New Go-op train service between Swindon, Taunton and Weston-super-Mare approved by ORR - Access Rights now lapsed

[duffield]

I must say that I am quite surprised that people on this thread asked awkward questions. Surely rail enthusiasts would have supported this project?

I guess I'm a "rail enthusiast" by most definitions (e.g. I got up at 0400 yesterday for a day trip to the North Norfolk Railway!), and I'd support any vaguely realistic proposal. It was clear from very early on to most of us here that this proposal was not even *vaguely* realistic, specifically from the financial point of view, and also in the light of Go-op's "track record"!

 

[geoffk]

I'm not sure. Post #202 mentions 8 level crossings.

How is it that there's a sudden need to upgrade level crossings, which was not known about before Go-Op's proposal? It's not as though there would be a huge increase in line usage. Looks a bit fishy to me.

 

[duffield]

How is it that there's a sudden need to upgrade level crossings, which was not known about before Go-Op's proposal? It's not as though there would be a huge increase in line usage. Looks a bit fishy to me.

I may be wrong but I get the impression the ORR is rather rigidly prescriptive about level crossings, and even a modest increase in train services can tip the risk calculation into a higher category requiring mitigation before the service can run. So I don't think there's necessarily anything fishy to it.

 

[JamesT]

I may be wrong but I get the impression the ORR is rather rigidly prescriptive about level crossings, and even a modest increase in train services can tip the risk calculation into a higher category requiring mitigation before the service can run. So I don't think there's necessarily anything fishy to it.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/defaul...n-network-rail-representations-2022-11-01.pdf is the response from Network Rail regarding the application. It includes the following:

Risk modelling using the All Level Crossings Risk Model (ALCRM) tool demonstrated that the
introduction of the Go-op services would increase the risk at all level crossings across the proposed
routes. More specifically, of the 65 level crossings, 17 moved into a higher risk category. Whilst a
number of these crossings are already in our CP6 plan for enhancement and will absorb some of the risk
increase, we must fulfil our duty to keep risk at every location low so far as is reasonably practicable.
Therefore, this application constitutes a clear safety risk.

 

[Annetts key]

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/defaul...n-network-rail-representations-2022-11-01.pdf is the response from Network Rail regarding the application. It includes the following:

Part of the method for determining a risk factor is the number of trains that use the line that the level crossing is located on.

I should point out that I was never involved with work to determine level crossing safely. I worked on the maintenance side.

However, IMHO the Network Rail All Level Crossings Risk Model (ALCRM) tool and the methodology used is not fit for purpose. It's just a system to come up with a number. The number then determines If it is low risk or high risk etc.

I have always been of the opinion that at all level crossings, the railway should maintain maximum practical sighting distance for users and train drivers. That all signage should be clear and understandable and kept in good order. And that the railway should ask the regular users of level crossings about their experiences at these crossings. So that problems and issues that the users have can be considered.

But no, coming up with a number appears to be more important.

Never mind that often level crossings on lines which don't have many trains actually become a higher risk because users assume because they rarely see a train, there won't be a train. You just don't get that problem on a busy line...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2025 ==

I tend towards agreeing that the goalposts have been moved somewhat. That said, they would still be well short of the mark with finances to do all the other things required to get off the ground, so the level crossing problems shouldn't divert attention away from that.

I agree that unfortunately this proposal from Go Op was looking somewhat hopeless even before considering the costs for the "alterations" to the level crossings.

But this also shows how hard it is to get new, for want of a better word, community services operating. In the past, some local authorities have supported some train services. But it's rather more difficult where multiple local authorities are involved.

Although it is unlikely that I would have ever used any of these services that Go Op intended to run, I do think more services are needed in these areas.

 

[Bald Rick]

How is it that there's a sudden need to upgrade level crossings, which was not known about before Go-Op's proposal? It's not as though there would be a huge increase in line usage. Looks a bit fishy to me.

Part of the method for determining a risk factor is the number of trains that use the line that the level crossing is located on.

I should point out that I was never involved with work to determine level crossing safely. I worked on the maintenance side.

However, IMHO the Network Rail All Level Crossings Risk Model (ALCRM) tool and the methodology used is not fit for purpose. It's just a system to come up with a number. The number then determines If it is low risk or high risk etc.

I have always been of the opinion that at all level crossings, the railway should maintain maximum practical sighting distance for users and train drivers. That all signage should be clear and understandable and kept in good order. And that the railway should ask the regular users of level crossings about their experiences at these crossings. So that problems and issues that the users have can be considered.

But no, coming up with a number appears to be more important.

Never mind that often level crossings on lines which don't have many trains actually become a higher risk because users assume because they rarely see a train, there won't be a train. You just don't get that problem on a busy line...

I have been responsible (in the past) for both maintaining level crossings and the risk assessments of them; my signature is on the front of hundreds of Level Crossing risk assessments.

I agree with @Annetts key that the railway should maintain the requisite sighting distance (noting this can vary over time as right of way usage changes), and indeed this is an absolute - the crossing is either compliant with the sighting standard or it is not. If it is not then mitigation must be assessed and deployed as appropriate.

But sighting distance is not a factor in the risk assessment - it is either sufficient or it is not.

Sighting layout is a factor in the risk assessment, eg the orientation of the crossing, any skew, position of crossing with relevance to a low sun, where the assumed sighting point is, etc.


Whilst I don’t know the details of the Go Op requirements, my educated guess is that the issue is about the proposed increase in rail services. As stated above, this tips some of the crossings over into a higher risk category, and that means additional assessments and potentially mitigation needs to be completed. In some cases the mitigation can be very straightforward. In some cases it isn’t. Level Crossing Risk Assessment is a complex area, and whilst the ALCRM model does have some blunt features, it is the best tool available out there, and the one relied on by the relevant standards, and the courts.

But the important thing is that the risk is to both users of the right of way and users of the railway. This is a particular issue at farm crossings, where heavy machinery can potentially cross, and this will be captured in the risk assessment through discussion with the authorised user(s) of the crossing. Essentially if the number of rail services on the crossing increases by, say, 50%, then the chances of collision increases by (very roughly) 50%, all else being equal. Whilst the probability is extremely small, if a train hits a tractor towing several tonnes of agricultural produce, or a tanker of some sort, it is likely to end up badly for passengers and staff on the train, as previous incidents have shown.

And, again, whilst such incidents are thankfully rare, they do happen. That means if nothing is done to consider how to mitigate the increased risk, and mitigation implemented where reasonably practical (as defined by ORRs guidance), then the relevant individual responsible for operational safety for the level crossing concerned will find themselves in the dock facing a judge in the event that an incident does occur and someone is hurt, or worse.

 

[Annetts key]

I have been responsible (in the past) for both maintaining level crossings and the risk assessments of them; my signature is on the front of hundreds of Level Crossing risk assessments.

I agree with @Annetts key that the railway should maintain the requisite sighting distance (noting this can vary over time as right of way usage changes), and indeed this is an absolute - the crossing is either compliant with the sighting standard or it is not. If it is not then mitigation must be assessed and deployed as appropriate.

But sighting distance is not a factor in the risk assessment - it is either sufficient or it is not.

Sighting layout is a factor in the risk assessment, eg the orientation of the crossing, any skew, position of crossing with relevance to a low sun, where the assumed sighting point is, etc.


Whilst I don’t know the details of the Go Op requirements, my educated guess is that the issue is about the proposed increase in rail services. As stated above, this tips some of the crossings over into a higher risk category, and that means additional assessments and potentially mitigation needs to be completed. In some cases the mitigation can be very straightforward. In some cases it isn’t. Level Crossing Risk Assessment is a complex area, and whilst the ALCRM model does have some blunt features, it is the best tool available out there, and the one relied on by the relevant standards, and the courts.

But the important thing is that the risk is to both users of the right of way and users of the railway. This is a particular issue at farm crossings, where heavy machinery can potentially cross, and this will be captured in the risk assessment through discussion with the authorised user(s) of the crossing. Essentially if the number of rail services on the crossing increases by, say, 50%, then the chances of collision increases by (very roughly) 50%, all else being equal. Whilst the probability is extremely small, if a train hits a tractor towing several tonnes of agricultural produce, or a tanker of some sort, it is likely to end up badly for passengers and staff on the train, as previous incidents have shown.

And, again, whilst such incidents are thankfully rare, they do happen. That means if nothing is done to consider how to mitigate the increased risk, and mitigation implemented where reasonably practical (as defined by ORRs guidance), then the relevant individual responsible for operational safety for the level crossing concerned will find themselves in the dock facing a judge in the event that an incident does occur and someone is hurt, or worse.

Just because ALCRM model is relied on by the relevant standards doesn’t change things. Standards change over time as we learn how to improve things. I think the ALCRM model needs improving. But changing it may risk Network Rail having to spend more money. Just in case my point was missed, I'm not saying improvement work should not be carried out. I'm saying that if these level crossings are near the threshold of needing work, the improvement work should be carried out even if no more trains end up being added to the timetable.

Sighting distance - it is either sufficient or it is not. The same applies with signal sighting. However, at least with this the distance / time requirements have changed for the better during my time on the railway.

And I am well aware that the risk is to both level crossing users and the railway. And while we are on about it, also to railway staff. I have some interesting stories about level crossings that are off-topic. But I don't want to derail the topic so I will leave it there.

 

[Bald Rick]

Just because ALCRM model is relied on by the relevant standards doesn’t change things. Standards change over time as we learn how to improve things. I think the ALCRM model needs improving. But changing it may risk Network Rail having to spend more money. Just in case my point was missed, I'm not saying improvement work should not be carried out. I'm saying that if these level crossings are near the threshold of needing work, the improvement work should be carried out even if no more trains end up being added to the timetable.

Sighting distance - it is either sufficient or it is not. The same applies with signal sighting. However, at least with this the distance / time requirements have changed for the better during my time on the railway.

And I am well aware that the risk is to both level crossing users and the railway. And while we are on about it, also to railway staff. I have some interesting stories about level crossings that are off-topic. But I don't want to derail the topic so I will leave it there.

I think we are agreeing. In this case some crossings were already near the threshold for needing work, and were therefore in the plan for doing something regardless of the new services. But some weren’t, and the additional proposed services tipped them over. As ever, you have to draw a line somewhere.

 

[Killingworth]

Sunday Times Home section today has a double page spread featuring this proposal suggesting to the casual reader that it may be as good as happening. "Will a rail link make Somerset's trendy towns even posher?" The final paragraphs effectively say it's dead in the water but still a good area to live without it.

Too much to quote from phone but it's here;

Latest news & breaking headlines

The latest breaking UK, US, world, business and sport news from The Times and The Sunday Times. Go beyond today's headlines with in-depth analysis and comment.

www.thetimes.com

 

[TheLastMinute]

To the surprise to almost no-one here I suspect, Go-op didn't "quite" make their funding target. The website doesn't give what the final total was, but when I looked before the weekend it remained less than £100k out of the £2.6m they were looking for.



What now for the project?

 

[Towers]

To the surprise to almost no-one here I suspect, Go-op didn't "quite" make their funding target. The website doesn't give what the final total was, but when I looked before the weekend it remained less than £100k out of the £2.6m they were looking for.

View attachment 180870

What now for the project?

Not a surprise, no!

 

[Killingworth]

To the surprise to almost no-one here I suspect, Go-op didn't "quite" make their funding target. The website doesn't give what the final total was, but when I looked before the weekend it remained less than £100k out of the £2.6m they were looking for.

View attachment 180870

What now for the project?

The long Sunday Times article linked in post 509 above includes the following from Alex Lawrie;

Now he needs to make the dream a reality. As of May 20, Go-op had only raised £90,315 of the £2.6 million crowdfunding goal. Lawrie says they are now targeting high-net-worth investors and rail industry bodies, promising high returns and economic prosperity in Somerset.

 

[PG]

To the surprise to almost no-one here I suspect, Go-op didn't "quite" make their funding target. The website doesn't give what the final total was, but when I looked before the weekend it remained less than £100k out of the £2.6m they were looking for.

View attachment 180870

What now for the project?

Around lunchtime today it stood at £91,315 from 119 people. I guess the best use of those funds would have been to hire one person (or a couple of people?) who actually knew what they were doing...

 

[I'm here now]

https://railnews.mobi/news/2025/06/13-new-open-access-operator-signs.html

 

[Annetts key]

https://railnews.mobi/news/2025/06/13-new-open-access-operator-signs.html

New open access operator signs track contract​

13th June 2025

A new type of open access operator has signed a Track Access Contract with Network Rail.

Go-op is a co-operative venture which is planning to run services through Somerset and Wiltshire between Taunton and Swindon, serving towns like Frome and Melksham en route.

All previous open access operators have been for-profit, but Go-op is owned by its members. It is now seeking investment partners who will provide the rest of the £2.5 million needed to launch the service.

It now has an opportunity of using tri-mode Class 769 units rather than Class 150s. The 769s are conversions of dual-voltage Class 319 units built for Thameslink in the late 1980s, which now have diesel engines as well to generate traction power.

Go-op is also campaigning for some stations in its area to be reopened. These include Wellington and Somerton – towns which have grown considerably over the past 60 years

Go-op’s strategy director Danny Douglas said: ‘We’ve demonstrated that there is an approach to open access rail that complements the nationalised operator. This can bring a focus on local connectivity whilst sustainably bringing growth to communities their regions. Go-op are now keen to talk to local government who want to enter partnerships across the country about how they can do the same thing in their area with Go-op.’

Vice chair David Northey said: ‘This is the moment to commit to a new station at Somerton. Government assurances could “crowd in” funding from a variety of sources, and we’re ready to pick up passengers there from day one.

Go-op chairman Alex Lawrie added: ‘We can make good use of the upgrades proposed in the Wiltshire Strategic Rail Study to increase capacity through Melksham. What we need now is strategic partnerships with a small number of specialist investors who see the connection between our operations and the big capital projects in the area that have gained momentum on the strength of our track access contract. From housing and buses to leisure and energy developments, Go-op is the catalyst for growth across the region.’

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Am I reading this right? They've signed the contract without having raised the money?

 

[brad465]

Am I reading this right? They've signed the contract without having raised the money?

Unless they're confident someone will bankroll them what they need, which is an ask in that link.

Also interesting they are now looking at Class 769s. They'd have much more capacity over 153s if they work, but the "if they work" is a big ask.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Unless they're confident someone will bankroll them what they need, which is an ask in that link.

Also interesting they are now looking at Class 769s. They'd have much more capacity over 153s if they work, but the "if they work" is a big ask.

Yes, and assuming the 769s do work they would be a much more sensible type of rolling stock than the 153s would have been.

 

[The exile]

I wonder what that contract alone will cost them.

 

[Class15]

Interesting that they want to use 769s. Apart from Swindon to (nearly) Chippenham, none of the route is electrified.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Taking the plunge I see, wonder if it will pay off...

 

[43096]

It's a track access contract. It doesn't necessarily mean they will ever run any trains.

 

[Towers]

Am I reading this right? They've signed the contract without having raised the money?

Facepalm…

Also interesting they are now looking at Class 769s. They'd have much more capacity over 153s if they work, but the "if they work" is a big ask.

Also facepalm…

I guess it doesn’t cost NR anything to turn up and sign the paperwork, regardless of how realistic the future prospects of the operation might be.

 

[Killingworth]

I'm puzzled. Originally there was talk of using 150 and 153 DMUs, one or 2 carriages. The 769s I've travelled in have been 4 car units.

All I see about their performance to date suggests they'd require considerable care and attention to keep them running, particularly to provide a reliable service. That needs considerable technical knowledge to be on hand. If I were operating any other services across the same tracks I'd be alarmed by the implications of likely disruptions to my services by such unreliable units.

Like their Crowd Funding efforts this seems to be a somewhat naive plan, or am I being too negative?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I'm puzzled. Originally there was talk of using 150 and 153 DMUs, one or 2 carriages. The 769s I've travelled in have been 4 car units.

All I see about their performance to date suggests they'd require considerable care and attention to keep them running, particularly to provide a reliable service. That needs considerable technical knowedge to be on hand. If I were operating any other services across the same tracks I'd be alarmed by the implications of likely disruptions to my services by such unreiable units.

Like their Crowd Funding efforts this seems to be a somewhat naive plan, or am I being too negative?

Based on the reliability of Northern's units, these will certainly be a challenge.

 

[Energy]

Also interesting they are now looking at Class 769s. They'd have much more capacity over 153s if they work, but the "if they work" is a big ask.

I see two possibilities

1. Porterbrook is willing to lease the ex-GWR units at a very low rate. Following the experience at DfT TOCs, I doubt GBR/DfT has any interest in them, so it'll be GO-OP or be scrapped.
2. GO-OP has picked them as they happen to be DMUs that are off lease.

Either way they'll be a challenge.

I'm curious where GO-OP intends to maintain the units. Hitachi isn't interested in maintaining units it hasn't manufactured; they aren't going via Bristol, so they can't use the Arriva TrainCare site there.

 

[Starmill]

The 769s that aren't leased aren't leased for a reason. They're unreliable and expensive to maintain. Low lease charges aren't worth much if you're spending a lot on maintenance, cancelling trains because you don't have something available, and taking delay minutes because your unit broke down in the wrong place. At least the Northern units bring the benefit that they save some fuel by running on AC power.

 

[PG]

Interesting that they want to use 769s. Apart from Swindon to (nearly) Chippenham, none of the route is electrified.

Of course by the time they get going the Berks & Hants will probably have the knitting up!

 

[Snow1964]

According to local Wiltshire newspaper (whose accuracy tends to be based on what they have been given and told, rather than investigated by old school reporter), have acquired some 769s

Co-operatively owned transport company Go-op has signed a track access contract with Network Rail, and is the first co-operative or mutual rail business to sign such a contract.

This has been made possible by several small investments from its members, many of whom use existing rail services in Wiltshire and Somerset.

It has also acquired Class 769 rolling stock for its new route between Taunton and Swindon, which are larger, faster and cleaner than the two-car Class 150s previously proposed.

This comes after the rail regulator previously gave the go-ahead for the extra routes between Swindon, Taunton, and Weston-Super-Mare and set approval conditions to ensure Go-op has enough money and rolling stock in place before its launch.

Before it can launch at the end of this year, Go-op needs to cover £2.5 million in costs and is seeking investment partners to reach this funding target.

Strategy director Danny Douglas said: “We’ve demonstrated that there is an approach to open access rail that complements the nationalised operator.

“This can bring a focus on local connectivity whilst sustainably bringing growth to communities in their regions.

“Go-op are now keen to talk to local government who want to enter partnerships across the country about how they can do the same thing in their area with Go-op.”

The Class 769 is a bi-mode train capable of operating at up to 90mph, and has four carriages, offering much more space both for passengers, bicycles and freight.

Go-op chair Alex Lowrie said: “One of the great strengths of the class 769 is that it can take advantage of renewable electricity to deliver zero emission transport on a significant part of our route.

“If the overhead line network is extended beyond Chippenham, or we get battery charging facilities in Somerset, we can get the benefits straight away.

“It also means we can make good use of the upgrades proposed in the Wiltshire Strategic Rail Study to increase capacity through Melksham.”

The announcement of more capital investment in the rail network from the government has also given Go-op’s plans a boost.

New stations in Wellington and Portishead will bring additional passengers to the railway in Somerset.

Vice chair David Northey added: “This is the moment to commit to a new station at Somerton.

“Government assurances could ‘crowd in’ funding from a variety of sources, and we’re ready to pick up passengers there from day one.”

Go-op is building partnerships with established rail businesses to deliver its services and is actively seeking major investment partners to help launch the service.

It will be the first co-operatively owned train service and the first regional open-access service in the UK.

Go-op plans to start in December 2025 at the earliest and must do so no later than December 2026 in order to use the capacity that the independent safety and economic regulator for Britain’s railways, ORR, has granted.

Go-op must provide evidence to the regulator that proves it has the necessary finance to start operations, fund level crossing enhancements, and that the amount of rolling stock that is required has been secured by November this year.
Alex Lawrie added: “We’ve taken our grassroots crowdfunding approach as far as we can.

“What we need now is strategic partnerships with a small number of specialist investors who see the connection between our operations and the big capital projects in the area that have gained momentum on the strength of our track access contract.

“From housing and buses to leisure and energy developments, Go-op is the catalyst for growth across the region.”

Suggests need to demonstrate to regulator by November it can proceed.

New local train operator makes launch plans progress

A new train operator set to rival GWR has made progress on its plans to set up a network around Swindon and Wiltshire.

www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk

 

[stevieinselby]

According to local Wiltshire newspaper (whose accuracy tends to be based on what they have been given and told, rather than investigated by old school reporter), have acquired some 769s

The breathless credulity with which Reach and other supposed local news outlets regurgitate press releases about every speculative open access bid as though it's a done deal that trains will be starting next month suggests there are not many journalists who know or care how the system works...