Potential TfW services outside Wales?

[anthony263]

Seems TFW would like to run to Bristol and London according to Mr Price.

Keep the 158s and run.to Waterloo via Bristol TM lol cover both goals

 

[Anonymous10]

Seems TFW would like to run to Bristol and London according to Mr Price.

Keep the 158s and run.to Waterloo via Bristol TM lol cover both goals

What's the source for this please?

 

[anthony263]

From his interview on walesonline

What's the source for this please?

 

[59CosG95]

Seems TFW would like to run to Bristol and London according to Mr Price.

Keep the 158s and run.to Waterloo via Bristol TM lol cover both goals

Didn't the old Wales & Borders franchise do exactly that?

 

[anthony263]

Didn't the old Wales & Borders franchise do exactly that?

Before ATW launched the standard clock face timetable in 2005 I believe so

 

[Anonymous10]

Before ATW launched the standard clock face timetable in 2005 I believe so

Mind you if this happened I highly doubt it'll be a 158

 

[Mollman]

From his interview on walesonline

Are yes, fund the Welsh rail network by abstracting revenue from the 'English' franchise. Bristol maybe as that is logical for improved South Wales Main Line locals, but doubt they will be allowed to reach London.

 

[Dai Corner]

Are yes, fund the Welsh rail network by abstracting revenue from the 'English' franchise. Bristol maybe as that is logical for improved South Wales Main Line locals, but doubt they will be allowed to reach London.

They could buy Grand Union, perhaps? (GU are the open access operator which will start operating between south Wales and Paddington next year).

 

[Anonymous10]

Are yes, fund the Welsh rail network by abstracting revenue from the 'English' franchise. Bristol maybe as that is logical for improved South Wales Main Line locals, but doubt they will be allowed to reach London.

Might I ask how it's any different to operators in England such as gwr and avanti working into Wales, so long as its reliable.

 

[Mollman]

Might I ask how it's any different to operators in England such as gwr and avanti working into Wales, so long as its reliable.

GWR & Avanti are operating long established franchise spec services into Wales. Mr Price's comments however suggest that the only reason for operating a service to London (in competition with GWR) would be for cross-subsidy purposes, so would basically be looking to reduce the subsidy required to be paid by the Welsh Gov to TfW but likely increasing the subsidy Westminster would have to pay GWR.

 

[Anonymous10]

GWR & Avanti are operating long established franchise spec services into Wales. Mr Price's comments however suggest that the only reason for operating a service to London (in competition with GWR) would be for cross-subsidy purposes, so would basically be looking to reduce the subsidy required to be paid by the Welsh Gov to TfW but likely increasing the subsidy Westminster would have to pay GWR.

Depends on market forces and routes if the market is as busy on that line as I'm regularly told with 10 car trains full and standing I see no reason why a tfw service shouldn't be allowed

 

[Pete_uk]

I could see TfW operating to Bristol and Swindon.

In a bit of joined up thinking, that could release a bit of stock for other GWR services.

 

[59CosG95]

I could see TfW operating to Bristol and Swindon.

In a bit of joined up thinking, that could release a bit of stock for other GWR services.

I'd think TfW would need 125mph capable stock for that to happen!

 

[Anonymous10]

I'd think TfW would need 125mph capable stock for that to happen!

To be fair if they got more carriages the 67s are 110 capable for certain so maybe if they were more reliable that would work

 

[Topological]

TPE Mk 5... (mischievous, but see speculative discussion section)

Theoretically there is nothing stopping the Paddington to Swansea being moved to TfW (including the 80x and Maliphant). Franchise boundaries and services do get redrawn.

Very off topic for South Wales Metro though.

 

[MattRat]

I could see TfW operating to Bristol and Swindon.

In a bit of joined up thinking, that could release a bit of stock for other GWR services.

You may be onto something. Westminster may not care about GWR services into Cardiff and Bristol that aren't from London, but TFW would. Hand over those services, TFW buy more 197s or Flirts for the role, and the old stock either goes in the bin or gets cascaded elsewhere.

 

[JonathanH]

Theoretically there is nothing stopping the Paddington to Swansea being moved to TfW (including the 80x and Maliphant). Franchise boundaries and services do get redrawn.

TfW would need a crew depot in London, carving out a staff establishment from the GWR base there. It could make the 80x diagrams less efficient, as London to Cardiff / Swansea services would need to be on self contained diagrams. I dont see it happening (although I accept that franchise boundaries and services can sometimes be redrawn).

I could see TfW operating to Bristol and Swindon.

What GWR services are you proposing to cut back to Bristol as a result? Why do TfW need to operate to Swindon?

 

[Meole]

Might make more sense for the people of Wales rather than running to Birmingham and Manchester which are aimed at English commuters.

 

[Snow1964]

Are yes, fund the Welsh rail network by abstracting revenue from the 'English' franchise. Bristol maybe as that is logical for improved South Wales Main Line locals, but doubt they will be allowed to reach London.

Does seem bit bonkers they can't go to Bristol where there are lots of connections
..... but English trains from Plymouth, Portsmouth, Nottingham go to Cardiff for connections.


Would it be such a bad idea if alternate trains from London to Cardiff were operated by GWR and TfW. Choice of operator, or can buy any operator tickets and take any train. Perhaps London is too much revenue abstraction, but Bristol seems reasonable.

 

[JonathanH]

Would it be such a bad idea if alternate trains from London to Cardiff were operated by GWR and TfW.

Yes, the railway is trying to move away from the confusion for passengers that having two operators on the same route brings about.

It brings all sorts of issues in disruption. TfW trains would have to turn short at Reading if they didn't have time to get through to London and bavk. Three would be confusion about whether TfW and GWR would have to carry each other's passengers following a cancellation.

Essentially London is too far outside its own territory for TfW to operate.

 

[tbtc]

If even the XC franchise (four /five coach trains regularly stuffed full of passengers) required a subsidy prior to Covid, I think anyone is going to need regularly full trains that are even longer just to break even… talk of turning a “profit” on trains the length of any of the existing TfW fleet seems fanciful

Maybe some juicy long London Express services would be profitable on paper, sure, but those would come at a direct cost to the subsidy profile of GWR, so what incentive is there for anyone with a national overview to permit this? Especially in an era where direct links like Waterloo to Bristol/ Plymouth have been removed to avoid wasteful duplication?

And remember the furore when Arriva wanted to “use Welsh resources to benefit English passengers” by extending some Cambrian services to Marylebone to compete with WSMR a few years ago? Such non-core routes were seen as A Bad Thing to many

But my main problem with this is the idea that TfW are in any way “not allowed” from running to English destinations. Clearly they already run services into England, including some services that are entirely within England and don’t touch Wales. It’s just that TfW are one of around two dozen franchises and that other franchises exist to perform other roles. Talk of not being “allowed” suggests some kind of ban (which might lead a casual Welsh reader to believe that there’s some agenda), whereas the mundane reality is just that TfW are one of many providers and that someone else currently has that responsibility (just like the Environment Agency aren’t banned from running schools, it’s more a case that that’s a job that falls under the Department of Education… )

You could easily run TfW services to Bristol but (without big infrastructure spending) it’d be a zero sum game with the loss of at least some of the existing half hourly GWR services. When I’ve suggested chopping these at Bristol in the past (to focus scarce DMUs on the Portsmouth/ Taunton routes whilst bi-modes use the partly electrified route north/west of Bristol) I’ve been told just how imperative these cross-Bristol links are and that you can’t remove them

And electrification of Temple Meads still feels a long time away

Feels like Price is throwing out some meaty sound bites about “jam tomorrow” to maybe distract from internal problems… ignore the everyday malaise, focus on a brave new future instead!

 

[Topological]

In the last line you have it @tbtc

This is very much about TfW trying to appear hard done by. They have Manchester and look how they run that. The less said about Birmingham from Shrewsbury the better.

This is why the only way it can work is if TfW take over another route entirely, be that 170s on XC from Birmingham to Cardiff, or 80x and Maliphant for Swansea to London / South West. Neither are about to happen.

I am more of the opinion that if a private company didn't plan maintenance as badly as TfW have with the 175s then claims from said private company they were being prevented from operating lucrative routes would be falling on very deaf ears.

 

[Llanigraham]

Might make more sense for the people of Wales rather than running to Birmingham and Manchester which are aimed at English commuters.

Except that many people from Mid Wales gravitate towards Birmingham, and North Walians towards Manchester, so there are plenty of reasons for running services to them.

 

[43074]

But my main problem with this is the idea that TfW are in any way “not allowed” from running to English destinations. Clearly they already run services into England, including some services that are entirely within England and don’t touch Wales. It’s just that TfW are one of around two dozen franchises and that other franchises exist to perform other roles. Talk of not being “allowed” suggests some kind of ban (which might lead a casual Welsh reader to believe that there’s some agenda), whereas the mundane reality is just that TfW are one of many providers and that someone else currently has that responsibility (just like the Environment Agency aren’t banned from running schools, it’s more a case that that’s a job that falls under the Department of Education… )

There was actually a clause in the most recent competition for the Wales and Borders franchise which prohibited bidders from proposing services to Bristol or running any additional services to Manchester or Birmingham, I think that is what people are referring to.

 

[irish_rail]

A fast service Cardiff Bristol Taunton Exeter Plymouth would be extremely welcome as it would take some of the pressure off the soon to be 4 or 5 car only XC trains , whilst the GWR service on this corridor is extremely slow. Connecting up the main 4 south west cities would be great, although I suspect Welsh assembly interest probably wouldn't be great enough, as much of the benefits fall in England. As for London, I personally think that won't happen (thank goodness) when GWR already operates two trains an hour. Not convinced anymore are needed.

 

[SirDanielGooch]

TfW services into London seems like madness and the staffing of such services would be a nightmare with the current setup. However, there’s definitely some routes that make a lot of sense to go over to TfW imo if it means GWR can get rid of some Castle sets and 165/166s, and redistribute 158s.

Off the top of my head, I’d say:

Cardiff-Portsmouth. Ideally run it as an actual intercity-style service. Allows GWR to get rid of 165s/166s that they’re having a nightmare getting spare parts for.

Swansea-Exeter. Semi-Stopping service to up the capacity in the run between Exeter and Bristol especially. Without access to Laira and having staff based there, I struggle to see how TfW services could go much further than Exeter. Would allow GWR to get rid of their castle sets and change their 800-operated services to Penzance-Bristol only.

Fun to think about, but can’t see any of it happening in all honesty

 

[JonathanH]

Cardiff-Portsmouth. Ideally run it as an actual intercity-style service. Allows GWR to get rid of 165s/166s that they’re having a nightmare getting spare parts for.

It is still going to have to stop at Filton Abbey Wood, Bradford-on-Avon, Trowbridge, Westbury, Warminster, Romsey, Fareham, Cosham and Fratton, no matter what rolling stock is allocated.

Swansea-Exeter. Semi-Stopping service to up the capacity in the run between Exeter and Bristol especially. Without access to Laira and having staff based there, I struggle to see how TfW services could go much further than Exeter. Would allow GWR to get rid of their castle sets and change their 800-operated services to Penzance-Bristol only.

Again, something has to stop at Severn Tunnel Junction, Nailsea & Backwell, Yatton, Highbridge & Burnham, Bridgewater etc. Indeed, is another 'fast' service on the Swansea to Cardiff section needed, or more stoppers?

Thoughts that any of these places can be left out, with a separate stopper, just aren't realistic. I don't think TfW are going to operate these services, no matter what you do with them.

 

[MattRat]

Thoughts that any of these places can be left out, with a separate stopper, just aren't realistic. I don't think TfW are going to operate these services, no matter what you do with them.

TFW have the desire to run more services. Like they want to run Bidston to Wrexham services into the Liverpool loop. It's just a matter of what's feasible. Obviously if a route can only support a single stopping service, that's all it can do, but TFW would likely still be willing to run it, if it serves Wales. The only other thing then getting in the way is the DFT/Westminster.

 

[tomuk]

The Welsh Government have devolved powers for running services in Wales not outside Wales. TfW services in England are operated by the Welsh Government on the DfTs behalf. An 'agency agreement' specifies what the WG\Tfw can and can't do in respect of English only or the English component of shared services.

This agreement does set out limits to what services can be run, these limits are broadly in line with the real restrictions in the Network eg crossing the WMCL at Crewe, the Stour Valley into Birmingham and Filton\Bristol Temple Meads pre resignalling.

Conversely Dft will be responsible for the Welsh element of the English Franchises (GWR and Avanti) and only make changes to the current services with agreement of Welsh Ministers. Dft pays the WG about £5m to run the English only services and further subsidy to cover NR access charges and other costs, the actual payments are all bound up in agreed devolved spending, Barnett formula etc.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

It seems fairly obvious that if the Burns reccomendations for mores stations on the SWML between Cardiff and Bristol are realised then the pathetic frequency if 2tph between Cardiff and Bristol should be increased to bring the Welsh Metro and Metro West plans together in a coherent system.

It doesn't really matter whether the additional services are provided by TfW or GWR or some other operator just as it doesn't much matter whether the borderland line is operated by TfW or Merseyrail.

It's interesting that the Welsh Transport Minister recently said this;

"TfW are working with LCR to develop the business case for increasing the frequency of services on the line. Linked closely to this is a joint bid from TfW and LCR to the Union Connectivity Fund which aims to enable the use of MerseyRail’s brand new Stadler 777 fleet on the Wrexham to Bidston Line. The extension of these new trains would then ultimately enable direct services into Liverpool from this line rather than the current need to change trains at Bidston."

As for London services, TfW were veryy supportive of the Grand Union access agreement so they could be looking at an aquisition.