GWR accused of disrupting Wales-England train links by Welsh Government

[WelshBluebird]

Seems fairly accurate to me: half-hourly Paddington to Cardiff (and extensions to Swansea/Carmarthen) and hourly Portsmouth to Cardiff. So two Bristol Parkway-Cardiff and one Bristol TM-Cardiff per hour.

I would assume, given the TfW plan is to Temple Meads, that they are just referring to Temple Meads services and not including the Parkway ones. And that the three trains per hour is actually referring to the single hour on a Sunday when GWR do have an additional service for some reason. Which is why I think it's incredibly sneaky / clever of them to claim it and why I am glad TfW called it out.

 

[Wolfie]

Rail company accused of disrupting Wales-England train links by government​

GWR accused of trying to 'disrupt' plans for new west Wales to Bristol trains

Transport for Wales wants to introduce train services between west Wales and Bristol in December.

www.bbc.co.uk

Awful behaviour by GWR trying to block service improvements for passengers, its surely time for TFW to be given control of cross border routes.

Why exactly should Wales take priority and England suffer. As a Salopian l have seen how TfW treat routes in England. Lowest priority!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jun 2026 ==

I don’t see it as aggressive. It’s entirely reasonable for GWR to object to another operator wanting to run services that could negatively affect theirs. That’s why we have the ORR as an independent regulator to determine who can run services. Is it an improvement if there’s an increase in unreliability thanks to adding too many trains?

Where do you draw the line for TFW running cross border services? Paddington? Euston? Edinburgh?

Agreed, particularly given HMT is actively keen to reduce rail expenditure.

 

[43096]

I would assume, given the TfW plan is to Temple Meads, that they are just referring to Temple Meads services and not including the Parkway ones. And that the three trains per hour is actually referring to the single hour on a Sunday when GWR do have an additional service for some reason. Which is why I think it's incredibly sneaky / clever of them to claim it and why I am glad TfW called it out.

I am no defender of GWR or FirstGroup, but they are correct. "Bristol Parkway" is Bristol. "Bristol Temple Meads" is Bristol. It is entirely correct that they run 3tph from Cardiff to Bristol. More importantly, it is the same stretch of track for all but about 6 miles.

 

[Farigiraf]

A notable lack of looking at what the passengers actually want. Cardiff - Newport - Bristol is a busy corridor and people along this route will take whatever extras they can get, as long as there is the rolling stock for it. Would've thought that GBR and TFW could co-operate to enough of an extent that focus is put on providing a predictable, modern and frequent service instead of squabbling over who gets the money, but I guess I'm too optimistic.

It's not as with OAOs where rail profits mostly disappear from the rail network - both GBR and TFW's revenue is used to maintain and improve the network, whichever side of the (in practice arbitrary for logistical reasons - cultural is another thing) border gets that money doesn't really matter too much as it's all spent in roughly the same region.

Though ultimately, in a nationalised railway, funding priorities are based on political gain rather than network gain (not that fully private is any better), so any investment in Bristol routes by TFW, owned by the Welsh gov, wouldn't win any votes so may be lower priority - it's a tricky one to figure out as ultimately you could make the same argument for GWR's Swansea/Carmarthen routes, but cutting these for the same reasons would be (rightfully) seen as misguided.

This debacle is a great advertisement for a passenger/society-first rather than profit-first (or minimal-subsidy) railway, as perfectly sensible ideas like extending a few west Wales services to Bristol are points of contention - on paper, implementing such a service would be a good use of taxpayer money (from either nation), yet if the focus is on ticket revenue rather than the many other wider benefits of increased rail usage, it suddenly becomes a bad idea. Not to bring up one of the most common analogies in rail, but a taxpayer-funded road from England to Wales would likely face the same issues if it were a toll road, yet for some reason there'd likely be no motivation to make it a toll road even if it does reduce subsidy.

 

[Parallel]

I don’t really see the need for 3 trains an hour between Cardiff Central and Bristol Temple Meads and I’d avoid the new service if it was a 2-car 197 - Do we know when the TfW service would slot in. If it’s a few minutes before or after the existing services, there’s not much need. As I understand it there was a Burns review completed last year which made recommendations for additional local stations between Cardiff and the Severn Tunnel which would presumably run into Temple Meads, but this proposal isn’t it? So I’m not really sure what the purpose is. The direct Bristol Temple Meads to West Wales market is likely to be minor. I think GWR are right to call this out, and they must have a good argument to unsettle the Welsh Government this much into going to the media.

Why not just proceed with the Burns review services which GWR are unlikely to object to? They have a clear propose and would serve new (genuine) markets.

 

[JonathanH]

I don’t really see the need for 3 trains an hour between Cardiff Central and Bristol Temple Meads and I’d avoid the new service if it was a 2-car 197 - Do we know when the TfW service would slot in.

What is a little silly is that we have complaints of overcrowding in North Wales while TfW want to use rolling stock instead to operate over a route that already has an incumbent operator.

What would be a better outcone long term is GWR operating longer trains in the existing timetable between Cardiff and Bristol, and TfW using its rolling stock to strengthen existing services.

 

[Class15]

What is a little silly is that we have complaints of overcrowding in North Wales while TfW want to use rolling stock instead to operate over a route that already has an incumbent operator.

What would be a better outcone long term is GWR operating longer trains in the existing timetable between Cardiff and Bristol, and TfW using its rolling stock to strengthen existing services.

So avoiding any service increases?

Higher frequencies are very attractive.

 

[JonathanH]

Higher frequencies are very attractive.

Yes, but overcrowding on short trains is something that is very unpopular.

 

[Parallel]

So avoiding any service increases?

Higher frequencies are very attractive.

It depends when they run. If it’s 5 minutes after a GWR service, it will be a lot less attractive, than say, 15 minutes before/after.

 

[Djgr]

I don’t really see the need for 3 trains an hour between Cardiff Central and Bristol Temple Meads

Well presumably because, as a key route between two very important cities, it is considered to merit three trains an hour.

Perverse, the forum calling for lower frequency services.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jun 2026 ==

Yes, but overcrowding on short trains is something that is very unpopular.

Perhaps we could solve that problem by offering more services each hour.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Seems fairly accurate to me: half-hourly Paddington to Cardiff (and extensions to Swansea/Carmarthen) and hourly Portsmouth to Cardiff. So two Bristol Parkway-Cardiff and one Bristol TM-Cardiff per hour.

Two Bristol TM-Cardiff per hour, as Exeter services are hourly.
I think including Bristol Parkway is a stretch though. Considering the station is quite literally in Gloucestershire.

 

[Parallel]

Well presumably because, as a key route between two very important cities, it is considered to merit three trains an hour.

Perverse, the forum calling for lower frequency services.

Not everything needs to be worked to its absolute limits and we don’t have to congest the network with trains that aren’t needed. Resource can be spent better elsewhere on the TfW network, as others have mentioned. I spend long enough standing on TfW’s trains to make that comment.

I’m not against service increases, but from reading the responses, these particular services look like an attempt at a revenue raid.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

This particular situation will not be affected by GBR, as Transport for Wales (and ScotRail/Caledonian Sleeper) are remaining independently ran by devolved government - keeping their brands and independent operation separate from GBR.

Wales has already signed a memorandum with DfT about developing a cooperative relationship under the wider GBR umbrella.
In any case Welsh infrastructure is not devolved (except for the Core Valley Lines), and so is a UK/GBR matter.

 

[Bald Rick]

This thread just illuminates so nicely what has become of our railways and the quicker GBR is established the better to stop such nonsense which then gets exploited by the media.

This is already a GBR vs TfW discussion, albeit with GBr in it’s pre-birth guise.

Also, DfT have a ‘golden share’ regarding any TfW services that serve English stations.

 

[Krokodil]

Where do you draw the line for TFW running cross border services? Paddington? Euston? Edinburgh?

First North Western used to run London services, and there has been talk at various points over the years of reinstating through trains from London to Aberystwyth.

3 Trains per hour to “Bristol” is correct Portsmouth and Taunton (points west) and London Paddington via Bristol Parkway…..

There are two London services, so that logic makes four. Bristol Parkway isn't in Bristol anyway. It would be like claiming that Manchester actually has a five train per hour London service on account of the services which call at Wigan.

Seems fairly accurate to me: half-hourly Paddington to Cardiff (and extensions to Swansea/Carmarthen) and hourly Portsmouth to Cardiff. So two Bristol Parkway-Cardiff and one Bristol TM-Cardiff per hour.

What about the Taunton?

At the other end of the country, TfW allowed Northern to compete on the Manchester-Warrington-Chester route, so it's just the reverse of that change.

Going from hourly to half-hourly was a welcome frequency increase on a busy route.

So avoiding any service increases?

Higher frequencies are very attractive.

Well presumably because, as a key route between two very important cities, it is considered to merit three trains an hour.

Is an uneven 3tph really much better than an even 2tph? On a typical hour, trains currently depart Bristol at around xx28 and xx57. So (bearing in mind the need to clear Severn Tunnel Junction before you hold up a following IET, plus accounting for freight paths through the tunnel) your windows for departing are xx:02-xx15: and xx:33-xx:45. A third train per hour wouldn't make the service a turn-up-and-go one. Uneven timetabling (because you wouldn't get a regular 20 minute interval) means that passengers aren't going to find the timetable as memorable. You could end up with a path five minutes behind a GWR service - what would the point of that be?

I would (assuming operationally practicable) support a 4tph service consisting of flighted pairs of trains, a regional express (Portsmouth/Taunton) followed by a stopper. Because they serve different markets. Just adding an extra departure at some random point in the hour brings little benefit.

 

[Benjwri]

It's not as with OAOs where rail profits mostly disappear from the rail network - both GBR and TFW's revenue is used to maintain and improve the network, whichever side of the (in practice arbitrary for logistical reasons - cultural is another thing) border gets that money doesn't really matter too much as it's all spent in roughly the same region.

While I think TfW should be allowed to run the service it’s worth noting this isn’t true. Infrastructure is only devolved in the CVL, the rest of Welsh infrastructure is funded by Westminster, and so in theory it could result in a loss of review for this purpose. TfW does obviously pay track access.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Where do you draw the line for TFW running cross border services? Paddington? Euston? Edinburgh?

They already run to Cheltenham, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc. Why not Bristol too?

Why exactly should Wales take priority and England suffer. As a Salopian l have seen how TfW treat routes in England. Lowest priority!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jun 2026 ==
.

How exactly is providing an additional cross border service an example of "England suffering"?

I don’t really see the need for 3 trains an hour between Cardiff Central and Bristol Temple Meads and I’d avoid the new service if it was a 2-car 197 - Do we know when the TfW service would slot in. If it’s a few minutes before or after the existing services, there’s not much need. As I understand it there was a Burns review completed last year which made recommendations for additional local stations between Cardiff and the Severn Tunnel which would presumably run into Temple Meads, but this proposal isn’t it? So I’m not really sure what the purpose is. The direct Bristol Temple Meads to West Wales market is likely to be minor. I think GWR are right to call this out, and they must have a good argument to unsettle the Welsh Government this much into going to the media.

Why not just proceed with the Burns review services which GWR are unlikely to object to? They have a clear propose and would serve new (genuine) markets.

I take it you dont regularly travel between south Wales and Bristol? More services (and some damn competition to GWR) are absolutely needed.

 

[Djgr]

Why exactly should Wales take priority and England suffer. As a Salopian l have seen how TfW treat routes in England.

Given their population, most Shropshire stations enjoy pretty generous provision e.g. Church Stretton population 4469 Whitchurch 9855 Wem 6100 Yorton 150...

 

[JamesT]

They already run to Cheltenham, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc. Why not Bristol too?

I was responding to the OP calling for “TFW to be given control of cross border routes.”. Which I take to mean that the likes of GWR, Avanti, and XC should no longer run services into Wales but instead these should be solely TFW.

 

[Harpo]

This is Westminster vs Cardiff and a terrible advert for the way things will be under GBR. Join up all the dysfunctional TOCs and get two dysfunctional national governments instead.

 

[TransportHub]

Am I missing the point here? I thought the whole idea of the TfW service to Bristol was to serve the new stations on the SWML. Other than Cardiff Parkway I can't see GWR or XC stopping at them, so a new TfW service makes sense. It's not so much about providing more Bristol to Cardiff capacity, rather Magor & Undy to Bristol or Newport West to Cardiff.
Running the train 5mins after the fast would be a good idea keeping the train reasonable empty from the origin so there is space for the new stations passengers to get on.

TfW is the local train, GWR is the region one

 

[Bald Rick]

Am I missing the point here? I thought the whole idea of the TfW service to Bristol was to serve the new stations on the SWML.

Eventually, yes. But they won’t be built for years, and this service is slated to start in December.

 

[Dr Day]

This is already a GBR vs TfW discussion, albeit with GBr in it’s pre-birth guise.

Also, DfT have a ‘golden share’ regarding any TfW services that serve English stations.

Could you please expand? It is unclear to the lay person how the money flows between tax payers, fare payers, TOCs, WG and Westminster/DfT in these circumstances eg the existing ‘shared with GBR’ situation such as Shrewsbury-Birmingham.

If more trains are needed, can DfT direct one or other of the TOCs to provide them, and if so agree to fund them if the extra revenue doesn’t cover the extra costs? Would TfW complain to ORR if WMT/GBR did that and lost revenue share, or does all that revenue across both TOCs go back to DfT anyway?

Can one or other operator at their own discretion put on extra services?

Can they offer dedicated fares?

What happens if capacity is hitting limits?

How does it work the other way around if say GBR decided to operate more trains Euston-Holyhead? There are arguments that more seats are needed on the North Wales coast, so a neutral might say it is more efficient that these are provided using longer trains which so happen to be on GBR trains rather than TfW branded ones. These are the kinds of issues I would expect GBR would be fully managing elsewhere, without cross boundary complications.

 

[DS25]

Why exactly should Wales take priority and England suffer. As a Salopian l have seen how TfW treat routes in England. Lowest priority!

I actually think Shropshire’s doing better off with TfW rather than WMR, atleast most stations get 1/2tph and most services are 4/5 coaches in Shropshire (on the Marches), much better than we would get with WMR which would probably be an hourly 2 car DMU only going Hereford-Crewe, while we get direct trains all over Wales

 

[Krokodil]

Why exactly should Wales take priority and England suffer. As a Salopian l have seen how TfW treat routes in England. Lowest priority!

Shropshire gets a much better service than its population would demand

 

[Mozd]

A notable lack of looking at what the passengers actually want. Cardiff - Newport - Bristol is a busy corridor and people along this route will take whatever extras they can get, as long as there is the rolling stock for it. Would've thought that GBR and TFW could co-operate to enough of an extent that focus is put on providing a predictable, modern and frequent service instead of squabbling over who gets the money, but I guess I'm too optimistic.

This must be the key point. Seems to me the aim should be an evenly spaced 15 min service. That would get more people off the overcrowded M4 and generally make people's lives better. I guess I'm optimistic to hope that the aim of the railway is to make the world a better place...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Shropshire gets a much better service than its population would demand

And a lot of money has been spent upgrading the infrastructure Shrewsbury-Crewe and Shrewsbury-Gobowen and Rossett-Chester so that TfW journey times are reduced (90mph).
Not to mention the ETCS upgrade on the Cambrian, the first 12 miles or so being in Shropshire.

There's been no improvement to Shrewsbury-Wolverhampton's 70mph, arguably the busiest corridor in Shropshire.

 

[contrex]

3 Trains per hour to “Bristol” is correct Portsmouth and Taunton (points west) and London Paddington via Bristol Parkway…..

Language again, “Bristol” is doing some moderate lifting granted as Parkway is South Gloucestershire.

Handy for Cribbs and the Centre by Metrobus though, which is free if you're an oldie like me.

 

[Envoy]

First Group lose the right to run GWR in December when the UK Government takes over as Great British Rail. However, we should note that First Group have permission to run their LUMO services on the Carmarthen to London route (calling at Bristol Parkway) from December 2027. They clearly would not want a west Wales to Bristol Temple Meads TFW service skimming off some of the passengers.

"Lumo has confirmed a December 2027 launch date for a new direct service between Carmarthen and London Paddington - calling at Llanelli and Gowerton - after the route's long journey from initial proposal to operational reality."​

CARMARTHEN: Lumo to launch direct Carmarthen to London Paddington service in December 2027 — with stops at Llanelli and Gowerton - Swansea Bay News

Lumo has confirmed a December 2027 launch for a new direct Carmarthen to London Paddington service, calling at Llanelli and Gowerton, following years of regulatory battles and a change of operator from Grand Union to FirstGroup.

swanseabaynews.com

 

[Clarence Yard]

Could you please expand? It is unclear to the lay person how the money flows between tax payers, fare payers, TOCs, WG and Westminster/DfT in these circumstances eg the existing ‘shared with GBR’ situation such as Shrewsbury-Birmingham.

If more trains are needed, can DfT direct one or other of the TOCs to provide them, and if so agree to fund them if the extra revenue doesn’t cover the extra costs? Would TfW complain to ORR if WMT/GBR did that and lost revenue share, or does all that revenue across both TOCs go back to DfT anyway?

Can one or other operator at their own discretion put on extra services?

Can they offer dedicated fares?

What happens if capacity is hitting limits?

How does it work the other way around if say GBR decided to operate more trains Euston-Holyhead? There are arguments that more seats are needed on the North Wales coast, so a neutral might say it is more efficient that these are provided using longer trains which so happen to be on GBR trains rather than TfW branded ones. These are the kinds of issues I would expect GBR would be fully managing elsewhere, without cross boundary complications.

The TOCs are not free to increase services - that has to be agreed with their paymasters first because they will be the ones paying for any extra services and receiving any extra revenue.

The problem is that a GWR train generates revenue for the DfT and a TFW one generates revenue for TfW. The DfT absolutely hate someone else taking their revenue (because of the budgetary implications) so will have instructed GWR to object.

The ORR will approve any increase in Track Access Rights for any required increase in service and take into account any effect on other operators as part of their determination process. They will also assess if the proposal can actually be accommodated on the network,

Dedicated fares could be offered by either operator and if train capacity reaches a limit, the options are longer trains, potentially more trains (if there is space on the network) or increase the fares, to choke off the excess demand.

More resources would have to be agreed by the funder - the TOC has no discretion to employ more staff, lease more rolling stock or operate more services.