TfW new service between Bristol and Cardiff

[Krokodil]

but I think TfW should keep 158s for a bit longer if they have capacity issues

Where are you going to maintain them?

 

[Starmill]

Well that’s the killer question, as I mentioned up thread. What are the trade off parameters? How small is small? Who will stand up and say that *any* negative perfromance impact is acceptable in the current climate?

As a general point, lots of recent changes have worsened performance, or were predicted to have a small negative effect on performance. Just because this one happens to be around contentious rights, it doesn't really stand up that no changes should be allowed at all. I agree with you of course about the principles but the practice is obviously not consistent.

Nobody ought to be surprised at this kind of media approach, mind, whether it's about rights, an offer, or something else. As I said at the time, the ORR brought this on themselves by encouraging rights holders to publicly throw their toys from the pram, as a means of getting what they want, when they rewarded Avanti doing just that recently.

 

[Snow1964]

There are however 24 158s about to come off-lease with (as far as I'm aware) no certain home. Needs the ERTMS kit removing and the engines are non-standard but they should still be able to work with the rest of the GWR 158s just fine.

Where are you going to maintain them?

There was a tender earlier this year for transition and re delivery maintenance covering 19 months, from last week to end of December 2027.

Not sure who won it, and where work will be done, but it says 44 vehicles (presumably 22 x 2car)

https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2026/W04/862978440

Suggests they would be using some (maybe many or all) of 158 fleet through 2027

 

[Krokodil]

There was a tender earlier this year for transition and re delivery maintenance covering 19 months, from last week to end of December 2027.

Not sure who won it, and where work will be done, but it says 44 vehicles (presumably 22 x 2car)

https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2026/W04/862978440

Suggests they would be using some (maybe many or all) of 158 fleet through 2027

That looks more like the same work that the 175s went to Landore for - returning the units back to a condition fit to hand back to the ROSCO.

 

[edwin1812]

Nothing new here. Back in the late 1990s Anglia Railways tried to stop Great Eastern operating additional & faster services between Liverpool St & Ipswich. After failing to win they started to call at Ingatestone and introduced an additional Norwich peak service (18:42 ex-Liv St) purely to call at Chelmsford. Both were for revenue raiding purposes especially the latter. Just a little surprised GWR are that bothered this late in the privatisation day.

Dont forget Lumo, they are trying to operate from Wales to London in the late 2027....

 

[Bald Rick]

As a general point, lots of recent changes have worsened performance, or were predicted to have a small negative effect on performance. Just because this one happens to be around contentious rights, it doesn't really stand up that no changes should be allowed at all.

That is true, but the access right decisions on those were typically (albeit not exclusively) taken some time ago. Eg (an extreme example) the access rights for the ECML change last year were all decided a decade ago.

There has been a sea change in the past 18 months about how (and if) new, intensified services are added to the network, and their impact on performance. This is beginning to play out with access decisions coming through now.

 

[Leslie Fletcher]

It is the duty of Welsh ministers to get the best deal for Wales, clearly Cardiff - Bristol should be under WAG control so as to benefit Welsh passengers, there are very few commuting into Wales after all.

After all, it is Transport FOR Wales, not Transport IN Wales.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

After all, it is Transport FOR Wales, not Transport IN Wales.

Added to which two (or even three) tph is a pathetic service linking two adjacent city regions of 1.5m in South East Wales and circa 1m in Bristol. Compare that to similar pairs of cities and it's just woeful.

 

[Krokodil]

Added to which two (or even three) tph is a pathetic service linking two adjacent city regions of 1.5m in South East Wales and circa 1m in Bristol. Compare that to similar pairs of cities and it's just woeful.

Except that if you are counting the "city region" rather than the city proper, there is 4tph.

 

[Djgr]

Except that if you are counting the "city region" rather than the city proper, there is 4tph.

I don't think it's appropriate to do that.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Except that if you are counting the "city region" rather than the city proper, there is 4tph.

Okay, I'll play by your rules! 'Cities proper' Cardiff; 384,000, Bristol 494,000, Manchester 590,000, Liverpool; 508,000. TPH Liverpool- Manchester 4-6, yet they still want a new rail line! Cardiff - Bristol 2-3. Don't suddenly witter on about 'Greater Manchester' or 'Merseyside' - these are your rules and apparently city regions only count in some cases.

 

[Krokodil]

Okay, I'll play by your rules! 'Cities proper' Cardiff; 384,000, Bristol 494,000, Manchester 590,000, Liverpool; 508,000. TPH Liverpool- Manchester 4-6, yet they still want a new rail line! Cardiff - Bristol 2-3. Don't suddenly witter on about 'Greater Manchester' - these are your rules.

Excuse me?

I'll play by the rules I choose, not by the ones you tell me to have. You referred to "city regions" first and the total populations are more important than some arbitrary boundary.

Liverpool and Manchester are both far more populous than Cardiff or Bristol. They are also closer together (think 'gravity model'. Even if you want to be

Where are the trains going to? Trains don't just go from A to B, they stop at other places on the way. If the express trains between Liverpool and Manchester didn't continue to Leeds, Sheffield etc, would the frequency between L&M be so high? Would they bother with proper express trains between L&M at all, or just run a half-hourly semi-fast between the stoppers (which themselves are only hourly)? Exeter is not quite Leeds, is it?

There are two surviving through routes between Liverpool and Manchester for historical reasons - competition between railway companies. Those routes serve different significant towns en route. Bristol and Cardiff never had multiple routes (the sea on one side and hills on the other made this impractical) so everyone could be served through just one corridor.

Liverpool and Manchester both retain decent onward connections with Merseyrail and Metrolink. Bristol does not.

People in Bristol and Cardiff aren't clamouring for better frequencies - half-hourly would be considered perfectly adequate by the Swiss. They certainly aren't after an extra two car train which will never cope with loadings. They'd rather make the existing services longer and more reliable. And perhaps run the existing services through to Swansea.

As I said earlier, flighting stoppers behind fast services would have value - more frequency for Patchway, direct connections for Lawrence Hill, Stapleton Road and Ashley Down to South Wales etc. without slowing the existing services. Sending an irregular 2 car 197 to Bristol however (probably introducing yet more ticketing complexity to trip people up) would achieve nothing.

 

[WelshBluebird]

People in Bristol and Cardiff aren't clamouring for better frequencies

Speak for yourself!
As someone who regularly travels between the two places, higher frequencies would be greatly appreciated.
And of course, it isnt just those two cities. Its also Newport to Bristol etc too.

 

[Falcon1200]

Compare that to similar pairs of cities and it's just woeful.

Is there actually the passenger demand to justify 4tph between Cardiff and Bristol however? And if the trains are always overcrowded, a much simple solution is longer trains!

 

[fishwomp]

Okay, I'll play by your rules! 'Cities proper' Cardiff; 384,000, Bristol 494,000, Manchester 590,000, Liverpool; 508,000. TPH Liverpool- Manchester 4-6, yet they still want a new rail line! Cardiff - Bristol 2-3. Don't suddenly witter on about 'Greater Manchester' or 'Merseyside' - these are your rules and apparently city regions only count in some cases.

This is not a well defined game.. the City of London has about 15,000 residents - but has two overground major stations (Liverpool St and Fenchurch St) and tons of services. About 500,000 commuters mind you, a more populated neighbouring city of Westminster, and lots of adjacent boroughs..

 

[The exile]

Is there actually the passenger demand to justify 4tph between Cardiff and Bristol however? And if the trains are always overcrowded, a much simple solution is longer trains!

Even without the Burns local stations, there is almost certainly a place for a stopper to increase the service at Ashley Down and Patchway as well as improving connections at Severn Tunbel Junction to/from Chepstow.

 

[Parallel]

Even without the Burns local stations, there is almost certainly a place for a stopper to increase the service at Ashley Down and Patchway as well as improving connections at Severn Tunbel Junction to/from Chepstow.

From reading the document, this isn’t a stopping service. Patchway could probably warrant a better service but the majority of passengers between Lawrence Hill and Ashley Down will not be travelling to South Wales and it would remove the flexibility to run on the fast lines between Bristol and Filton. Severn Tunnel Junction gets a half-hourly service in the peak and is fairly barren at other times. Customers from Chepstow and Lydney also have connections at Gloucester for Bristol now that route has gone half-hourly.

 

[Snow1964]

Liverpool and Manchester are both far more populous than Cardiff or Bristol. They are also closer together

Actually centre of Cardiff and Bristol are only 25 miles apart,
Liverpool and Manchester are 31 miles apart

Liverpool and Manchester both retain decent onward connections with Merseyrail and Metrolink. Bristol does not.

Which is presumably a good argument for trains not to end at Cardiff or Bristol, but to carry on to stations on other side, so services serve areas directly

Sending an irregular 2 car 197 to Bristol however

I thought the Bristol end was supposed to be regular frequency, even if the trains serve mix of branches in Pembrokeshire as now. However I agree a 2car 197 is probably inadequate capacity.

probably introducing yet more ticketing complexity to trip people up would achieve nothing.

That is speculative, can make journey now with existing tickets, but have to change trains in Cardiff

 

[The Planner]

Actually centre of Cardiff and Bristol are only 25 miles apart,
Liverpool and Manchester are 31 miles apart

As the crow flies? as they certainly aren't by rail or road.

 

[zwk500]

Actually centre of Cardiff and Bristol are only 25 miles apart,
Liverpool and Manchester are 31 miles apart

Cardiff and Bristol are separated by about 23 miles of sea though, so that comparison is moot.

 

[The exile]

From reading the document, this isn’t a stopping service. Patchway could probably warrant a better service but the majority of passengers between Lawrence Hill and Ashley Down will not be travelling to South Wales and it would remove the flexibility to run on the fast lines between Bristol and Filton. Severn Tunnel Junction gets a half-hourly service in the peak and is fairly barren at other times. Customers from Chepstow and Lydney also have connections at Gloucester for Bristol now that route has gone half-hourly.

I agree that none of those flows on their own is a justification. However, adding four stops to a Bristol - Cardiff journey will not have a massive impact on journey time (compared with the potential reduction in waiting time from the increase in frequency) and would do the following in addition to the obvious: Double frequency between Lawrence Hill / Stapleton Road and Ashley Down / Filton Abbey Wood; provide direct through services from East Bristol stations (which have a far higher local population density than Temple Meads does!) to somewhere other than Severn Beach and Filton. The mere fact that you mention travelling between Chepstow and (say) Filton via Gloucester only highlights how poor the current options are.

 

[TransportHub]

Cardiff and Bristol are separated by about 23 miles of sea though, so that comparison is moot.

So an express hovercraft is what we need

 

[Torfaen]

Is there actually the passenger demand to justify 4tph between Cardiff and Bristol however? And if the trains are always overcrowded, a much simple solution is longer trains!

Maybe, if GWR reliably delivered the planned service. Overcrowding, when it happens, tends to be because of cancellations and short-forms.
The 0657 Cardiff to Bristol Temple Meads is one of the more regular casualties when there aren't enough IET sets to go around. For some years CrossCountry used to operate this service, tagged on to a Bristol to Manchester working. Cardiff early starters / later finishers would make more sense to be operated by TfW because GWR don't stable any sets overnight there.

 

[Benjwri]

Worth also noting that an extra train will be welcome between Cardiff and Newport, which has become quite a faff with GWR refusing to accept PAYG.

 

[Djgr]

So is the argument that people can't have an improved service so as not to upset the franchisee, who has fewer than 200 days left?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So is the argument that people can't have an improved service so as not to upset the franchisee, who has fewer than 200 days left?

The GWR protests will be on behalf of DfT/DFTO who own the "franchise".
You'd expect GBR (ie TOCs + NR W&W) to agree a joint way forward, no doubt with WG involvement, for future Bristol-Cardiff (and beyond) services.
It works reasonably across the north and mid-Wales frontiers, no reason it can't in the south.
It hardly matters which logo is on the side of the trains.

 

[Snow1964]

The GWR protests will be on behalf of DfT/DFTO who own the "franchise".
You'd expect GBR (ie TOCs + NR W&W) to agree a joint way forward, no doubt with WG involvement, for future Bristol-Cardiff (and beyond) services.
It works reasonably across the north and mid-Wales frontiers, no reason it can't in the south.
It hardly matters which logo is on the side of the trains.

The main difference is some GWR services do Severn Tunnel Junction - Newport - Cardiff - Bridgend (or part of this) which is a contactless PAYG area, but GWR services are excluded. So whose logo is on the train matters to PAYG users.

Don't really get same problems along mid and North Wales border, as there is no contactless alternative to tickets.

 

[The exile]

So is the argument that people can't have an improved service so as not to upset the franchisee, who has fewer than 200 days left?

It is surely good practice to put all the potential negative consequences of an action “on the table” before a decision is made rather than turn round and say “I thought that was obvious” when that action leads to problems. The regulator will decide whether those “negative consequences “ are significant enough to influence their decision or not.

 

[positron]

The main difference is some GWR services do Severn Tunnel Junction - Newport - Cardiff - Bridgend (or part of this) which is a contactless PAYG area, but GWR services are excluded. So whose logo is on the train matters to PAYG users.

Don't really get same problems along mid and North Wales border, as there is no alternative contactless to tickets.

TfW also generally offer quite good last minute 'advanced' tickets which GWR don't. I'm also assuming TfW would be more inclined to stop at the new Burn's stations as/if they're built.

 

[Djgr]

It is surely good practice to put all the potential negative consequences of an action “on the table” before a decision is made rather than turn round and say “I thought that was obvious” when that action leads to problems. The regulator will decide whether those “negative consequences “ are significant enough to influence their decision or not.

It feels as if GWR is demob happy and counting down the days, nixing any changes that might require effort to change their modus operandi.