Open Access, good or bad

[yorksrob]

Even if BR was privatised as a single entity, wouldn't passenger services still have to be split from infrastructure operations under EU rules?

In a word, yes.

Whether this is a good idea generally - or whether other countries have managed to achieve this in a better way, the jury's out.

There is a question as to whether this interface leads to an unnecessary cost. My own particular concern is whether track access charges unnecessarily inflate the costs of running rural regional services, and make them less viable than they would otherwise be.

However, as you state, this seperation is a requirement under EU rules, and undoubtedly makes open access easier.

 

[Simon11]

Although they do leech as you call it from the TOC's don't the TOC's leech from the government in the first place, and the Open Access Providers provide extra services from the likes of Doncaster & York with quicker journey times as well as providing small places with direct London train such as Halifax, Brighouse, Hartlepool, Brough, Howden and Northallerton? Surely this is a good thing as connecting to London in this day and age is vital for business and for people seeing relatives that live down there or up here? Also GC keep a track of how many people are traveling on there Bradford Services as I have seen staff counting numbers on the trains the purpose of this I'm not sure if they send the numbers to ORCATS I'm not sure. However when ever I'm on the services they seem busy and people are choosing to travel GC from Doncaster due to there Cheap Fares and Quicker Journey times south of Doncaster I would guess?

Staff counting numbers onboard will generally be for internal information, so they can use this information to inform judgement for their AP strategy.

The numbers do not go to ORCATS. TOC's are however allowed to fix their ORCATS allocation with agreement of both operators, which is usually done by the form of a survey counting all passengers with walk-up products on every train service. With the revenue involved, this can be a long drawn out process. There are already fixed ORCATS allocations on the York route, but not so on the Bradford route (from when I last looked into this a year ago). This process of agreeing ORCATS on the York routes took a few years!

 

[David Sinnett]

It's said that an OAO is formed to, in part, raid the ORCATS purse. If the route was busy enough and they had a competing product could they carry their own ticketed passengers only on any origin and destination or do they have to share pax and therefore share revenue?
Originally I remember the franchises had competition protection for a number of years. Presumably this has now changed... when and how?

 

[NSEFAN]

There still is a degree of competition prevention by the DfT, as OAOs do indeed abstract revenue from the franchises due to ORCATS. This is bad for the treasury, so my cynical side believes that the DfT will do all in their power to make open access as hard as possible, hence the limited number of OAOs in existence.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

In the early days of privatisation , there was "Moderation of Competition" - flows protected for the embryonic TOC's - the last survivor of which was West Coast. This calmed any open access aspirations , though as pointed out above Hull , was a bit of a special case with a latent , unserved market waiting to be served. Jury out in many cases - as even on the Continent , - open access (in a bit of a stifling environment) has not been largely succesful - think Hamburg to Koln with "The Metropolitan" which did not last long. Tricky... _

 

[higthomas]

As you suggest, the Open Access operators are not paying their full way and more than that, my understanding is that through ORCATS, they are abstracting some of the revenues of the TOC's.

If there was proper open competition it might be another matter, but the Open Access operators are simply leeching of the system. This is not open competition as some people seem to think.

Yes, but this is a system that is based upon cross-subsidisation. Only a very few routes could survive without cross-subsidisation, pretty much those in the Serpell report option B (http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_Serpell001.pdf page 71),
yet a rail network like that would be a travesty.
I think that other lines and services are subsidised because they are socially good, and I think that all the open-access routes proposed (other than alliance rail to Edinburgh) are generally in the public good, and so should be subsidised. Yes we are also helping the shareholders, but that also happens when we subsidise the far north line, that is what happens on a privatised railway.

 

[Hartington]

More than one operator on commuter routes doesn't necessarily mean no interavailable fares. What it does mean that if you are prepared to travel on trains operated by just one company you may well benefit from a cheaper fare. It's no different to London/Birmingham where you have Chiltern (albeit on a different route), London Midland and Virgin. Yes, you can buy a ticket valid on any one or you can choose to buy for a specific company.

 

[Tom B]

That said, I'm still squeamish about the whole separation between track and train and the way costs/access charges are allocated.

As said elsewhere, subsidy depends on how you look at it (or how your accountants want to look at it!).

I recall sitting with a friend at a station in the London suburbs during the p.m. peak waiting for a train coming out of town - there had been some earlier delay. Whilst waiting, a steady stream of almost empty trains heading, in service, back into town. They pointed this out as an example of waste and why on earth were the railways running needless empty trains (just like a beancounter might if they analysed that particular journey might). It was lost on them, until I pointed it out, that those trains were going into town purely so they can come back out full of people. Regardless of how many people are on it, it needs to get into town!

But short-sighted thinking is a problem endemic in not only the railway industry these days!

An unpleasant side-effect of the fragmented railway is the blaming of everyone else for problems and the open response of "Well, it's not our problem, it's Network Rail's broken signal/ScotRail's broken down train". The passenger, broadly speaking, doesn't care who has caused the problem, they just want it to be resolved - and then the various firms can fight amongst each other after the event.

The thing that has put me off GC/HT when travelling KGX-DON is (apart from 2 hours on a DMU) the problems that you may face during disruption - you're unlikely to find anybody from those firms at either station to help you, and the East Coast staff will not help you as you booked with another firm. I suspect, although I do not know, that the First CC staff at King's X would try to wash their hands of you even if you are a First HT passenger.

I'd sooner book with East Coast knowing that, if there is a problem, the next train is 20/30 minutes behind and I can speak to somebody from the firm, at the station, who knows what's what.

 

[wensley]

The thing that has put me off GC/HT when travelling KGX-DON is (apart from 2 hours on a DMU) the problems that you may face during disruption - you're unlikely to find anybody from those firms at either station to help you, and the East Coast staff will not help you as you booked with another firm. I suspect, although I do not know, that the First CC staff at King's X would try to wash their hands of you even if you are a First HT passenger.

I'd sooner book with East Coast knowing that, if there is a problem, the next train is 20/30 minutes behind and I can speak to somebody from the firm, at the station, who knows what's what.

There is one member of customer service staff shared between FHT and GC at Kings Cross covering all departures, generally on the CIP or on the platforms during boarding to offer additional information and act as a link between TOC Control, Station Control and passengers in the event of disruption.

 

[David Sinnett]

Does an OAO, or a franchise for that matter, pay the operators of a station they stop at or is this included in the track access fee? Are station operators duty bound to look after any train or their passengers that stops there?

 

[starrymarkb]

Generally yes, but East Coast and their Predesessors on the East Coast do have a reputation for not assisting with passengers of other TOCs (whether franchised or open access)

Certainly had issue with GNER not accepting a Hull Trains ticket when disruption meant I missed my booked service (I'd been a bit creative with a Day Single with GNER to Doncaster and HT from there to get an affordable ticket due to Leeds Festival crowds) - Had to buy a new ticket to London (and eventually got a refund from them a few months later after arguing my corner) - and waiting for the Next Hull train would have possibly meant a night in a hotel!

 

[Tetchytyke]

open access (in a bit of a stifling environment) has not been largely succesful - think Hamburg to Koln with "The Metropolitan" which did not last long. Tricky... _

There's been limited success on the Continent, Arriva definitely got a firm foothold in Hamburg, to the extent that the Competition Commission made them sell it when DB bought them.

GNER were awful with Grand Central when they first started, and there is definitely still a hangover from that. But then Grand Central have forced positive changes on what is now East Coast. The two that come to mind are the speeding up of Scotland services, with them running non-stop to York to compete with GC, and also the fact that Northallerton now sees an EC train every two hours (compared to twice a day before).

"Open Access" has been more successful than people think in the UK, as some TOCs used "open access" rules to extend their services. The Arriva Trains Northern service to Glasgow is one example, but the best one is probably the Clapham Junction-Milton Keynes service. That was entirely open access and now it's an integral part of the transport network.

 

[westv]

I've only had to transfer from HT to EC once so far (Hull end) and did so without problem.

 

[AlterEgo]

Does an OAO, or a franchise for that matter, pay the operators of a station they stop at or is this included in the track access fee? Are station operators duty bound to look after any train or their passengers that stops there?

There are specific Station Access fees, and yes, the station-operating TOC therefore has a duty to look after the passengers of the OAO.

The situation on the ground can sometimes be different though!