COMMENT
“ Critics complain, with some justification, that privatisation has allowed modern day passenger monopolies – or railopolies – to emerge.”
On the East Coast Main Line, private non- subsidised ‘open access’ rail operators such as York-based Grand Central and Hull Trains compete with the lines’ franchise holder and this competition has provided some revealing new statistics.
They show how long distance rail competition delivers lower fares, higher revenues and greater rail use without threatening the viability of the East Coast Main Line franchise holder, ‘East Coast’. It is a key development.
New research shows that those stations which enjoy long distance ‘open access’ on- rail competition, such as Doncaster, York, Northallerton and Grantham, have seen (on average) passenger journeys increase by 42%, compared with 27% for those without competition, such as Leeds (see Table 2, below).
Revenue has also increased at a faster rate (57% compared to 48%) where competition occurs, but crucially there has been no increase in average fares at stations with competition since 2009.
Importantly, at Edinburgh where no on-rail competition exists to serve London, fares have
TABLE 3
such as Sunderland and Halifax, at their own risk and initiative, which the franchised operators have refused to do. This has led to private sector investment in disused and near derelict stations such as the locally infamous Wakefield
Kirkgate,
which is enjoying millions of pounds of new investment and will now become staffed.
soared (see Table 3, above). Loyal passengers
In the past franchised rail operators have complained to ministers that more competition will limit or prevent their ability to pay the Government the franchise premium as smaller competitors would ‘poach’
their business. TABLE 2
However, new official statistics show that increased competition brings more passengers to the railway and the franchise holder. Take East Coast; it is easily able to pay its premiums, even though it must compete with Grand Central and Hull Trains at stations like Northallerton, York, Doncaster and Wakefield for London passengers.
Source: AECOM analysis KEY
Stations with open access rail service competition Stations without open access rail service competition Average change for all stations
The most recent official passenger satisfaction survey shows open ac- cess operators Grand Central and Hull Trains registering 96% and 94% overall passenger satisfaction respec- tively. Importantly, they also scored top in value for money.
These operators have also taken the decision to serve new locations,
At Eaglescliffe, near Mid- dlesbrough, similar investments are underway.
In recent years a fascinating railway experiment has been taking place at key stations in and around Yorkshire.
Though still small, real railway competition has been operating and increasingly winning loyal passengers.
On the back of the rail franchising debacle the Government should seize the opportunity by working to issue new shorter rail franchises, with a clear policy to encourage and allow more open access competition in order to reduce Government franchise risk and boost competition. Only by embracing more on- rail competition, alongside franchises, can Government deliver better and lower cost railways, with lower fares and more choice for passengers.
It’s time to give rail privatisation a second chance and the lessons from Yorkshire are clear.
Tony Lodge is a research fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) and author of ‘Rail’s Second Chance – Getting rail privatisation and competition back on track’, published by the CPS.
www.cps.org.uk FOR MORE INFORMATION
rail technology magazine Feb/Mar 13 | 21
Tony Lodge
© AdamKR
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84