Great Western franchise to be broken up?

[D1009]

Was the Wessex Trains basically any route that GWR currently don't use an HST on?

It would be more correct to say any route that GWR currently don't use an HST, 165, 166 or 180 on. What would make it more confusing is if the new franchise included Paddington - Plymouth/Penzance services.

 

[47802]

It would be more correct to say any route that GWR currently don't use an HST, 165, 166 or 180 on. What would make it more confusing is if the new franchise included Paddington - Plymouth/Penzance services.

Why is it confusing there is no reason to suggest that the new franchise split if happens will bear any resemblance to the old Wessex Franchise or is really of any relevance, in fact I would imagine it would be desirable for it not to be like the Wessex franchise where it ends up being a highly subsidised underfunded Cinderella franchise like Northern.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If it were to be split into a separate franchise then which one would get the green "GWR" livery in the divorce settlement (since both the "Didcot" and the "B&H" sides would have a claim to it)?

The green "GWR" branding belongs to First Group for the current franchise.
A new operator in the South West would have its own branding (Ginster Pasties to make a comeback? ).
First is in any case not guaranteed to retain the current franchise or any rump left after a putative split, so the GWR branding may change anyway.

 

[WatcherZero]

Exactly. Having seen various articles and opinion pieces and followed the peninsular rail task force, the focus has been very much on physical improvements, rather than tinkering with the franchise. This proposal seems to be more central Government inspired.

From the foundation of the Penisular Rail Task Force.

government will explore the case for establishing a new dedicated Devon and Cornwall franchise for the south-west of England, bringing together parts of the current Great Western and south-west Trains franchises into a coherent whole to support better timetabling and provision of rail services to and within the south-west, not simply focused on journeys to London. Alongside this, government would like to encourage local government in the region to come together to form Rail south-west, with the long term aim of devolving the franchise to local decision makers (subject to the development of satisfactory capability to let and manage such contracts)

And Terms of reference of the Task Force 3 Point Plan Action Group established by the Peninsular Task Force.

It will take account of all relevant factors including...

*The DfT passenger franchising programme and plans for decentralisation of decision-making on rail service provision to local and regional bodies

Full list of Members of the Peninsular Task Force, note no central government representation.

The members of the Peninsula Rail Task Force are:
Cornwall Council
Devon County Council
Plymouth City Council
Somerset County Council
Torbay Council
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Enterprise Partnership
Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership

Devolved Transport was also included as an ask in the 'The Heart of the South West Combined Authority' application.

 

[D1009]

Why is it confusing there is no reason to suggest that the new franchise split if happens will bear any resemblance to the old Wessex Franchise or is really of any relevance, in fact I would imagine it would be desirable for it not to be like the Wessex franchise where it ends up being a highly subsidised underfunded Cinderella franchise like Northern.

Perhaps confusing was the wrong word, but I don't see much benefit in setting up a very small train and catering crew depot in the London area for the few trains on the West of England route whose diagrams start at that end.

 

[47802]

Perhaps confusing was the wrong word, but I don't see much benefit in setting up a very small train and catering crew depot in the London area for the few trains on the West of England route whose diagrams start at that end.

Well the likes of Hull Trains and Grand Central seem to be able to manage their operation at the ends of their routes, and they have far less trains than an Intercity operation to the South West would have.

I very much doubt that the Dft will want to setup a purely local franchise that is highly subsidised, and remember the Intercity route will have new trains, where as the local routes will probably need to consider getting new trains during the next franchise.

 

[pdeaves]

Well the likes of Hull Trains and Grand Central seem to be able to manage their operation at the ends of their routes, and they have far less trains than an Intercity operation to the South West would have.

True, but they take the risk and government doesn't care if they fail. It's a very different story for franchised operators.

 

[father_jack]

If it were to be split into a separate franchise then which one would get the green "GWR" livery in the divorce settlement (since both the "Didcot" and the "B&H" sides would have a claim to it)?

I'm not sure about this. There's some argument that the current FGW is too big to attract competitive bids for, that you could focus more on different areas with smaller TOCs.

But then, I don't know how you'd split it. If the Bristol - Weymouth/ Southampton/ Portsmouth services go to a "Wessex" franchise then that leaves only a rump operation for local DMUs around Bristol (Weston, Severn Brach, Great Malvern). Operationally that may sit better with an adjacent franchise but the political complications of the Cardiff Bay dominated Wales & Borders may put pay to that.

Or, once you start carving it up, where do you stop? Bristol - Weymouth/ Southampton/ Portsmouth services may fit better with SWT...
.


Good points.



The great problem with the nice-sounding George Osborne approach to "devolution" - giving spending decisions to local levels sounds positive but becomes meaningless if they just have the same budget to play with and no scope to raise funds/ borrow.

If you want to devolve then you have to do it properly.

So, I guess my opinion of this move depends on whether there's new money/ new trains.



GWR used to be First Great Western, Thames Trains and parts of Wales & West.

Thames Trains was fairly straightforward - I can't remember them operating anything other than 165s and 166s - so the Thames Valley branches, Redhill, Oxford slows etc. Plus a short lived Bristol - Oxford service.

Wales & West ran the local stuff around Bristol plus the Devon/ Cornwall branches (inc Great Malvern, Weymouth, Portsmouth) and a token service to Waterloo - whilst enthusiasts remember Central Trains as having some strange long distance services, W&W had a few too like Penzance to Portsmouth and west Wales to Waterloo.

Did First Great Western run anything other than HSTs, Sleepers and 180s (before it became "Greater Western"?

Imagine the cost of the route knowledge....

 

[Richard_B]

is there anywhere where the services can be split that doesn't ruin the diagrams, staffing, or ability to change stock for peak services? In theory having a different franchise to focus on the SW isn't a terrible idea, it just seems that the combines GWR uses cooperation between the areas that would become split to run more appropriate and/or efficient services

 

[infobleep]

If memory serves me right in the run up to privatisation it was removed from the proposed "South West Trains" franchise because a certain businessman said he would not bid for that franchise if it was included.

Who was that?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Thames Trains was fairly straightforward - I can't remember them operating anything other than 165s and 166s - so the Thames Valley branches, Redhill, Oxford slows etc. Plus a short lived Bristol - Oxford service.

Plus the majority of the (North) Cotswolds service: back then there were just two FGW HSTs in each direction, plus a curious off-peak service which they subcontracted to Thames to operate as a Turbo.

Thames did pretty much all the Oxford service, too. FGW's only Oxford services were the two Cotswold HSTs, plus, I think, an additional evening Oxford-only HST service for a while which was withdrawn after one of the crashes (Ladbroke Grove or Southall, can't remember which).

At one point Thames did issue an OJEU notice for up to 20 new higher-speed DMUs, but nothing came of it.

It's amazing to see how far the Oxford and North Cotswolds service has come in a short time, entirely under the stewardship of (F)GWR.

 

[yorksrob]

From the foundation of the Penisular Rail Task Force.



And Terms of reference of the Task Force 3 Point Plan Action Group established by the Peninsular Task Force.

You're right, it is mentioned.

That said, I don't recall pulses quickening at the prospect of a franchise boundary change in the aftermath of the sea wall breach three years ago.

The local (and national) press and delegations to parliament etc seemed very focused on physical improvements at the time.

 

[Bantamzen]

I love it when ministers talk about competition on the railway network. Just how much competition do we really have among the current TOCs, thinking specifically about parent companies:

• Abellio - 2
• Arriva UK Trains - 6
• Eurostar International Limited, SNCF & NMBS/SNCB - 1
• FirstGroup - 3
• Govia - 2
• Heathrow Airport Holdings (First) - 2
• MTR Corporation - 1
• National Express - 1
• Serco (Serco-Abellio) - 2
• Stagecoach / Virgin Group & Stagecoach - 4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_operating_trains_in_the_United_Kingdom

So of the 23 franchises in the UK, 4 or 5 companies own all or at least a stake in 18 of them. It sounds a lot like the big 4 of the bus sector. Competition my a***!

 

[meridian2]

So of the 23 franchises in the UK, 4 or 5 companies own all or at least a stake in 18 of them. It sounds a lot like the big 4 of the bus sector. Competition my a***!

Spot on!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So of the 23 franchises in the UK, 4 or 5 companies own all or at least a stake in 18 of them. It sounds a lot like the big 4 of the bus sector. Competition my a***!

How many rail-capable operators are out there do you think, who are not already involved?

You missed Keolis by the way (and now Trenitalia).
MTR also have Crossrail.
HEX and Eurostar are not franchises.

Renfe once tried for ICWC.
Japan is interested - JR East is bidding for West Midlands; Mitsui is also in there.
Connex gave up and NX have now thrown in the towel.
BA once had an interest in Eurostar.
DB might yet operate on HS1.

There's also limited Open Acess (currently First and Arriva).
Some infrastructure firms are hovering (eg Amey who now run DLR with Keolis and are bidding for Cardiff Valleys Metro), and John Laing .
No other UK operator has emerged.
What sort of competition do you want?

 

[Moonshot]

You would only get true competition if two or more train companies were operating on the same route without colluding to fix prices. Perhaps the nearest we get to that is the East Coast Mainline between KGX & YRK or YRK & EDB?

This is an excellent point, the fact that true head to head competition only exists in small pockets on the network just shows how difficult it is just now. IMO a big stumbling block is the fact the the UK infrastructure is so inefficient. It will take years just to remove the remaining absolute block signalling ( which dates back to Victorian times ) and have the entire network controlled from a dozen or so signal super centres as an example. I ve no doubt the ineffieciencies contribute to a higher operating cost.

 

[tbtc]

I wouldn't have thought it was that difficult all Intercity Services via the B&H route plus Local services beyond Taunton and probably the stopper services which go up to Bristol from Exeter etc plus the sleeper.

People seem to be making ref to the split of the old Wessex franchise which I suspect is fairly irrelevant.

If there are Paddington services involved then it obviously won't be a repeat of Wessex, but as for the rest of this, it depends on what your definition of the "south west" is. Is Bristol to Weymouth wholly in the "south west" or are we only talking about Devon and Cornwall? The smaller you make the franchise, the more inefficiencies you'll get.

The green "GWR" branding belongs to First Group for the current franchise.
A new operator in the South West would have its own branding (Ginster Pasties to make a comeback? ).
First is in any case not guaranteed to retain the current franchise or any rump left after a putative split, so the GWR branding may change anyway.

Interesting (as ever) - thanks.

Perhaps confusing was the wrong word, but I don't see much benefit in setting up a very small train and catering crew depot in the London area for the few trains on the West of England route whose diagrams start at that end.

True - plus it would remove the flexibility where a "Devon" arrival at Paddington could run out as a "Bristol"/ "Cardiff"/ "Oxford" service. Sometimes that's more of a theoretical benefit than an actual one, but it's worth considering. Similarly, having the Devon & Cornwall services as part of a Greater Western means that spare capacity may be found for the obvious summer holiday peak.

Imagine the cost of the route knowledge....

Good point.

Plus the majority of the (North) Cotswolds service: back then there were just two FGW HSTs in each direction, plus a curious off-peak service which they subcontracted to Thames to operate as a Turbo.

Thames did pretty much all the Oxford service, too. FGW's only Oxford services were the two Cotswold HSTs, plus, I think, an additional evening Oxford-only HST service for a while which was withdrawn after one of the crashes (Ladbroke Grove or Southall, can't remember which).

At one point Thames did issue an OJEU notice for up to 20 new higher-speed DMUs, but nothing came of it.

It's amazing to see how far the Oxford and North Cotswolds service has come in a short time, entirely under the stewardship of (F)GWR.

Gosh - I hadn't appreciated how much Thames dominated the Oxford route (and how few HSTs ran London - Oxford back then) - that's really interesting - you're obviously right about how transformative it has been. Lucky all the Cross Country HSTs were freed up to provide capacity that has certainly been required on London - Oxford. Thanks for that.

I love it when ministers talk about competition on the railway network. Just how much competition do we really have among the current TOCs, thinking specifically about parent companies:

• Abellio - 2
• Arriva UK Trains - 6
• Eurostar International Limited, SNCF & NMBS/SNCB - 1
• FirstGroup - 3
• Govia - 2
• Heathrow Airport Holdings (First) - 2
• MTR Corporation - 1
• National Express - 1
• Serco (Serco-Abellio) - 2
• Stagecoach / Virgin Group & Stagecoach - 4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_operating_trains_in_the_United_Kingdom

So of the 23 franchises in the UK, 4 or 5 companies own all or at least a stake in 18 of them. It sounds a lot like the big 4 of the bus sector. Competition my a***!

Competition is relatively easy in the bus sector (few barriers to buying a vehicle, licencing a service, finding employees with relevant knowledge/ skills), but how easy do you want to make it for new bidders into the rail market?

Who are the organisations you feel should be bidding for franchises (who currently aren't doing so)?

 

[meridian2]

What sort of competition do you want?

I'd settle for some honesty about the motives for privatisation, transparency about the way it was implemented, and realism about the way forward.

Either there is genuine competition, or there isn't. If there isn't - and I have serious doubts whether the current system offers competition of the kind envisioned at the end of BR - join the infrastructure and operation and return to a single national railway.
If there is to be competition, open the market globally, allow foreign investors to develop new railways and have a genuinely competitive rail environment. I believe the former offers benefits over the latter.

What we have at present is lip service to a commercially competitive railway, but is actually musical chairs among a handful of serial monopoly operators.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What we have at present is lip service to a commercially competitive railway, but is actually musical chairs among a handful of serial monopoly operators.

Franchises are, deliberately, limited term monopolies granted after a competition.
The system is heavily regulated by DfT and ORR to prevent abuses and protect all players.
Open access is feasible if not widespread.

The government of the day wants private sector involvement/investment/efficiencies but does not want to lose control.
While there is significant government funding for rail (about 50%), the state is not going to allow full privatisation.
But nor does it want an impenetrable flabby state monopoly.
Franchises are a compromise.

EU rules (not that they are going to matter) mean that train operation has to be opened up to competition (not necessarily private).
That is even the case in places like Germany and France where the monopoly state operator has had to open up.

 

[meridian2]

But nor does it want an impenetrable flabby state monopoly.
Franchises are a compromise.

I was a regular traveller under BR, so no rose pink glasses here, but I'd never describe it as flabby. Much of the nationalised railway was run on stock well past its sell by date and the infrastructure was "tired" to say the least.

Those were a symptom of lack of investment, not imagination. Ticketing wasn't the labyrinthine obstacle course it is now either.

 

[HH]

Grayling is failing?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Who are the organisations you feel should be bidding for franchises (who currently aren't doing so)?

I think it's a failing of privatisation and its stewards that no mutual or municipal organisation has emerged (or been permitted) to run a franchise.

There are interesting precedents elsewhere: Dwr Cymru and, of course, municipal-owned bus companies such as Nottingham City Transport and Thamesdown. (And one of the other transport industries nationalised in 1948, the inland waterways, has now been entrusted to the charity sector, though I wouldn't claim they are comparable!)

It would have made an interesting model for social-need urban and regional services. I can't pretend I'm sure it would succeed, but it would air interesting and potentially useful ways of running some of the less commercially successful lines.

 

[route:oxford]

Isn't the GWR route already being split through the transfer of certain services to Crossrail?

With East-West coming into the mix at some point during the next franchise, isn't it more likely that the London - Oxford - MK route will become a franchise?

 

[LLivery]

How many rail-capable operators are out there do you think, who are not already involved?

You missed Keolis by the way (and now Trenitalia).
MTR also have Crossrail.
HEX and Eurostar are not franchises.

Renfe once tried for ICWC.
Japan is interested - JR East is bidding for West Midlands; Mitsui is also in there.
Connex gave up and NX have now thrown in the towel.
BA once had an interest in Eurostar.
DB might yet operate on HS1.

There's also limited Open Acess (currently First and Arriva).
Some infrastructure firms are hovering (eg Amey who now run DLR with Keolis and are bidding for Cardiff Valleys Metro), and John Laing .
No other UK operator has emerged.
What sort of competition do you want?

The kind where the options for London to Hastings/Tonbridge isn't Govia or Govia or where the options for London to Glasgow/Edinburgh/Sheffield isn't Virgin-Stagecoach or Virgin-Stagecoach or Stagecoach. Theres actual competition on only a handful of routes, half of them because of open access not even franchises. Still saying its for competition is ridiculous

 

[LLivery]

Isn't the GWR route already being split through the transfer of certain services to Crossrail?

With East-West coming into the mix at some point during the next franchise, isn't it more likely that the London - Oxford - MK route will become a franchise?

Only a little. Even the Greenford branch still stays with them

 

[swrailuser]

WEll thats us down here on the SWML *uggered as we wil get more life expired kit while the GWML sector gets the AT800's 16X 397's etc and we end up with 143's 153's and worse with slow trains to the south west to replace the venrable HST's that have never been allowed to run properly over the B+H and beyond, until the next dawlish event whereupon the trains will terminate at Exeter.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The kind where the options for London to Hastings/Tonbridge isn't Govia or Govia or where the options for London to Glasgow/Edinburgh/Sheffield isn't Virgin-Stagecoach or Virgin-Stagecoach or Stagecoach. Theres actual competition on only a handful of routes, half of them because of open access not even franchises. Still saying its for competition is ridiculous

The competition is for the franchise contract.
Come back in 5-10 years and it may be a different operator.
Whoever runs them, the basic timetable and fares are fixed by DfT.

There's always the BR option - "take it or leave it", with all trains painted the same shade of rail blue.
And no delay repay.

I don't remember any competition to Hastings/Tonbridge even in Victorian days - The SER had it sewn up as a monopoly.

 

[Roast Veg]

And why should the Hastings line have "competition" where the Chatham line and the SEML has none - just because it is on the edge of a franchise boundary? That's not how the system was ever supposed to work.

 

[Andrewlong]

Might solve the perennial problem of Reading commuters cluttering up inter-city services as is done on the WCML and ECML.

The Reading commuters who pay through the nose for a decent service and get it Monday to Thursday but on Fridays have their options reduced so FGW can transport Londoners to their weekend homes and holiday resorts!

Perhaps the new franchise can address the requirements of commuters travelling to and from Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Oxford and Newbury. I am not going hold my breath though!

 

[Bevan Price]

Grayling is failing?

Yes. The railways already have big competition - several million cars.