Charter HSTs in SW

[Fyldeboy]

1) sorry if wrong forum
2) just thoughts - not a plan!!!

Reading about the Settle/Carlisle scheduled charter service and how it bypasses some covid rules that the franchised operators have to deal with, set me thinking . . I'm interested why the following would be impossible!

Short formation luxury HST set running PLY-BPW-PAD?

• Plenty of ex GWR stock available, I'm thinking 43/TGS(out of use)/TRFBª/TF/TF/TF/43
• Doors/Toilets - i presume heritage lines have away around this?
• If paths can be found, would short-form non-stop PLY-BPW and BPW-LON be as quick as the Berks and Hants?
  • DfT seem to think routes on Wales-London do'able with potential Grand Union open access
• No masks for 3 hours in luxury environment - Guaranteed seats.
• Ideally, full dining - but I can see that might not be possible due to staff.
  • ªIf not, substitute TRFB for another TF
• Subject to demand, TGS have seating replaced with 1st seats from other redundant HSTs
• 1 up and one back, with possible tourist day-time utilisation for say Oxford or Bath
• 2 sets - or 1 set and a spare power car (is that even possible)
• Maintenance alongside Castles (Laira?)
• Crew - hired in FGW -
  • Plymouth has Castles experience and route knowledge to BPW (though maybe not the same staff!)
  • I presume Cardiff can supply Castles experience and route knowledge BPW-LON
• I've used LON as an abbreviation for London, as Paddington may be out of the question, being all electric and full! Anywhere on the tube network would do. Ealing Broadway?

 

[DB]

It wouldn't be allowed as it would be abstracting revenue from the franchised operator.

It's only happening on the S&C because the service which Northern are able to provide is even more inadequate than usual.

 

[Fyldeboy]

It wouldn't be allowed as it would be abstracting revenue from the franchised operator.

I might be wrong, but abstracting revenue is 'Open Access' rules, not Charter (S&C is charter)

 

[DB]

I might be wrong, but abstracting revenue is 'Open Access' rules, not Charter (S&C is charter)

It was allowed as a charter, yes (possibly because of PRM regulations), but it's a special case - basically a signtseeing train, from one small town town even smaller one. A regular timetabled service over a long distance serving cities would be a different matter.

 

[Fyldeboy]

It was allowed as a charter, yes (possibly because of PRM regulations), but it's a special case - basically a signtseeing train, from one small town town even smaller one. A regular timetabled service over a long distance serving cities would be a different matter.

I'll accept that you 'could' be right, but a precedent has been set. It would be for 'whoever' to decide if your opinion coincides with theirs.
So, run with me . . . any other practicalities?

 

[JonathanH]

So, run with me . . . any other practicalities?

Demand? There is no demand for the service you suggest.

Maintenance? Why would GWR maintain a train for another operator in competition with their own services? Would GWR also have to provide the trained traincrew for it.

Initial outlay? How much is this going to cost to set up?

Is there even plenty of ex GWR stock to be used for this - it has been going pretty steadily to the scrapyard.

It doesn't really have a selling point to the general public other than your guess that masks wouldn't need to be worn.

how it bypasses some covid rules that the franchised operators have to deal with

Is that a good thing? Your suggestion appears to be that a franchised rail operator helps to set up a competing operator that happens to bypass some rules.