 1 extra tph, with that taken by LNER).

 

[JonathanH]

Pushing passengers onto petrol cars / coaches / flights when there's engineering works, such as through Darlington this and next weekend, is probably less environmentally friendly than being able to divert via the Durham coast would be as well (ignoring that I don't think the Durham coast has enough space for more than 1 extra tph, with that taken by LNER).

You have a point with cars and flights, but depending on the numbers of passengers being moved, a fully loaded diesel coach is more environmentally friendly than a lightly loaded diesel train. As you say, the capacity to divert via the Durham coast is limited, and Lumo aren't going to be able to divert in any case.

 

[Falcon1200]

My hostility towards it is based on wasting paths with short trains (Lumo and GC)

Unless there is another operator wishing to run full length trains in the paths 'wasted' by Lumo and GC, which I don't believe is the case, I don't see the problem. The only TOC currently using full length (ie longer than 5 coaches) on the ECML is LNER, and they already run half hourly services between both Edinburgh and Leeds, and Kings Cross - Just how many more paths do they need! (and LNER run 5-car trains as well, of course....)

 

[najaB]

My hostility towards it is based on wasting paths with short trains (Lumo and GC) and on things like non standard luggage allowances (Lumo) and unreliability (GC).

It's only a waste if there's another operator wanting to use it. And is it more of a waste to run a half-length train that's full or a full-length train that's half-empty. (Hint, it's the latter one).

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's only a waste if there's another operator wanting to use it. And is it more of a waste to run a half-length train that's full or a full-length train that's half-empty. (Hint, it's the latter one).

I'm sure with the right pricing policy Lumo could fill longer trains, and they'd be able to have enough luggage space too.

 

[paul1609]

Passengers arriving into Glasgow Central do like having a train in that station to take them to their east coast destinations though. The alternative is a ten minute walk, with luggage, to Queen Street to board a ScotRail shuttle to Waverley only to charge trains and platform yet again.

That's a very small market though because anybody north of the Clyde already goes to Queen Street or directly to Edinburgh as does anybody on the Shotts line. Even Motherwell it's as easy to go to Newcastle via Carlisle, what's left is crumbs.

 

[AdamWW]

It's only a waste if there's another operator wanting to use it. .

Unless there is another operator wishing to run full length trains in the paths 'wasted' by Lumo and GC, which I don't believe is the case, I don't see the problem. The only TOC currently using full length (ie longer than 5 coaches) on the ECML is LNER, and they already run half hourly services between both Edinburgh and Leeds, and Kings Cross - Just how many more paths do they need! (and LNER run 5-car trains as well, of course....)

My recollection is that LNER are using all the paths they were offered, and that some were deliberately kept for open access.

This link from Modern Railways looks as if it supports this:

ORR judged it would be possible to operate eight long-distance trains per hour to and from London. It decided that six should be allocated to the franchise operator (then VTEC, now LNER), with a further one in every other hour, and that the remaining paths would be allocated to the incumbent open access operators Hull Trains and Grand Central and to a new open access company, First East Coast Trains.

 

[Clarence Yard]

They weren’t deliberately kept open for OA because paths cannot legally be reserved for types of operator. The argument at the ORR hearing was over how many paths would fit on the ECML. The DfT and LNER argued that there wasn’t 8 but NR and the OA operators said there was. The ORR, after doing their own analysis, favoured the latter view. The DfT were well hacked off because it meant there was room for the OA applications and the ORR could approve them.

Just a comment on the post about not fitting diesel engines because of cost. It was actually a decision made by Leo Goodwin (who put this together before he went to be TPE MD) on environmental grounds. I actually pushed for full bi-mode but he was (is) quite anti-diesel when you don’t need to run diesel. He thought that the NR work on the ECML would be mostly done by introduction so he didn’t really need a ECML diesel diversionary strategy. I begged to differ but my overtures were not well received. Ironically the extra cost of diesel would have meant a slightly longer TAA, which I always see as a good thing, but he wanted to be seen to be “Green”.

The problem for Lumo at the moment is capacity. Getting Hitachi interested in providing extra cars is proving difficult and obtaining new trains is now looking like 2028 at the earliest.

 

[zwk500]

They weren’t deliberately kept open for OA because paths cannot legally be reserved for types of operator. The argument at the ORR hearing was over how many paths would fit on the ECML. The DfT and LNER argued that there wasn’t 8 but NR and the OA operators said there was. The ORR, after doing their own analysis, favoured the latter view. The DfT were well hacked off because it meant there was room for the OA applications and the ORR could approve them.

Just a comment on the post about not fitting diesel engines because of cost. It was actually a decision made by Leo Goodwin (who put this together before he went to be TPE MD) on environmental grounds. I actually pushed for full bi-mode but he was (is) quite anti-diesel when you don’t need to run diesel. He thought that the NR work on the ECML would be mostly done by introduction so he didn’t really need a ECML diesel diversionary strategy. I begged to differ but my overtures were not well received. Ironically the extra cost of diesel would have meant a slightly longer TAA, which I always see as a good thing, but he wanted to be seen to be “Green”.

The problem for Lumo at the moment is capacity. Getting Hitachi interested in providing extra cars is proving difficult and obtaining new trains is now looking like 2028 at the earliest.

That's a really interesting insight, thanks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's a really interesting insight, thanks.

Indeed, thanks. What's TAA?

 

[JonathanH]

Indeed, thanks. What's TAA?

Track access agreement

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-08/consolidated-agreement-hull-trains-company-limited.pdf

 

[tornado]

Just a quick pricing comparison for a train from Edinburgh to London, and Glasgow to London, around 4pm on the following 4 fridays.

Lumo
£67
£59
£59
£60

Avanti
£85
£85
£67
£46

Neither seem particularly good value, but at least Avanti drop their prices further in advance.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Indeed, thanks. What's TAA?

Track Access Agreement.

 

[najaB]

Neither seem particularly good value, but at least Avanti drop their prices further in advance.

I dunno, £46 to travel 400 miles isn't really that bad value for money. You'd likely spend about that much on petrol if you were to drive it.

 

[TomH1994]

They weren’t deliberately kept open for OA because paths cannot legally be reserved for types of operator. The argument at the ORR hearing was over how many paths would fit on the ECML. The DfT and LNER argued that there wasn’t 8 but NR and the OA operators said there was. The ORR, after doing their own analysis, favoured the latter view. The DfT were well hacked off because it meant there was room for the OA applications and the ORR could approve them.

Just a comment on the post about not fitting diesel engines because of cost. It was actually a decision made by Leo Goodwin (who put this together before he went to be TPE MD) on environmental grounds. I actually pushed for full bi-mode but he was (is) quite anti-diesel when you don’t need to run diesel. He thought that the NR work on the ECML would be mostly done by introduction so he didn’t really need a ECML diesel diversionary strategy. I begged to differ but my overtures were not well received. Ironically the extra cost of diesel would have meant a slightly longer TAA, which I always see as a good thing, but he wanted to be seen to be “Green”.

The problem for Lumo at the moment is capacity. Getting Hitachi interested in providing extra cars is proving difficult and obtaining new trains is now looking like 2028 at the earliest.

Is this down to Hitachi not wanting to supply more units or something else?

 

[najaB]

Is this down to Hitachi not wanting to supply more units or something else?

I guess there's more profit in complete trains than intermediate cars?

 

[jagardner1984]

A sort of general philosophical point on the short train / long train thing - presumably in a "design the system, route and stations from scratch" type of paradise, it would be generally preferred to run fewer trains at much greater capacity, so that a. there was future capcity to add services through the pinch points (termini, Welwyn viaduct etc, b. The service could recover better in times of disruption from having less trains stacked behind the problem, and c. that you make best use of platforms at termini by maximising throughput on them.

Ignoring the small problem of different operators and competing timings, does anyone know if any consideration has been given to for example combining paths out of KGX, so for example a 10 car train would leave KGX (maybe even double crewed) with a split at Doncaster and a portion to Hull and a portion to Edinburgh ? It seems in some form or another, and the split occurring somewhere or another (maybe even building somewhere to do it should capacity not exist) the key to opening further Open Access growth (another question whether that is a good or bad thing) would be to run longer trains out of town and then split them somewhere you have the time and space to do it. (Obviously better would be routes with plenty of spare capacity, but Euston Road doesn’t seem to be blessed with those.)

Generally as a point of logic, running short trains which travel much of the same route in succession of one another doesn’t seem a brilliant use of resources, and it might even improve the business case to share a trunk of the route coupled to existing OA service, splitting somewhere near the point the routes diverge. This might open even more potential for Lumo, and others.

 

[najaB]

The problem with splits is the join in the other direction. In your example, what happens when the Hull portion gets to Doncaster and the Edinburgh portion isn't there?

It's not a showstopper, but needs to be considered.

 

[Falcon1200]

it would be generally preferred to run fewer trains at much greater capacity

Although on the other hand better frequency gives passengers greater choice and therefore attracts more of them?

what happens when the Hull portion gets to Doncaster and the Edinburgh portion isn't there?

Indeed, I recall sitting at Carstairs for two hours on a Glasgow-Birmingham train whose Edinburgh portion was late after a loco failure!

 

[CarrotPie]

Although OTOH better frequency gives passengers greater choice and therefore attracts more of them?

OTOH?

 

[najaB]

OTOH?

On the other hand.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Ignoring the small problem of different operators and competing timings, does anyone know if any consideration has been given to for example combining paths out of KGX, so for example a 10 car train would leave KGX (maybe even double crewed) with a split at Doncaster and a portion to Hull and a portion to Edinburgh ?

Yes, it has been looked at and it doesn’t work because of the time penalty in coupling and uncoupling. You lose your paths and it rapidly becomes a timetabling mess. The ECML is quite time constrained for splitting and joining moves on it.

Short trains are not as bad for terminal working as it might seem because you can top train work in the platform, which at KX is a real boon at certain times of the day.

On another comment, it is true Hitachi see more value in selling complete units and they also seem less committed to Newton Aycliffe than their other plants, which have very good order books. Since the B word, the UK seems to be a little less of a priority too.

 

[Falcon1200]

OTOH?

Sorry, thought that was in common use, but post duly amended!

 

[Snow1964]

First Group has issued trading update where mentions both Sheffield and Glasgow open access latest, and discussions with leasing companies for services starting early 2025

Open Access growth

On 5 January 2024, the Group submitted to the Office of Rail and Road (‘ORR’), the first phase of an application for a new Open Access rail service between London and Sheffield. The proposed service would be part of the Group’s Hull Trains business and comprises two return journeys a day from London King’s Cross calling at Retford, Worksop, Woodhouse and Sheffield. A sizeable number of rail passengers currently drive to Doncaster station to pick up faster services to London rather than travelling via Sheffield; a new, convenient rail service from these local stations could help reduce the number of car journeys.

The ORR consultation with industry partners has concluded. Capacity and performance modelling is now underway. The Group is also working on the fleet strategy and is in discussions with rolling stock companies. It is anticipated that services could begin in the second half of the 2025 calendar year.

In addition, Lumo has identified opportunities to extend a number of its daily London to Edinburghjourneys to Glasgow. Discussions are in progress with Transport Scotland and Network Rail with regards to the final route options and timings, ahead of an application to the ORR for access rights. If successful, the new services will be operated with the existing Lumo fleet of all-electric trains and it is anticipated that they could begin in the second half of the 2025 calendar year.

FirstGroup Plc - Pre Close Trading Update

FirstGroup Plc - Pre Close Trading Update

uk.finance.yahoo.com

Potentially will be more detail in full Trading Update and analysis, which under stock exchange rules would have to be accurate.