🚆 Rail Services: Open Access Operators

• East Coast Main Line Success: Martin Vickers highlighted the success of open access operators on the East Coast Main Line, which has been operational for 25 years. These operators have improved connections across northern towns and cities, showing significant passenger and financial growth.

• Campaign for Direct Services: Vickers has been advocating for direct rail services from Grimsby, Cleethorpes, and other Lincolnshire areas to London since 2011. He stressed the need for better connectivity, mentioning specific routes via Newark and Doncaster.

• Challenges at Market Rasen: A major obstacle to new services is infrastructure at Market Rasen, particularly the cost of platform and footbridge construction, which Vickers argued is inflated and should not hinder progress.

• Government’s Stance: The Minister, Simon Lightwood, clarified that while open access operators bring benefits, new applications need to justify any financial impact on government-funded services. He stated the government’s intention is not to remove existing open access operators but to balance their benefits with network efficiency.

• Economic and Environmental Benefits: Open access operators were praised for driving down fares, increasing passenger numbers, and contributing to economic growth and environmental sustainability by shifting travel from air to rail.

• Regional Advocacy: Several MPs from various regions, including Scarborough, Newcastle, and Gainsborough, discussed the potential benefits of open access services for their constituencies, emphasizing the need for better connectivity and economic growth.

• Future Plans and Consultation: The Minister mentioned future consultations on the proposed Railways Bill, which will consider the role of open access operators within the broader rail network.

• Need for Quick Decision-Making: MPs stressed the importance of the regulator making swift decisions on new open access applications to bring services to underserved areas more quickly.

• International Comparisons: Some references were made to successful open access models in Europe, such as Italy and Austria, which have seen increased passenger numbers and competition, suggesting potential lessons for the UK.

• Investment in UK Train Manufacturing: The debate touched on the positive impact of open access operators on UK train manufacturing, with new orders supporting jobs and investment in facilities like Hitachi’s Newton Aycliffe plant.

The session on ‘Rail Services: Open Access Operators’ displayed minimal disagreement among the participating members of parliament. The primary focus was on advocating for the expansion and benefits of open access rail services across different regions, rather than debating against their utility. Here are the detailed observations and examples that support this assessment:

1. General Consensus: Most speakers, including Martin Vickers (Conservative), Melanie Onn (Labour), Alison Hume (Labour), Mary Glindon (Labour), and Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat), universally supported the concept of open access rail operators. They highlighted the success of existing open access services and advocated for similar services to be introduced or expanded in their constituencies.

2. Regional Advocacy: Members of Parliament from different regions of the UK, such as Grimsby, Cleethorpes, Scarborough, Newcastle, and others, all voiced a strong desire for more open access services in their areas. They did not oppose the proposals but rather pushed for quicker decision-making and implementation from the government and regulatory bodies.

3. Lack of Direct Opposition: There were no direct oppositions to the expansion of open access operators. Even the minister’s response, while acknowledging the operational challenges and financial impacts of open access, reaffirmed the government’s support for these services where they add value and capacity to the network.

4. Constructive Criticism: Some members, such as Sir Edward Leigh (Conservative), expressed frustration over delays and the seemingly unreasonable excuses provided by rail operators and infrastructure bodies. However, these remarks were more critical of the bureaucratic processes rather than the concept of open access itself.

5. Ministerial Response: The Minister, Simon Lightwood, addressed concerns related to abstraction, operational efficiency, and financial implications but did not dismiss the value of open access. Instead, he emphasized balancing the benefits and challenges, which shows alignment with the parliament’s overall sentiment.

Examples of minimal disagreement include:

• Martin Vickers and Melanie Onn agreeing on the need for open access services in their constituencies and advocating for faster regulatory decisions.
• Alison Hume and Helen Morgan discussing the benefits of open access for coastal and rural communities, with no counter-arguments from other members.
• Mary Glindon and Paul Kohler discussing successful open access operations and their economic benefits, without any dissenting voices.

The only notable point of departure could be the mention by the Minister of some operational challenges caused by open access services, but this was not framed as a disagreement with their value. It was instead presented as a consideration that the government must account for in its decisions.

Overall, the session exhibited a high level of agreement and a focused advocacy for expanding open access rail services, warranting a low disagreement rating of 1.