Grand Union Trains Plans to run from London to Cardiff - Now rejected by ORR

[Rhydgaled]

Yes there is, it’s currently a closed thread pending any news.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/grand-union-trains-london-euston-to-stirling-from-may-2021.190237/

Thanks.

Just seen on twitter someone complain about the decision, and attached was a livery sample with TfW branding.

I can't find the picture, but I seem to recall seeing one previously that I didn't think would be legal. It was red with green doors; isn't red-green a common form of colour blindness which would mean this wasn't a contrasting colour for the doors?

 

[Ianno87]

that is a shame
would love to see some OA on the GWML some day thou, i do wonder if after Covid if any kind of tweek would make this proposal more palitable to ORR?

What it needs is passengers to return and the current level of net subsidy from DfT to Train Operatimg Companies to return to something more "normal". But that's far from certain at this time (and won't likely be achieved for a number of years)

 

[tiptoptaff]

Thanks.

I can't find the picture, but I seem to recall seeing one previously that I didn't think would be legal. It was red with green doors; isn't red-green a common form of colour blindness which would mean this wasn't a contrasting colour for the doors?

That is indeed the colour scheme I saw. I'll trawl through Twitter and see if it reappears

 

[swt_passenger]

Just seen on twitter someone complain about the decision, and attached was a livery sample with TfW branding.

Did the WG have a hand in this operation? And could that have influenced the outcome? Looking too much like a franchise over-reaching using an OA proxy?

Seems as per paragraph 17 and 18 of the ORR letter, the WG provided an endorsement of the proposal, on a couple of separate occasions, but I don't think too much can be read into that. They wouldn’t have any financial or other real input or responsibility.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Found it!

The TfW branding gives the impression that the WG have a bigger hand in it than just endorsing it

 

[ainsworth74]

Found it!

The TfW branding gives the impression that the WG have a bigger hand in it than just endorsing it

Is that not just something a skilled enthusiast came up with rather than anything official?

 

[swt_passenger]

Is that not just something a skilled enthusiast came up with rather than anything official?

It is on the RAIL magazine website, post #204 in this thread. No idea why RAIL went for it, maybe they’re just gullible...

 

[popeter45]

Found it!

The TfW branding gives the impression that the WG have a bigger hand in it than just endorsing it

raises a question?
would Transport for Wales (the body not the TOC) be allowed to extend its Wales & Borders franchise to allow a London Service?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

raises a question?
would Transport for Wales (the body not the TOC) be allowed to extend its Wales & Borders franchise to allow a London Service?

It would still need to submit an application for rights, which would be considered by Network Rail and put through similar tests I imagine?

 

[JonathanH]

raises a question?
would Transport for Wales (the body not the TOC) be allowed to extend its Wales & Borders franchise to allow a London Service?

Why would they need to when there is already an operation which runs trains between South Wales and London? They would be better off discussing service enhancements with the DfT and the incumbent operator. The incumbent operator of trains to London is not, however, in the business of providing service enhancements in South Wales itself.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Found it!

The TfW branding gives the impression that the WG have a bigger hand in it than just endorsing it

Thanks; interesting that it even says 'Transport for Wales' (and no other operator name is visible) and not just the T logo.

Did the Welsh Government give any grants to Wrexham & Shropshire? Not a day-to-day operating subsidy of course but perhaps depot facilities?

 

[3141]

Thanks.

I can't find the picture, but I seem to recall seeing one previously that I didn't think would be legal. It was red with green doors; isn't red-green a common form of colour blindness which would mean this wasn't a contrasting colour for the doors?

Yes it is the most common form of colour blindness. "Colour vision deficiency" is more accurate but too much of a mouthful to be easily used. Looking at the picture in #245 it's a bit difficult to judge because somebody chose to make it look like dusk instead of a clear image, but I might find it difficult in some circumstances to pick out where the doors are if I also had poor vision more generally. I'd probably have no trouble with a very light green against a dark red, but people who design things for a public service ought to be aware of the existence of colour blindness and make sure they don't use colours which around 7.5% of the male population may not readily distinguish.

 

[Leo555]

Perhaps if they'd differentiated more like First East Coast with a standard only and low average fare it would have been approved as offering a vastly different product.

 

[158756]

Yes it is the most common form of colour blindness. "Colour vision deficiency" is more accurate but too much of a mouthful to be easily used. Looking at the picture in #245 it's a bit difficult to judge because somebody chose to make it look like dusk instead of a clear image, but I might find it difficult in some circumstances to pick out where the doors are if I also had poor vision more generally. I'd probably have no trouble with a very light green against a dark red, but people who design things for a public service ought to be aware of the existence of colour blindness and make sure they don't use colours which around 7.5% of the male population may not readily distinguish.

The doors are required to contrast, but are they actually required to consider colour blindness? I thought it was more to do with how much light they reflect to help people with limited sight.

 

[Bald Rick]

raises a question?
would Transport for Wales (the body not the TOC) be allowed to extend its Wales & Borders franchise to allow a London Service?

No, the operation fo any TfW services in England is subject to agreement of the Secretary of State. This includes changing those that already run.

Why would they need to when there is already an operation which runs trains between South Wales and London? They would be better off discussing service enhancements with the DfT and the incumbent operator. The incumbent operator of trains to London is not, however, in the business of providing service enhancements in South Wales itself.

Well exactly. And this is the elephant in the room. The ORR judgement laid bare the effect on taxpayer funding that this proposal would have. For that sort of taxpayer outlay, I would expect a rather better improvement in services than 6 return trips a day.

It seems to me that if you look at this as a ‘whole railway’ issue, the proposal simply created a whole load of inefficiency for rather limited benefit.

 

[Ianno87]

Why would they need to when there is already an operation which runs trains between South Wales and London? They would be better off discussing service enhancements with the DfT and the incumbent operator. The incumbent operator of trains to London is not, however, in the business of providing service enhancements in South Wales itself.

No, the operation fo any TfW services in England is subject to agreement of the Secretary of State. This includes changing those that already run.



Well exactly. And this is the elephant in the room. The ORR judgement laid bare the effect on taxpayer funding that this proposal would have. For that sort of taxpayer outlay, I would expect a rather better improvement in services than 6 return trips a day.

It seems to me that if you look at this as a ‘whole railway’ issue, the proposal simply created a whole load of inefficiency for rather limited benefit.

The fact that the non-Primarily abstractive test was passed suggested that they had hit something that was revenue-generational. For example, does the additional London frequency West of Cardiff/Swansea do this, and whether there'd be merit in DfT/TfW modifying the existing South Wales-London service to capture this? Such as running 2tph to Swansea and/or a more regular service through to Carmarthen.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Did the Welsh Government give any grants to Wrexham & Shropshire? Not a day-to-day operating subsidy of course but perhaps depot facilities?

They did indeed. The depot at Wrexham was financed by the Welsh Government. I presume it's used by TfW these days, if anyone.

 

[tiptoptaff]

They did indeed. The depot at Wrexham was financed by the Welsh Government. I presume it's used by TfW these days, if anyone.

Unless it's going to be/is being used for the viva-rail stock, TfW, and ATW before them, didn't use the Wrexham depot. Bidston line services came ECS from Chester and Shrewsbury

 

[3141]

Well exactly. And this is the elephant in the room. The ORR judgement laid bare the effect on taxpayer funding that this proposal would have. For that sort of taxpayer outlay, I would expect a rather better improvement in services than 6 return trips a day.

It seems to me that if you look at this as a ‘whole railway’ issue, the proposal simply created a whole load of inefficiency for rather limited benefit.

Since franchising as it has been for 25 years is being replaced with something else, and there will be new legislation about how railways are organised, I think the future of Open Access operators is in doubt. Add to that the inevitable Treasury pressure to reduce subsidies and it's unlikely that any new operator on a route, who might abstract revenue from whoever is running the future concession, will be permitted. If there's evidence that increasing services might bring in extra revenue, such as in this case more frequent trains between Swansea and London, the DfT (or the future "guiding mind", if there ever is such a thing) will be able to ask the incumbent operator to provide them.

The doors are required to contrast, but are they actually required to consider colour blindness? I thought it was more to do with how much light they reflect to help people with limited sight.

No, colour blindness isn't an official disability, though some believe it should be recognised as such. But anyone who is in the business of graphics and communication ought to have been made aware of it during their training, and have the sense to take it into account when they are designing anything.

You're right, contrast is the key, so very light doors on a dark body colour or dark doors on a light body will do the trick.

 

[Bletchleyite]

OA has always very much felt like "we're doing it because the EU are forcing us to, but we don't really want to".

With the EU no longer forcing us to, indeed I can see most of it going away.

 

[pdeaves]

Since franchising as it has been for 25 years is being replaced with something else, and there will be new legislation about how railways are organised, I think the future of Open Access operators is in doubt. Add to that the inevitable Treasury pressure to reduce subsidies and it's unlikely that any new operator on a route, who might abstract revenue from whoever is running the future concession, will be permitted. If there's evidence that increasing services might bring in extra revenue, such as in this case more frequent trains between Swansea and London, the DfT (or the future "guiding mind", if there ever is such a thing) will be able to ask the incumbent operator to provide them.

I think the powers that be may still try to have some sort of provision for open access, if for no other reason than ideology. Perhaps having new operators using own fare only, with some sort of limit/control there. Whatever comes along will still be a fudged solution, if 'they' can create a fudge at all. I think they will try.

No, colour blindness isn't an official disability, though some believe it should be recognised as such. But anyone who is in the business of graphics and communication ought to have been made aware of it during their training, and have the sense to take it into account when they are designing anything.

You're right, contrast is the key, so very light doors on a dark body colour or dark doors on a light body will do the trick.

Quite right, the information provided comes from the contrast, not the exact colour. It makes no difference if the train is green or red and the doors green or red (or any other colours), as long as there is sufficient difference to see that there is a difference (i.e. contrast).

 

[Bald Rick]

OA has always very much felt like "we're doing it because the EU are forcing us to, but we don't really want to".

With the EU no longer forcing us to, indeed I can see most of it going away.

To be fair, we started it, and then advised the EU how to do it!

 

[Wolfie]

To be fair, we started it, and then advised the EU how to do it!

Yup, that very definitely was a UK idea promulgated in the EU (like several other things that HMG, now that we are a third country ourselves, is complaining about).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

They did indeed. The depot at Wrexham was financed by the Welsh Government. I presume it's used by TfW these days, if anyone.

Funded by WG on the understanding that all TOCs could use the facilities.
It occasionally hosts NR's or contractors' track machinery these days.
Class 230s might use it if the service ever starts.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Funded by WG on the understanding that all TOCs could use the facilities.
It occasionally hosts NR's or contractors' track machinery these days.
Class 230s might use it if the service ever starts.

Where is the depot, out of interest? Can't locate it on Google maps!

 

[JonathanH]

Where is the depot, out of interest? Can't locate it on Google maps!

'Depot' is a bit of an elaboration - it is just some servicing facilities in what otherwise look like bay platforms at the south end of the southbound platform at Wrexham.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

goo.gl

 

[tiptoptaff]

'Depot' is a bit of an elaboration - it is just some servicing facilities in what otherwise look like bay platforms at the south end of the southbound platform at Wrexham.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

goo.gl

Ahh, cheers! I'd seen the bays and just assumed they were bays! I was looking for, at the least, some form of washroad

 

[JonathanH]

The fact that the non-Primarily abstractive test was passed suggested that they had hit something that was revenue-generational. For example, does the additional London frequency West of Cardiff/Swansea do this, and whether there'd be merit in DfT/TfW modifying the existing South Wales-London service to capture this? Such as running 2tph to Swansea and/or a more regular service through to Carmarthen.

There are a few things about this though:
1) I think the impression that has been given over the years is that the daytime services from London to Cardiff are marginal in their contribution to GWR's takings.
2) Would specifically an extension of GWR services to Swansea for 2tph actually be an improvement in connectivity to London or an improvement in the number of services through South Wales? If the primary benefit is the latter and the Welsh Assembly are paying, it is better done by TfW's own operator running more frequent services within Wales and London to Cardiff to stay as it is.
3) The non-primarily abstractive test being passed appears to translate to some people travelling solely because the OA operator isn't GWR.
4) It is not clear that the network benefit of extending a few GWR extra GWR trains through to Swansea would actually resonate with the travelling public because at (London) peak times, both weekday and weekend, GWR already operates 2tph through to Swansea.

There was that big uproar some years ago when FGW pulled out of running the a through service to Swansea which hit Cardiff at peak time and led to crowding on the 1721 to Maesteg. This saved FGW some enormous sum in leasing costs as the train set could be used for something else. If the OA had hit the Cardiff peak, you could see that part of their proposal being revenue generative.

There is already a current speculative thread about improving services in West Wales https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/speculation-on-better-services-for-pembrokeshire.213955/ and previous threads about the Cardiff to Swansea corridor for speculation - eg https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...wansea-bristol-taunton-services.194745/page-2. Swansea also frequently comes up as somewhere XC trains should go but again it is not their place to cater for internal demand. However, speculation on how to best service South Wales in the light of the Grand Union decision is not for this thread.

 

[tiptoptaff]

There ans.re a few things about this though:
1) I think the impression that has been given over the years is that the daytime services from London to Cardiff are marginal in their contribution to GWR's takings. They are. The Cardiff staters/terminators are noticably quieter at all times of the day in both directions.
2) Would specifically an extension of GWR services to Swansea for 2tph actually be an improvement in connectivity to London or an improvement in the number of services through South Wales? If the primary benefit is the latter and the Welsh Assembly are paying, it is better done by TfW's own operator running more frequent services within Wales and London to Cardiff to stay as it is. There's an argument to it being a bit of both. But in terms of South Wales connectivity, the second Cardiff-Swansea path would be better used by a regular hourly Swanline service, or second hourly service to Bridgend/Maesteg
3) The non-primarily abstractive test being passed appears to translate to some people travelling solely because the OA operator isn't GWR. This is a good point and a I think a lot was made of Severn Tunnel Jcn. I think STJ has a market for services to London, but only one or two in the morning peak on the UP and evening peak on the Down. Although as I said 18months ago on this thread, it does serve a large area that use Newport for GWR to London. So in a sense, STJ can be seen as net abstractive rather than net generative, as many who would use it already drive to Newport or Bristol Parkway to catch services. The latter have 4tph in a full non-covid timetable, as opposed to 6tpd. In any case, the majority of England-bound commuters at STJ travel to Filton or Bristol TM. A service to London or Bristol Parkway isn't necessarily what they;d actually want, despite what local politicians (who don't use the train) might think they want.
4) It is not clear that the network benefit of extending a few GWR extra GWR trains through to Swansea would actually resonate with the travelling public because at (London) peak times, both weekday and weekend, GWR already operates 2tph through to Swansea. I think there would be benefit to more London-Swansea services with more extensions in to West Wales. Whether it's actually worth doing is another question, and on balance I still think that the path could be better used by a Swanline or Maesteg service.

There was that big uproar some years ago when FGW pulled out of running the a through service to Swansea which hit Cardiff at peak time and led to crowding on the 1721 to Maesteg. This saved FGW some enormous sum in leasing costs as the train set could be used for something else. If the OA had hit the Cardiff peak, you could see that part of their proposal being revenue generative. I remember this happening at the time and for me it has only a pain on the odd occaision I wanted a train back from London to Bridgend that passes through Cardiff needing a peak time change. Easily negated though by changing at Newport. The only people it forced on to the 1721 (which is indeed overcrowded) were passengers for Bridgend. That being the only common station. Hard to justify it for the inconvenience of a relatively small, nichce number of passengers.

There is already a current speculative thread about improving services in West Wales https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/speculation-on-better-services-for-pembrokeshire.213955/ and previous threads about the Cardiff to Swansea corridor for speculation - eg https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...wansea-bristol-taunton-services.194745/page-2. Swansea also frequently comes up as somewhere XC trains should go but again it is not their place to cater for internal demand. However, speculation on how to best service South Wales in the light of the Grand Union decision is not for this thread. I have said for a long time that a Swansea-NE.England service would do well. Often see a large number of people changing off S.Wales services on to XC services to the North. I can't see a reason for GWR to extend to Pembroke or Fishguard beyond being boat trains, and the numbers of foot passengers is dramatically less than even 10 years ago. But yes, not for discussion here.

I've commented on your comments in bold in the quote
edited and answers below

There ans.re a few things about this though:
1) I think the impression that has been given over the years is that the daytime services from London to Cardiff are marginal in their contribution to GWR's takings. They are. The Cardiff staters/terminators are noticably quieter at all times of the day in both directions.
2) Would specifically an extension of GWR services to Swansea for 2tph actually be an improvement in connectivity to London or an improvement in the number of services through South Wales? If the primary benefit is the latter and the Welsh Assembly are paying, it is better done by TfW's own operator running more frequent services within Wales and London to Cardiff to stay as it is. There's an argument to it being a bit of both. But in terms of South Wales connectivity, the second Cardiff-Swansea path would be better used by a regular hourly Swanline service, or second hourly service to Bridgend/Maesteg
3) The non-primarily abstractive test being passed appears to translate to some people travelling solely because the OA operator isn't GWR. This is a good point and a I think a lot was made of Severn Tunnel Jcn. I think STJ has a market for services to London, but only one or two in the morning peak on the UP and evening peak on the Down. Although as I said 18months ago on this thread, it does serve a large area that use Newport for GWR to London. So in a sense, STJ can be seen as net abstractive rather than net generative, as many who would use it already drive to Newport or Bristol Parkway to catch services. The latter have 4tph in a full non-covid timetable, as opposed to 6tpd. In any case, the majority of England-bound commuters at STJ travel to Filton or Bristol TM. A service to London or Bristol Parkway isn't necessarily what they;d actually want, despite what local politicians (who don't use the train) might think they want.
4) It is not clear that the network benefit of extending a few GWR extra GWR trains through to Swansea would actually resonate with the travelling public because at (London) peak times, both weekday and weekend, GWR already operates 2tph through to Swansea. I think there would be benefit to more London-Swansea services with more extensions in to West Wales. Whether it's actually worth doing is another question, and on balance I still think that the path could be better used by a Swanline or Maesteg service.

There was that big uproar some years ago when FGW pulled out of running the a through service to Swansea which hit Cardiff at peak time and led to crowding on the 1721 to Maesteg. This saved FGW some enormous sum in leasing costs as the train set could be used for something else. If the OA had hit the Cardiff peak, you could see that part of their proposal being revenue generative. I remember this happening at the time and for me it has only a pain on the odd occaision I wanted a train back from London to Bridgend that passes through Cardiff needing a peak time change. Easily negated though by changing at Newport. The only people it forced on to the 1721 (which is indeed overcrowded) were passengers for Bridgend. That being the only common station. Hard to justify it for the inconvenience of a relatively small, nichce number of passengers.

There is already a current speculative thread about improving services in West Wales https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/speculation-on-better-services-for-pembrokeshire.213955/ and previous threads about the Cardiff to Swansea corridor for speculation - eg https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...wansea-bristol-taunton-services.194745/page-2. Swansea also frequently comes up as somewhere XC trains should go but again it is not their place to cater for internal demand. However, speculation on how to best service South Wales in the light of the Grand Union decision is not for this thread. I have said for a long time that a Swansea-NE.England service would do well. Often see a large number of people changing off S.Wales services on to XC services to the North. I can't see a reason for GWR to extend to Pembroke or Fishguard beyond being boat trains, and the numbers of foot passengers is dramatically less than even 10 years ago. But yes, not for discussion here.

 

[ABB125]

The fact that the non-Primarily abstractive test was passed suggested that they had hit something that was revenue-generational. For example, does the additional London frequency West of Cardiff/Swansea do this, and whether there'd be merit in DfT/TfW modifying the existing South Wales-London service to capture this? Such as running 2tph to Swansea and/or a more regular service through to Carmarthen.

Or maybe it's the absolutely huge demand for direct London services from Severn Tunnel Junction!

Although, in all seriousness, I think it's likely that it would be quite popular with people living in (for example) Magor, who currently have to drive to the centre of Newport to catch the train (or to Bristol Parkway); instead they could just drive to STJ.