A direct train from London to Wrexham? The chance to whiz to Scotland for less than £50? Trains run by a firm specialising in a single route, competing to lure customers away from the expensive big operators? What’s not to like?
Given the promise of cheaper fares to under-served UK destinations, it is perhaps little wonder that Labour’s plan for a “pragmatic” renationalisation of the railways matches the Conservatives’ policy on “open access” train providers. It also signals that the party remains open for business.
That means likes of Lumo, which in 2021 joined Hull Trains and Grand Central on the east coast mainline, can rest easy after the local elections, even while parent companies FirstGroup and Arriva face ejection from main national rail routes under a Labour government.
Privately owned open access operators are a curiosity. Rightwing thinktanks would love to see a multitude of them competing on the railways. But their scope is limited by physical constraints such as depots, track space, timetables, stations and connections.
So far, only the east coast trio have stayed (as well as, technically, Heathrow Express and Eurostar), accounting for 3.8m journeys in 2022-23 (the nationalised London North Eastern Railway accounts for 23.4m).
As well as demonstrating that the party is not wedded to ideology, retaining open access suits Labour because it primarily benefits northern regions and “red wall” constituencies, bringing local jobs and cheaper direct trains. But the industry has long been divided, with some maintaining that the taxpayer would be better off without them. One senior railway source argued that, given capacity constraints, open access operators undermined the wider public good. That limited capacity was the reason for massive outlay on building HS2 and expensive upgrades on the conventional railway. In their view, open access operators were “gaming the system”, and rules meant to protect the main contracted train company were exacerbating the problem.
To win a contract with the Office of Rail and Road, an open access operator has to show that its trains would not be “abstracting” revenue (taking fare income from the incumbent). But that required a particular pattern of station stops, the source said. “You get people stopping randomly to meet the regulatory threshold for abstraction – it just further restricts efficient utilisation of the railway.”
Proponents argue that it allows different stations and routes to get a decent showing. Ian Yeowart, founder of Grand Central, has now started Grand Union to run open access services from London to Stirling and Carmarthen from next year. He said: “It has opened up the market. We were amazed by how many people couldn’t afford to travel by train when we started. Ask the leaders of councils in Hartlepool, Bradford or Halifax if they’d be without us. There is a huge amount of support at grassroots level.”
That was underlined when, on the day Labour announced its rail nationalisation plan, state-run LNER confirmed the end of its daily direct London-Sunderland service, citing low passenger numbers.
Yeowart said: “When things become difficult it is the extremities that lose out. I think people on the east coast would be horrified if they lost their alternatives.”
But critics doubt how much those destinations contribute to profits, with the Carmarthen service, say, perhaps taking fares from passengers travelling to already well-connected Swansea.
Yeowart insisted open access operators brought more people from road and air to rail. While total UK passenger numbers are below 2019 levels, mainly as commuting has fallen, usage across all the east coast operators was up on pre-Covid levels, he said. “What’s it got that’s different? Competition. And a little competition keeps everyone honest.”
Others have been encouraged to join: France’s Alstom is looking to set up a direct London-Wrexham service, which it hopes can better an ill-fated predecessor by using the jealously guarded west coast main line to offer shorter journey times.
Andrew Haines, Network Rail’s chief executive, said: “Some open access has proven to be valuable. If you’re going to do more, you have to be honest about the true costs of running it. In some places the benefits will outweigh the costs; in others it needs quite close scrutiny.
“As an ex-chair of Hull Trains, I’m a massive advocate where it works well… but we should be transparent about the downsides if it ends up eating up capacity inefficiently.”
While high fares, rigid central control and strike disruption persist, open access operators appear to offer an attractive alternative to both government and opposition. However, Labour’s policy document suggests some scepticism: open access “will remain where it adds value and capacity to the rail network”, and future applications will be decided “on the basis of an updated framework and guidance issued by the secretary of state”.
Until the whole of the Great British Railways vision becomes reality – with a “guiding mind” running a fully integrated, functioning system – it may remain unclear whether open access trains are a cure for, or a symptom of, Britain’s fragmented railway.
