What should be done to Open Access operators?

[rowan826]

Personally I think Open Access is a silly idea as makes our rail network more congested and complicated.

If Open Access operators where merged with franchises, then Hull Trains and Grand Central would be part of NXEC.

[arabiandisco]

The whole point of the structure of the rail industry is to allow open access operators (I believe the original vision of John Major's government was that operators would bid for paths on a 12-weekly basis, or something like that).

Without open access, we'd never have had Hull Trains proving that there is actually a market for direct trains between Hull & London, as the ICEC contract has only ever required one KX - Hull train per day. Grand Central & Wrexham are too young to make any judgements on the sense of their business plans.

You could make arguments on the sense of the current structure, but there would be no point merging with one of the existing operators contracts. That would be a sure-fire way to discourage people from trying new things, as the message will be "open access operators can try new routes for us, and if they're any good the government will take them for themselves, if you sink then never mind...".

[bthornhill]

Are you suggesting we stop NYMR using their Open Access Agreement to extend their services to Whitby, and go back to only Northern Rail providing these services?

[rowan826]

In Ireland they don't have any open access operators or franchises, just one national railway company which is simple.

If privatisation didn't happen, these won't be any open access operators and one train per day from London to Hull.

[cyllabranch]

I voted keep them as they are , I don't see anything wrong with them.

[AlistairW]

A big question, personally I'm unsure, I don't like the idea of open access potentially poaching customers from the franchises, such as Grand Central at York and Hull Trains at Doncaster. I also think that it should be the likes of VWC, NXEC that operate these services and not a open access operator.

However, saying this GNER had years to set up additional Hull - London services so in that sense Open Access is good for keeping the franchises on their toes. If GNER had put half as much effort into running Sunderland - London services before Grand Central arrived they wouldn't have spent a few years dragging them through the courts.

Privatisation was meant to bring innovation to the national network and all it seems to have done is allow private companies to capitalise on the money makers, I/E only boost services on routes where passenger numbers are already outstripping demand. Very few operators have taken the risks that open access operators have, such as HT, GC and WS at the end of this month.

So I am on the fence, I don't think we need more operators but I do think the franchises should have soaked up these potential markets years ago thus not giving open access a business case.

On another note this isn't just in the UK but it's across Europe now too, last I read was that a private operator is going to purchase a number of High Speed Trains to run in Italy - since when did the national operator need competition! Also there is soon to be change for open access, cross border services which will put even more pressure on loss making international services that exist today. It could all end up with everything going kaput!

Cheers,
Ali

[enotayokel]

As I understand it Open Access is now a European requirement. It will be more common on the Continent then here (loading gauge) and will probably stay nonexistant in Ireland because of Gauge

Even with National State operators you will get Open Access, Look at all the freight operators that have sprung up on the Continent