I don't understand their objections at all. GWR are a service provider to the government, so they aren't going to lose revenue from a TfW service, all revenue goes directly to the government. All seems a bit petty and pointless really, especially as they're also a few months away from nationalisation.
Different governments…
I guess it's reciprocal as we sign Lydney as a diversion and no GWR trains are timetabled over it. So when route learning or refreshing we use TFW.
Interesting considering that TfW cut back a number of diversions to save money a few years ago - including really useful ones like Bescot.
But it's GWR who was objecting, a private company owned by First Group, who don't get any revenue share.
GWR are effectively acting on behalf of the DfT, who currently get the revenue. Whereas a TfW service would send revenue to the Welsh Government instead.
But the DfT approved for the Welsh government to apply for the service in the first place and both governments have a revenue sharing agreement in place. So it doesn't make sense from that perspective. I personally think it was First directed (some attempt to protect paths they want for open access) rather than DfT.
Did they? Why would they have needed to? (Genuine question as I don’t fully understand the intricacies of new potentially GBR revenue-abstractive cross-border service planning phases, separate from the delivery of pre-existing cross-border services on behalf of DfT.)
I thought it was more of an industry agreement not a devolution agreement. But even if revenue is shared, depending on the impact the extra service has on the economics of the overall market, the UK taxpayer may still need to stump up to cover the lost GWR revenue. So it is not unreasonable that DfT aren’t terribly happy.
It's part of the terms of the Wales and borders franchising arrangements (those that allowed Welsh government control of the service provision in the first place) for stuff that crosses into England they need DfT approval, including for applications to the ORR such as this one.
If more people travel, hence there is more income from fares, GWR (and hence DfT) won't lose any money overall.
The exact sharing mechanism I'm less sure of but it's also mentioned in the ORR application.
What does TAG-compliant mean here? (i.e. what's TAG?)
It means Transport Appraisal Guidance it's a framework used for developing business cases related to transport projects. Wales has it own called WelTAG.
No - there are probably enough revenue and performance arguments for GWR to build a robust case against the scheme in their own right. GWR would not be permitted to object on Lumo's behalf, it would be a big no no from a legal point of view as they are separate commercial entities even if both part of First.
110 days (approx) until GWR is no longer First!
Makes sense, thank you.
