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

[TrainTraveler]

My guess is that GWR can see "TfW only" tickets at a lower price than their current Bristol TM - Cardiff fares (and I think there is a fairly good chance of that), hence their revenue would take a hit.

For the passenger, a service that is through to West Wales to Bristol TM could be attractive (particularly with a trolley for some of the route) so I hope the ORR gives it the nod.

 

[Envoy]

Cardiff to Bristol Temple Meads day return fare is £17.80 or £24.10 peak. Cardiff to Swansea fare (similar distance) is £12.50 on any TFW train. However, if using a GWR train between these two Welsh cities, the day return fare is £14.80 off peak / £15.30 peak. So, clearly competition from TFW has resulted in a better deal for the passenger who would be more inclined not to use the GWR trains between Cardiff & Swansea. The higher fares set by GWR for Cardiff to Bristol would lead to many people saying that it is too expensive to use the trains and we will drive instead - thus adding to the heavy traffic on the M4 around Newport and into Bristol. Surely, neither UK or Welsh Government would consider that desirable?

Also note that on the Cardiff > Bristol > Bath > Salisbury > Southampton > Portsmouth route that GWR are using clapped out old trains that are often no more than 3 coaches: > so another reason not to use the trains linking these places.

Between Severn Tunnel Junction and Cardiff, the day return fare is £12.80. However, if passengers use the TFW contactless scheme & only travel on *their hourly service the return fare drops to £6. Clearly the Welsh Government run TFW are offering better fares to get people off the over crowded roads. *Also includes Cross Country trains that call twice a day.

 

[John R]

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

There are two proposals. The one you refer to is a couple of years down the road, and will only start when the stations (the “Burns” stations) are built.

This is a proposal to improve connectivity between Temple Meads and stations west of Cardiff by introducing a two hourly through train.

 

[officewalla]

GBR not great and not British in all of its glory. Indicative of the problems ahead with devolved governments and transport.

 

[Benjwri]

GWR are using clapped out old trains that are often no more than 3 coaches: > so another reason not to use the trains linking these places.

As opposed to TfW using trains which will, at least to start, be no more than two coaches? The turbos are getting old but the refresh has gone okay and they now aren't that bad.

 

[John R]

Also note that on the Cardiff > Bristol > Bath > Salisbury > Southampton > Portsmouth route that GWR are using clapped out old trains that are often no more than 3 coaches: > so another reason not to use the trains linking these places.

But in contrast the Cardiff - Taunton services are usually 5 car IETs, which is a very good standard of provision for the service.

 

[WelshBluebird]

But in contrast the Cardiff - Taunton services are usually 5 car IETs, which is a very good standard of provision for the service.

Which is actually just 3.5 cars for standard class. That gives only a tad more capacity than a 3 car turbo and how comfortable they are really depends on what you think of the seats.

 

[Djgr]

Given that GWR is also being a prima donna about South Wales Tap and Go, probably makes sense for TfW to drive its own agenda rather than being roadblocked.

 

[John R]

Which is actually just 3.5 cars for standard class. That gives only a tad more capacity than a 3 car turbo and how comfortable they are really depends on what you think of the seats.

Given the IET is 2+2 seating and the turbo is predominately 2+3, then I would suggest they are much more comfortable. Still, I guess we digress from the main thread topic.

 

[Clarence Yard]

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.

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

FG itself has not objected to the TfW application and has had no influence over what GWR has said in its response to that application. GWR gets any guidance on that direct from the DfT.

 

[Snow1964]

Also note that on the Cardiff > Bristol > Bath > Salisbury > Southampton > Portsmouth route that GWR are using clapped out old trains that are often no more than 3 coaches: > so another reason not to use the trains linking these places.

But in contrast the Cardiff - Taunton services are usually 5 car IETs, which is a very good standard of provision for the service.

Which is more a reflection on GWR (under DfT dictat), operating what is an approximately half hour service between Cardiff and Bristol with trains alternating between 5car IETs and 34+ year old noisy trains often with broken air conditioning, and unused seat back slot reservations

If going to keep quality standards low on half the trains, then to some extent inviting competition to come along with newer trains. They can either take it as a wake up call and match (or better) what is proposed, or they can (and this seems to be the approach taken) concoct spurious objections that protect their revenue, even if anti-competitive for the user/passenger.

 

[Benjwri]

Which is more a reflection on GWR (under DfT dictat), operating what is an approximately half hour service between Cardiff and Bristol with trains alternating between 5car IETs and 34+ year old noisy trains often with broken air conditioning, and unused seat back slot reservations

If going to keep quality standards low on half the trains, then to some extent inviting competition to come along with newer trains. They can either take it as a wake up call and match (or better) what is proposed, or they can (and this seems to be the approach taken) concoct spurious objections that protect their revenue, even if anti-competitive for the user/passenger.

I don't agree with GWR's objection to the application, but I also don't agree with this thread taking it as an opportunity to point flaws with GWR's service without considering TfW's proposals also have those same flaws. TfW is proposing 197s, which are shorter, also very noisy, also have broken aircon, although less common and seeming to get better, and also have recilities for reservations which go totally unused.

 

[The exile]

TfW is proposing 197s, which are shorter, also very noisy, also have broken aircon, although less common and seeming to get better, and also have recilities for reservations which go totally unused.

Without the excuse of them being stock approaching the end of its natural life.

 

[zwk500]

I don't agree with GWR's objection to the application

GWR make more than one objection. For one example, do you disagree that the TfW paths are on top of GWR's identified paths for the 2nd Henbury service per hour?

 

[WelshBluebird]

GWR make more than one objection. For one example, do you disagree that the TfW paths are on top of GWR's identified paths for the 2nd Henbury service per hour?

At least the TfW reply suggests that concern is no longer valid.

System Operator ATT have since compiled a timetable that accommodates all aspirant operators’ paths in the Bristol area and so we now consider this point to be moot.

Is that true? Not sure! Someone close to the timetabling part of the industry will though.

But also as mich as I want the 2nd service per hour - I live near Ashley Down station, I'm also not a fan of holding paths for imaginary services.

If GWR want to run a second Henbury service then they should apply to actually do it (initially as a Filton and soon to be Brabazon shuttle) given those of us using the current shuttle who have been shouting about needing a more frequent service have just been met with total silence and indifference from GWR in public.

Infact the objection here is the most GWR have said about that second service as far as I am aware which makes the comment feel quite hollow. Had GWR been vocal about wanting to run that second service I'd be a lot more sympathetic to that argument.

 

[43074]

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

Could also easily envisage GWR/GBR/DfT objecting to the local services at the new stations when they start, as it will abstract a substantial share of revenue from the Cardiff/Bristol flow to TfW just because of the half hourly frequency.

 

[Farigiraf]

GBR not great and not British in all of its glory. Indicative of the problems ahead with devolved governments and transport.

To be fair this isn't an issue of rail under public control. If we still had Arriva Wales and First Great Western it'd be the same issue, albeit with even less revenue being used to invest in the network and reduce the burden on the taxpayer.

IMO the problem here is the expectation that there will be TFW-only and GWR-only tickets on this leg, and that people expect the revenue to actually matter. This thread is reflecting both TFW and GBR's main problem - they're attempting to continue trying to run the mostly unprofitable rail network as a business, while it's actually a vital public service.

The best way of operating the Bristol - Newport - Cardiff line is to allow people to make use of the high frequency with affordable flexible tickets (something that many people expected GBR to bring - doesn't seem like there is the motivation for it though) and for governments (devolved or westminster) to pay for service improvements that can actually grow rail usage. For example, if TFW decided to increase frequencies and rolling stock capacity on their cross-border services, it shouldn't be done with the aim of making money or winning votes, nor should it be done to give Shropshire a 'fair deal', it should be to give people more opportunities to travel by train - this does indirectly result in more money flowing in-out of that town (and therefore the UK economy) and more votes for the party that implemented it so it's still a win-win for all parties involved.

TL;DR - GBR (and state-owned TFW) have the opportunity to be either worse than until now (through constant neglect and motorist-first funding priorities, as in the late days of BR) or significantly better than during privatisation, it just depends on how much the incumbent government cares about rail. At the moment, it may seem like not so much, but this changes with each government.

 

[Sealink]

So are we now going to have the three "nationalised" operators, TfW, ScotRail and GBR now acting like Virgin Trains vs Wrexham & Shropshire in the future?

How joined up!

 

[John R]

Could also easily envisage GWR/GBR/DfT objecting to the local services at the new stations when they start, as it will abstract a substantial share of revenue from the Cardiff/Bristol flow to TfW just because of the half hourly frequency.

Which would be a bit bizarre after the U.K. Govt specifically allocated the money to build the stations.

 

[Taunton]

If there is a desire to have regular through trains from West Wales to Bristol TM, is it beyond the wit of organisation for TfW and GWR to work together and join together the existing services to run from Bristol to Swansea or Carmarthen, say every half hour? After all, such through trains from Bristol to Carmarthen were a regular service when the Swindon-built Modernisation Plan diesel units were introduced around 1959.

 

[Sealink]

If there is a desire to have regular through trains from West Wales to Bristol TM, is it beyond the wit of organisation for TfW and GWR to work together and join together the existing services to run from Bristol to Swansea or Carmarthen, say every half hour? After all, such through trains from Bristol to Carmarthen were a regular service when the Swindon-built Modernisation Plan diesel units were introduced around 1959.

Totally agree.

And surely revenue would be shared?

 

[Bald Rick]

Lots of questions to answer.

In the below TfW refers to Transport for Wales Rail Services (the train operator), and not Transport for Wales (the transport authority)

Could you please expand?

The provision of rail services in England by TfW is a reserved matter, ie DfT can instruct TfW regarding services that call at English stations. (It’s a lot more complicated than that, but that’s the simple version). So DfT could simply write to TfW and say ‘no’ to this proposal.

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?

Yes, and if directing them would have to agree to fund them - the two go together.

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?

Revenue for TfW stays in Wales. TfW could indeed raise with ORR any proposal for new services that has the potential to harm their revenue, in exactly the same way as GWR have done. The main point is that rail revenue in Wales is rather small, so any revenue loss is relatively small.

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

No.

Can they offer dedicated fares?

Yes.

What happens if capacity is hitting limits?

Then Network Rail has to take a decision on the allocation of capacity, and if new / additional services are involved, then seperstely, ORR has to take a decision on access rights if they have not been agreed between NR and the relevant operators. Both those issues are in play here.

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.

Stakeholders in Wales would be consulted, and the DfT would instruct the operator (eg Avanti).

The DfT absolutely hate someone else taking their revenue (because of the budgetary implications) so will have instructed GWR to object.

You will know better than I do, but I would have expected GWR to object off their own back without instruction on this one.



The key issue here is the combination of financial effect, promises to stakeholders, and the effect on punctuality and reliability. In my view it is likely to be the case that not all the extra services wanted in the Bristol area will fit. (extra services to Oxford, Wales, North Filton, Portishead, and some ). And even if you fit in everything you possibly can, punctuality and reliability will take a hit. There are some big trade offs to chase - revenue or performance? Delivering all that is promised with a big drop in performance, or make one or more stakeholders decidedly unhappy but keep performance stable? etc.

Who here would like to take that decision and how?

 

[Benjwri]

Revenue for TfW stays in Wales. TfW could indeed raise with ORR any proposal for new services that has the potential to harm their revenue, in exactly the same way as GWR have done. The main point is that rail revenue in Wales is rather small, so any revenue loss is relatively small

Worth noting because services are almost always loss making it’s actually the DfT that pays TfW to run services in England, and covers the track access for them.

 

[John R]

You will know better than I do, but I would have expected GWR to object off their own back without instruction on this one.

AIUI, GWR can only respond to consultations as required to by DfT. In the current world of managed contracts, it doesn’t have a “mind of its own”. Which sort of makes sense as all it is contracted to do is run the services set out by DfT.

 

[dk1]

But in contrast the Cardiff - Taunton services are usually 5 car IETs, which is a very good standard of provision for the service.

Something GWR are hoping to eradicate in the future.

 

[Class 170101]

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?

London Waterloo? Didn't TfWs predecessors run a service to / from London Waterloo to connect with Eurostar services operating from there at that time?

 

[DelW]

The higher fares set by GWR for Cardiff to Bristol would lead to many people saying that it is too expensive to use the trains and we will drive instead - thus adding to the heavy traffic on the M4 around Newport and into Bristol. Surely, neither UK or Welsh Government would consider that desirable?

I suspect the Treasury might consider it desirable:

Fewer pax on trains = fewer trains needed = less subsidy needed
More people buying and driving cars = higher tax receipts
More traffic congestion = higher fuel consumption = higher fuel duty and VAT receipts

The congestion hits productivity, but the Treasury doesn't seem to be overly concerned about that (anywhere, not just on the M4).

 

[John R]

Something GWR are hoping to eradicate in the future.

Are they? AIUI the Class 175s are planned to run services south of Exeter, but not north of it. I’ve not heard of what plans there are for the Cardiff to Taunton/Exeter.

 

[dk1]

Are they? AIUI the Class 175s are planned to run services south of Exeter, but not north of it. I’ve not heard of what plans there are for the Cardiff to Taunton/Exeter.

I’m expecting various cascades to assist.

 

[Benjwri]

Are they? AIUI the Class 175s are planned to run services south of Exeter, but not north of it. I’ve not heard of what plans there are for the Cardiff to Taunton/Exeter.

IETs were never meant to trundle around Cornwall. It’s not economical, they were built for speed and to run on the wires a lot more than they do. For the lease costs they have it doesn’t make sense. I’ve heard it’s also not very good for them mechanically either and being largely run on 802s, because of how the IET contract requires stabling, this is on GWR.

There were definitely murmurings of them eventually going to Cardiff. I doubt anyone who does know what the long term plan for these services is will want to jeopardise their job by saying so on here.