Great British Railways: What should be the remit?

[saismee]

People are mentioning the GBR branding in Scotland and Wales and suggesting that it's a bad thing. Is everyone forgetting that Scotland and Wales are part of Britain? Surely the branding should spread into those areas if we want a "joined-up" railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

People are mentioning the GBR branding in Scotland and Wales and suggesting that it's a bad thing. Is everyone forgetting that Scotland and Wales are part of Britain? Surely the branding should spread into those areas if we want a "joined-up" railway.

It will replace Network Rail branding in these places, but not TOC branding, as TfW and ScotRail are devolved.

 

[saismee]

It will replace Network Rail branding in these places, but not TOC branding, as TfW and ScotRail are devolved.

I didn't mean it should take over their branding, just that it isn't a bad thing that the branding overlaps when the services do too.

 

[Krokodil]

People are mentioning the GBR branding in Scotland and Wales and suggesting that it's a bad thing. Is everyone forgetting that Scotland and Wales are part of Britain? Surely the branding should spread into those areas if we want a "joined-up" railway.

I think it is a shame that we are likely to lose regional branding (GWR in particular).

 

[DarloRich]

I think it is a shame that we are likely to lose regional branding (GWR in particular).

I don't think we will.

Would you, as newly minted GBR Western Supremo, not want your own corporate identify? I would.

 

[Krokodil]

I don't think we will.

Would you, as newly minted GBR Western Supremo, not want your own corporate identify? I would.

Depends how much power Mr Hopwood retains, or whether he would be overruled from GBR HQ.

 

[Cardiff123]

People are mentioning the GBR branding in Scotland and Wales and suggesting that it's a bad thing. Is everyone forgetting that Scotland and Wales are part of Britain? Surely the branding should spread into those areas if we want a "joined-up" railway.

Devolution means that in the 21st century, there won't be such a thing as a single, unified railway in the same way that BR was until sectorisation in the 1980s.
There will be devolved railway operations in Scotland, Wales, London and Manchester, with likely more devolved operations under regional mayors in England as well. For all the political talk of GBR being a single, unifying brand across Britain, it will be anything but this.

 

[renegademaster]

Devolution means that in the 21st century, there won't be such a thing as a single, unified railway in the same way that BR was until sectorisation in the 1980s.
There will be devolved railway operations in Scotland, Wales, London and Manchester, with likely more devolved operations under regional mayors in England as well. For all the political talk of GBR being a single, unifying brand across Britain, it will be anything but this.

Is GBR going to be running significant services in Scotland? Yes, therefore calling it TransportForEngland isn't going to make any sense. I imagine Scottish nationalists would get more annoyed if they got a Transport for England service from Edinburgh to Inverness than a British Rail one.


And hopefully the ticketing system will still be Britain wide despite TOC devolution, as it is now. Devolved authorities having control over service specification is a good thing but to public everything should still be GBR to the public and much of the internal complexity as possible to be hidden away.

 

[Djgr]

I didn't mean it should take over their branding, just that it isn't a bad thing that the branding overlaps when the services do too.

Whilst there are some services that cross country boundaries, it is more important that, as much as possible, the different countries in the UK have responsibility for their own transport.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2025 ==

Is GBR going to be running significant services in Scotland? Yes, therefore calling it TransportForEngland isn't going to make any sense. I imagine Scottish nationalists would get more annoyed if they got a Transport for England service from Edinburgh to Inverness than a British Rail one.


And hopefully the ticketing system will still be Britain wide despite TOC devolution, as it is now. Devolved authorities having control over service specification is a good thing but to public everything should still be GBR to the public and much of the internal complexity as possible to be hidden away.

I would have thought that there would just be Scotrail and then GBR for trains that materially head into England e.g. services that terminate at Carlisle would be Scotrail.

I would have thought that Scotrail would retain its ticketing system. But the confusion that this would present would be minimal compared to the current 20 odd ticket systems that the privatised system has gifted us. That's the real issue of confusion.

 

[Dougal2345]

Whilst there are some services that cross country boundaries, it is more important that, as much as possible, the different countries in the UK have responsibility for their own transport.

I'm not sure I agree with that, if I understand your point aright? Surely railways in the UK should be run in the best and most efficient way, which is probably a single centrally controlled network, and pay no particular heed to boundaries drawn on maps that have no relevance to railway engineering?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Depends how much power Mr Hopwood retains, or whether he would be overruled from GBR HQ.

There's always the possibility of poacher turning gamekeeper...
GWR is one of the few "one TOC per London terminal" operations, and may well become the core of a GBR region.
But LNER is localised to fast intercity services and fails to include its regional neighbours (GN, EMR, Northern etc).
It's quite a dilemma for DfT/GBR - geographical Regions or business Sectors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But LNER is localised to fast intercity services and fails to include its regional neighbours (GN, EMR, Northern etc).

The difficulty there of course being which of the three London-based IC operations you integrate Northern with! GWR is a traditional mainline-and-branch operation where it's obvious what needs to go with what. Aside from oddities like Windermere where the branch pretty much only exists as an extension of the mainline most of Northern is more complex than that and most journeys don't involve connecting to the London mainline unlike the GWR Thames Valley and Cornish branches where they largely do.

It's quite a dilemma for DfT/GBR - geographical Regions or business Sectors.

Of course there's absoutely no reason why it can't be managed on a regional basis but branded based on service propositions, i.e. InterCity, InterRegio/Express, Regional etc. The passenger doesn't care who is actually managing the service and where from, but they do care what the service proposition is, and branding of that kind really helps understanding of that.

Imagine that they do go the way of one livery for everything and imagine first class gets brought back on what is now WMT. You're going to get a fair few people finding a cheap first class Advance on the Crewe service and being somewhat narked when they board that it isn't the all-bells-and-whistles First Class on the Pendolino they've bought, but something that is at best an average (730/2) to poor (350) 2+2 Standard class with no on board service at all.

You really do need to differentiate the service propositions if there isn't TOC branding to do that. Hence why just about every railway in the world (bar the very small ones) does in some form - it's odd that we would be an exception.

 

[renegademaster]

20 odd ticket systems that the privatised system has gifted us. That's the real issue of confusion.

Theirs one ticketing system and a bunch of different private front ends to it.


One of the first tasks of GBR should be convincing the public that it's all actually one unified system despite a bunch of regional brands they don't actually need to worry about, and make a GBR ticketing website, even if it's just a white labeled Trainline or Trainsplit

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2025 ==

No you wouldn't. This is about whether people would recognise that a ticket bought from GBR's site is valid on TfW/Scotrail. No one gets confused in that respect by "National Rail".

If someone is being awkward for the sake of it, that's their loss.

Someone getting offended about Britain being in the name of an operator that runs a train service in all 3 nations of Britain having Britain in its name, that's being awkward for the sake of it.

I thought the point of GBR was getting rid of the unesscary layers of complexity privatisation brought. Yes with open access and devolved administrations we still need to keep some of the old ATOC/National Rail infrastructure around, but that should be hidden from the public under an country wide brand that handles ticketing and marketing

 

[Bletchleyite]

Someone getting offended about Britain being in the name of an operator that runs a train service in all 3 nations of Britain having Britain in its name, that's being awkward for the sake of it.

I thought the point of GBR was getting rid of the unesscary layers of complexity privatisation brought. Yes with open access and devolved adminstrations we still need to keep some of the old ATOC/National Rail infrastructure around, but that should be hidden from the public under an country wide brand that handles ticketing and marketing.

I don't think we are going to get away from there being TfW and ScotRail branded sales sites too, but they could easily be done as a skin on top of whatever the GBR sales site ends up being, just like several TOCs are presently just using "skinned" Trainline.

Indeed, one could argue that, given the way Wales seems to be pursuing bus integration in an almost national Verkehrsverbund style (which makes sense given that you can't otherwise get around Wales north to south without going through England), it might make sense for them to have a Transport for Wales fares system and app etc that includes bus and rail but with the GBR one abstracting off only the stuff that's really directly relevant to travelling by rail between England and Wales. As long as it's still possible to use the GBR fares/ticketing system to buy through tickets from England to any Welsh station (and ideally some of the key bus destinations off the rail network like Caernarfon) does it matter if TfW has a separate setup more suited to those travelling only within Wales?

It's after all just a bigger version of Transport for London, I guess. And I don't think anyone suggesting that TfL should be forced to put stuff like the Overground back into GBR livery, branding etc when it really is a local service for local people is being sensible to be honest. Overground is a popular service and brand, and it should stay as it is.

 

[renegademaster]

I don't think we are going to get away from there being TfW and ScotRail branded sales sites too, but they could easily be done as a skin on top of whatever the GBR sales site ends up being, just like several TOCs are presently just using "skinned" Trainline.

Indeed, one could argue that, given the way Wales seems to be pursuing bus integration in an almost national Verkehrsverbund style (which makes sense given that you can't otherwise get around Wales north to south without going through England), it might make sense for them to have a Transport for Wales fares system and app etc that includes bus and rail but with the GBR one abstracting off only the stuff that's really directly relevant to travelling by rail between England and Wales. As long as it's still possible to use the GBR fares/ticketing system to buy through tickets from England to any Welsh station (and ideally some of the key bus destinations off the rail network like Caernarfon) does it matter if TfW has a separate setup more suited to those travelling only within Wales?

It's after all just a bigger version of Transport for London, I guess. And I don't think anyone suggesting that TfL should be forced to put stuff like the Overground back into GBR livery, branding etc when it really is a local service for local people is being sensible to be honest. Overground is a popular service and brand, and it should stay as it is.

I'm not saying the devolved governments shouldn't be allowed to bring in their own innovations, but anything rail related (and long term anything transport related) should be able to be assessable through GBR , and splitting the ticketing side off from the rest of the organisation would be a mistake and unesscary complication, and we already have the infrastructure for through tickets with buses, it's just not used anymore.

 

[Bletchleyite]

we already have the infrastructure for through tickets with buses, it's just not used anymore.

We have the ability to add certain destinations as virtual stations for through bus operation - it is still used, e.g. Minehead is being discussed on other threads. But that's very different from a fully integrated fares system. Would you for example seek to add all bus stops in London to the GBR app? That wouldn't seem sensible*, but a TfW app might sensibly contain them.

* Or would it? DB's journey planners contain all bus stops and timetables in Germany and do produce sensible results if you ask for one including relevant fares!

 

[renegademaster]

We have the ability to add certain destinations as virtual stations for through bus operation - it is still used, e.g. Minehead is being discussed on other threads. But that's very different from a fully integrated fares system. Would you for example seek to add all bus stops in London to the GBR app? That wouldn't seem sensible*, but a TfW app might sensibly contain them.

* Or would it? DB's journey planners contain all bus stops and timetables in Germany and do produce sensible results if you ask for one including relevant fares!

At least as a journey planner I don't see the harm of including bus stops.


A long term aspiration of the DfT should be integrated fare system for buses , they already shown they can force the operators to use a common fare cap. Most buses already use the same ticket system and theirs not many heads to bang together (the big 3, TfL and TfGM would be a good start). Must be easier than Germany forcing their Holy Roman Empire of 100s of Verkehrsbetriebe to work together

 

[Krokodil]

A long term aspiration of the DfT should be integrated fare system for buses , they already shown they can force the operators to use a common fare cap. Most buses already use the same ticket system and theirs not many heads to bang together (the big 3, TfL and TfGM would be a good start). Must be easier than Germany forcing their Holy Roman Empire of 100s of Verkehrsbetriebe to work together

The Welsh Government managed to do it across multiple operators years ago, even down to the really small firms. No reason that this couldn't be done elsewhere

 

[stevieinselby]

I'm not sure I agree with that, if I understand your point aright? Surely railways in the UK should be run in the best and most efficient way, which is probably a single centrally controlled network, and pay no particular heed to boundaries drawn on maps that have no relevance to railway engineering?

You could say the same about any aspect of devolution ... we can choose either to centralise power over everything in Whitehall, or we can allow devolved assemblies and parliaments to go their own way. While the first may be more efficient, the second may be more democratic, and so the question will always be where you want to draw that line – and different people will have different priorities depending on which side of the line they are on.

 

[WAB]

People are mentioning the GBR branding in Scotland and Wales and suggesting that it's a bad thing. Is everyone forgetting that Scotland and Wales are part of Britain? Surely the branding should spread into those areas if we want a "joined-up" railway.

Funnily enough, the old BR signage at Shrewsbury has just been replaced with TfW signage, almost like-for-like, including the Area Manager's office on platform 3 (a grade that went before the end of privatisation...)

I think it is a shame that we are likely to lose regional branding (GWR in particular).

Yes, I think it'll be damaging for both customer comprehension of the network and staff morale/motivation. Network Rail is hardly famed for not being a monolithic organisation!

Would you, as newly minted GBR Western Supremo, not want your own corporate identify? I would.

Quite, and there's an emerging culture in some of the DfTO TOCs of pride and ownership in their areas which ought to be harnessed. This is not enabled by feeling like you're a CSA managed by the group station manager within an area within the stations function of a business unit within a region of a national organisation. Medium-sized TOCs are a much more human-sized construct for staff to get their heads around and feel valued within, and should be clearly branded as such. No doubt the control-freakery from GBR HQ, full of DfT, RDG and Network Rail HQ bods will put paid to regional individuality...

 

[Rhydgaled]

Of course there's absoutely no reason why it can't be managed on a regional basis but branded based on service propositions, i.e. InterCity, InterRegio/Express, Regional etc. The passenger doesn't care who is actually managing the service and where from, but they do care what the service proposition is, and branding of that kind really helps understanding of that.

I like the idea of branding based on service propositions; eg. when South West Trains (SWT) switched from a single TOC-wide livery/brand to separate ones for express/long-distance (mainly white), outer-suburban (mainly blue) and inner-suburban (mainly red). However, such brands would work even better if they were GB-wide.

Sticking with SWT, the class 158s/159s are just about the most-suitable existing stock for the Waterloo-Exeter route, given the lack of electrification. Unfortunately, their Salisbury-Romsey 'figure of six' local-stoppers are forced to use the same stock since the TOC has no other DMUs. Meanwhile, GWR don't have quite enough class 158s to reliably form all their Cardiff-Portsmouth services with 5-car 158s. If Great British Railways are to introduce a single GB-wide livery, the outer-suburban class 165/166 units could take over the 'figure of six' stoppers, which might even release enough 158s to ensure all the Cardiff–Portsmouths are formed of 5-car 158s.

The fragmentation created by franchising isn’t just an issue in the Southampton area of course. Wasn’t the Midland Main Line electrification through to Nottingham and Sheffield still a live project when the class 810s were ordered? With that electrification delivered, I think that would leave only 4 EMR INTERCITY passenger workings per day (1 each way for Melton Mowbray and two (southbound only) for Lincoln) beyond the wires. Without the TOC ‘silos’ and their separate branding, GBR could use an 800/1 to cover these services, allowing the 810s to be replaced by new EMUs when (I hope) the MML is wired, releasing the 810s to what are currently XC Voyager routes (the class 810s presumably would fit in whichever platform(s) it was (bays at Newcastle perhaps?) that limit some XC services to 5-car Voyagers).

given the way Wales seems to be pursuing bus integration in an almost national Verkehrsverbund style (which makes sense given that you can't otherwise get around Wales north to south without going through England)

Just a shame there aren't many buses left to integrate with. The consultation on the planned 'base network' for the first region (Neath Port Talbot, Swansea, Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire) planned for the roll-out of their bus re-regulation plans said that this first phase (at least) had to be delivered with the current level of resources (eg. funding, buses and staff) and proposed no changes to the routes and frequencies available in Pembrokeshire (which has recently lost many routes, including some of the coast path tourist routes like the 'Poppit Rocket', so those cuts are effectively locked-in by the new TfW-run bus contracting system). Hopefully we will finally have return bus fares (and rover/ranger/explorer tickets) which are valid on all buses regardless of operator at no additional cost compared to operator-only fares.

Theirs one ticketing system and a bunch of different private front ends to it.

I find the current range of different front ends (booking / journey planner websites) can be useful sometimes though:

• I find the 'mixing deck' frontend (which now only seems to be GWR, but I think East Coast and Chiltern also had it in the past) easy to use, and great for looking up journey times, for simple trips,
• trains-can-be-cheaper (which I haven't used for a while, so it may have changed in the meantime) is less user-friendly (to me at least) but allows far more-complex itineraries (such as different routes for the outward and return legs) to be booked and I think is the only one allowing seat-selection across multiple TOCs when making reseverations
• the old National Rail frontend had a postcode search for a while, instead of having to know which station you want to travel to/from - I think they've removed it now and it wasn't that useful the way it was done (it just used the 3 closest stations I think, and you could only use a postode for one end of the journey not both in a single search), but I'd like to see an improved version offered in future (eg. enter two Postcodes / Placenames (one for each end of the trip) to be shown a map of station locations - pick up to three for each end to be shown what options are available for travel - this would be useful for example in South West Wales where it can be faster to use the Cambrian Line (Aberystwyth-Shrewsbury) or any one of Fishguard & Goodwick, Haverfordwest or Whitland depending on where you're going to/from)
  
  

 

[HSTEd]

Personally, the closer we can get to a vertically integrated state railway, the happier I would be.

I know devolution has made such a thing impossible to completely achieve, but a very large part of the railway system is in England, so thats what I'd like.

But beyond that, one thing I'd suggest would be that National Rail should integrate a split ticketing engine. We'd notionally lose revenue, but increasingly that revenue is already lost thanks to the proliferation of split ticketing.
It should also sell tickets directly rather than redirecting to a second website.
If we can get the split ticketing data by doing the selling, that would allow us to correct the ODM data for corruption by splitting, and ease fares reform by identifying tickets that noone would ever sensibly buy for elimination.

I think I'd largely be against any regional brands that don't come with dedicated infrastructure.

If we can achieve a sane rolling stock strategy (a fools hope but a hope nonetheless), rolling stock will move around way more than at present.
That would make differences in train painting rather incongruous. And station branding should just comply with a style guide like SBB's.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we can get the split ticketing data by doing the selling, that would allow us to correct the ODM data for corruption by splitting, and ease fares reform by identifying tickets that noone would ever sensibly by for elimination.

And also allow the actual fares database to be simplified e.g. just have Advances on a per vehicle journey basis and sell a through journey that involves changes as a split.

 

[Topological]

Personally, the closer we can get to a vertically integrated state railway, the happier I would be.

I know devolution has made such a thing impossible to completely achieve, but a very large part of the railway system is in England, so thats what I'd like.

But beyond that, one thing I'd suggest would be that National Rail should integrate a split ticketing engine. We'd notionally lose revenue, but increasingly that revenue is already lost thanks to the proliferation of split ticketing.
It should also sell tickets directly rather than redirecting to a second website.
If we can get the split ticketing data by doing the selling, that would allow us to correct the ODM data for corruption by splitting, and ease fares reform by identifying tickets that noone would ever sensibly buy for elimination.

I think I'd largely be against any regional brands that don't come with dedicated infrastructure.

If we can achieve a sane rolling stock strategy (a fools hope but a hope nonetheless), rolling stock will move around way more than at present.
That would make differences in train painting rather incongruous. And station branding should just comply with a style guide like SBB's.

I would fully agree on ticketing. There are huge data advantages to knowing which journeys are real and which are just because of splits in peoples tickets.

I like the GWR branding, but am open to the end of regions. I would be perfectly OK with a single brand.

However, I also believe there needs to be a modernisation of the depot/link arrangements so that there is no passenger confusion when a GBR staff member can not crew a GBR train because of some arrangement where the staff member and train were previously different operators. For example, there should be some training to allow 195 drivers to drive 197s to Crewe or Chester (formely being Northern and TfW). **

** The example is chosen to be illustrative as they are CAF units. I do not know the precise differences between the two and how many days of conversion would be needed.

 

[EMU303]

People are mentioning the GBR branding in Scotland and Wales and suggesting that it's a bad thing. Is everyone forgetting that Scotland and Wales are part of Britain? Surely the branding should spread into those areas if we want a "joined-up" railway.

As someone who has lived in Scotland for over 60 years, there’s two clear reasons why rebranding to GBR won’t happen.

First of all, devolution. The Scottish government has invested heavily over the years with significant electrification, new trains, stations, with more in the pipeline. Abolition of peak fares too. I seriously doubt some of those investment decisions would have occurred if the decisions were being made outside Scotland. I’m not being political when I say that.

The other reason is the Scotrail brand is a successful one built up over many, many years, with significant advertising on tv and elsewhere. It probably has near universal recognition within Scotland and has the tag line “Scotland’s Railway”. No one in their right mind would bin that branding success, or subsume it.

I suspect similar reasoning for Wales.

 

[Topological]

As someone who has lived in Scotland for over 60 years, there’s two clear reasons why rebranding to GBR won’t happen.

First of all, devolution. The Scottish government has invested heavily over the years with significant electrification, new trains, stations, with more in the pipeline. Abolition of peak fares too. I seriously doubt some of those investment decisions would have occurred if the decisions were being made outside Scotland. I’m not being political when I say that.

The other reason is the Scotrail brand is a successful one built up over many, many years, with significant advertising on tv and elsewhere. It probably has near universal recognition within Scotland and has the tag line “Scotland’s Railway”. No one in their right mind would bin that branding success, or subsume it.

I suspect similar reasoning for Wales.

I do not know if Transport for Wales loyalty is as strong, though that may change if all the new trains really transform the experience. I could see how it might be different in The Valleys of Cardiff, but since the Intercity services in Wales are provided by GWR and Avanti it is a bit different to Scotland where Scotrail provide the majority of services between big cities.

 

[Krokodil]

However, I also believe there needs to be a modernisation of the depot/link arrangements so that there is no passenger confusion when a GBR staff member can not crew a GBR train because of some arrangement where the staff member and train were previously different operators. For example, there should be some training to allow 195 drivers to drive 197s to Crewe or Chester (formely being Northern and TfW). **

** The example is chosen to be illustrative as they are CAF units. I do not know the precise differences between the two and how many days of conversion would be needed.

Some mutual learning of routes and traction would indeed be beneficial. As things stand any disruption towards Manchester Airport results in TfW turning back at Warrington which is fairly poorly connected for those passengers not travelling to Scotland. If crews signed each others' routes and traction then the opportunity to divert into Victoria would exist, allowing Transpennine connections at Newton-le-Willows to be preserved and the option of a tram to the airport. They can still remain working for different employers (because devolution) but be hired back and forth.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

I do not know if Transport for Wales loyalty is as strong, though that may change if all the new trains really transform the experience. I could see how it might be different in The Valleys of Cardiff, but since the Intercity services in Wales are provided by GWR and Avanti it is a bit different to Scotland where Scotrail provide the majority of services between big cities.

I don't think it's about loyalty to TfW, it's about a possible dislike of the GBR name and colours.

Sure the "great"in 'Great Britain' is actually a geographical descriptor but the GBR name sounds nationalistic and bombastic in a Boris Johnson 'muscular unionist' kind of way. For the same reasons the union flag is seldom seen in Wales, apart from on public buildings, the name and livery are likely to prove unpopular.

National Rail, UK Rail or indeed British Rail would have been better, more politically neutral, choices.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I think Arriva Trains Wales was a stronger brand for some reason.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Dec 2025 ==

I don't think it's about loyalty to TfW, it's about a possible dislike of the GBR name and colours.

Sure the "great"in 'Great Britain' is actually a geographical descriptor but the GBR name sounds nationalistic and bombastic in a Boris Johnson 'muscular unionist' kind of way. For the same reasons the union flag is seldom seen in Wales, apart from on public buildings, the name and livery are likely to prove unpopular.

National Rail, UK Rail or indeed British Rail would have been better, more politically neutral, choices.

British Rail is the best, but I came up with Allied Railways or United British Railways which helps to showcase the different national railways working as one.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Sure the "great"in 'Great Britain' is actually a geographical descriptor but the GBR name sounds nationalistic and bombastic in a Boris Johnson 'muscular unionist' kind of way

Aye, I think 'Great British Railways' is a poor choice of name too (my hope is that, just as the original 'British Railways' dropped the last four letters after a while, the new one will rename itself (to 'British Rail', or possibly 'GB Rail' or the 'National Rail' name from the background of the orange ticket cardstock) before too long).

For the same reasons the union flag is seldom seen in Wales, apart from on public buildings, the name and livery are likely to prove unpopular.

I personally rather like the Union Flag itself (though might like to see a small version of the Welsh dragon in the middle, if it can be made to look right), or the idea of using the colours from it in the rolling stock livery, but the way the livery on the Hornby 80x was done comes over a bit too bold if you ask me.