Open access firms labelled ‘parasites’ by union leaders

Open access operators are parasitical and cut passenger choice, two rail union leaders told the House of Commons Transport Select Committee on May 14.

At a further session to scrutinise the Department for Transport’s draft rail reform bill, which aims to create Great British Railways to oversee the network and its operators, ASLEF General Secretary Mick Whelan responded to questions about open access operators by saying: “They have a captive audience from the certain location they go from and the main line railways tend not to run any more trains there because there is less choice.

"You either go by Grand Central, or you go by Hull Trains.”

RMT General Secretary Mick Lynch was earlier asked about the role of rail regulator the Office of Rail and Road (ORR).

He responded: “The thrust of nearly everyone of all persuasions is we need an integrated and, to a certain extent, planned railway that is working for everyone.

“And then you just throw in another body, the ORR, which says ‘well, I’m going to give a licence for this niche operator to - I don’t want to use the word parasite, but - operate on the back of what everyone else is doing to integrate, drive down costs, get efficiency, keep people happier, but then we’re going to open up this other separate railway’.”

Challenged by Conservative MP Jack Brereton that open access had recovered passengers and revenue more quickly after the pandemic than other train operators, Lynch said: “They’re not paying the true costs of their operations because they are not paying the true cost of operating their infrastructure.

"They’re not paying the true costs of operating the stations.

"They’re not paying for the signallers.”

When Brereton asked whether passengers should have a choice, Lynch said: “People have always had choice - you can get the express train or the slow train.

“That’s pretty much what the model is with open access operators. They get certain preferential arrangements and paths, and they bid for those paths, which are often preferential to the one the traditional operator is running.”

Whelan also argued that privatisation had brought none of the benefits that John Major’s government intended in the 1990s.

When it granted rights to run open access services between London and Stirling in March, ORR said: “Competition can make a significant contribution to innovation in terms of the routes served, ticketing practices and service quality improvements.”

But Whelan said there was nothing in the Rail Reform Bill that would encourage “anybody to build one inch of track,” and said: “There’s nothing in this bill that will encourage private investment.”

Citing London Underground’s experience with Metronet and Tube Lines, Lynch said: “Where we’ve had private sector operation, they have proved to be completely inept.

“They don’t want to invest, they want to milk the railway and milk the taxpayer.”

The committee heard from Angel Trains Chief Executive Malcolm Brown immediately after the two union leaders.

He said ROSCOs such as his kept the cost of buying trains off the government’s balance sheet, and that this amounted to £15 billion.

Asked by SNP MP Gavin Newlands to justify the ROSCOs, Brown said: “I’ve invested £1.5bn over the last decade, and £5bn since privatisation.”

He said this was money that Angel has brought to the industry though the leasing model.