and that is why it will be rejected.
Well maybe, maybe not, they are running non stop to Bristol Parkway so I doubt it should be two much of a problem especially if they knock a couple of carriages out of the formation. Plus the intention is to go to 802's within a couple of years.
Providing they are not taking revenue out of a subsidised franchise effectively increasing the cost to the Tax Payer then I don't have a problem with Open Access.
I think the South Wales - Paddington OAO request is slightly more complicated to, is it not, with the fact that its the Welsh Assembly that sets the Welsh train service requirements (I could be completely off track there - I know of other threads on here dedicated to that particular application).
That issue aside, it still needs to pass the not-primarily abstractive test. And with GWR now running non stop Bristol parkway - Paddington, I don't know how that would affect the test.
But in principle, being able to travel from the depths of South Wales (well, a couple more stations than currently) into the capital (of England) is something GWR aren't currently wishing to provide (given they have other priorities on go).
I think OAs are currently just providing the opportunity to make an existing journey, slightly quicker and without interchange, which thier 'native' operators aren't able to provide without major investment (stock / crew / management et Al).
They are just 'infilling' where they have seen a potential gap in the current franchise owned market.
They could be incorporated into the existing franchise, with the required investment, but aren't.
Someone will always be reaping the benefits of supplying the OAs operation, regardless of the operator. And they supliment what is already being providing, providing a little inertia sometimes to drive upgrades and new routes from within the current franchisee.
That has to be a good thing, if managed correctly and responsibility.