Open Access Rail Services Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for Transport
Wednesday 22nd October 2025

(1 day, 18 hours ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Asked by
Lord Snape Portrait Lord Snape
- View Speech - Hansard - -

To ask His Majesty’s Government what is the impact on rail capacity of open access rail services.

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, in the right circumstances, open access operations can provide benefits such as improved connectivity and choice for passengers, but they can also increase costs to taxpayers and create additional performance pressures on an already constrained network. Large areas of the network are already operating at full capacity, and additional open access services can exacerbate constraints along the busiest corridors of the network and impact operators’ abilities to operate revenue-generative services that would reduce taxpayer subsidy.

Lord Snape Portrait Lord Snape (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Can he assure me that any further applications for open access trains will not prejudice the existing train paths, particularly on the east and west coast main lines, and particularly train paths reserved for freight trains, if the Government are to meet their target of increasing rail freight by 75% over the next few years? Further, does he believe that the fact that open access trains enjoy a different charging regime from the companies that run the majority of services, including the state-owned companies, leads to a more profitable situation for open access trains, and will he do anything about it?

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

My noble friend is correct. Both the east coast and west coast main lines are now heavily constrained, and under the current arrangements the regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, has recently declined most of the additional applications for train paths simply because there is no room. He is also right to suggest that we need to leave room for increased freight operations. There is a general consensus that more railway freight is good for the economy and the environment, and it would be right to leave paths for freight expansion.

In respect of his question about profitability, it was recently reported that FirstGroup’s open access business achieved a 32% operating profit in the 2024-25 financial year. These profits arise because open access operators do not pay the full cost of accessing the track, and nor do they have to meet public service obligations to operate the services that most people need. This allows them to offer reduced fares and provide journeys only between the most profitable locations. Currently, Lumo is the only open access operator that contributes towards fixed costs via an infrastructure cost charge, which leaves taxpayers to fill the shortfalls. The railways Bill will propose to change the arrangements for access and will consider what needs to be done further in respect of charging.