• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Grand Union approved for Cardiff to London open access by ORR from December 2024

Status
Not open for further replies.

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
6,754
Location
South Wales
Grand union have put a fresh application to run 5 trains per day between Cardiff central and London Paddington starting May 2023 being extended to Carmarthen in 2025 with new bi-mode rolling stock.

Sorry I can’t find the link I had to the application
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Class 33

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2009
Messages
2,362
Grand union have put a fresh application to run 5 trains per day between Cardiff central and London Paddington starting May 2023 being extended to Carmarthen in 2025 with new bi-mode rolling stock.

Sorry I can’t find the link I had to the application

Would their stopping patterns of these services be similar to GWR's or would they be hoping to operate faster services with less stops, or slower services with more stops?
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
21,262
Would their stopping patterns of these services be similar to GWR's or would they be hoping to operate faster services with less stops, or slower services with more stops?
They would need to offer different stops - eg Severn Tunnel Junction - so as not to be the same as GWR and couldn't stop at as many stops so as to be primarily abstractive. Fewer stops but a bad path doesn't necessarily mean a quicker journey.

It isn't obvious how with the previous application having been turned down as being revenue generative but at a cost to the incumbent operator this problem wouldn't be cited again.

A reminder of the reasons for the last rejection.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ow-rejected-by-orr.180669/page-8#post-4989475
 
Last edited:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
73,419
Location
Yorkshire
Sorry I can’t find the link I had to the application
Please edit your post to provide a link and a quote as soon as possible.

Also just a reminder to everyone that as this thread isn't in the speculative section, it is purely for updates regarding what is actually happening; if anyone would like to speculate on what might happen or what they think should happen, this would be most welcome, but in the Speculative Discussion section please :)

Thanks :)
 

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
6,754
Location
South Wales
They would need to offer different stops - eg Severn Tunnel Junction - so as not to be the same as GWR and couldn't stop at as many stops so as to be primarily abstractive. Fewer stops but a bad path doesn't necessarily mean a quicker journey.

It isn't obvious how with the previous application having been turned down as being revenue generative but at a cost to the incumbent operator this problem wouldn't be cited again.

A reminder of the last rejection.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ow-rejected-by-orr.180669/page-8#post-4989475
Yet grand union have pointed out the competition has helped bring customer numbers back on the east coast mainline like I suspect it will on the GWML.

Cheaper rail fares will be very attractive you only have to look at how the coach market has recovered between South Wales/ Bristol and london
 

Some guy

Member
Joined
6 Feb 2022
Messages
451
Location
Preston
That’s interesting hopefully they get it and hopefully they get the rights to run to Stirling via the west coast
 

BJames

Established Member
Joined
27 Jan 2018
Messages
1,421
Would be good to see the link to the new request if available.

I made a quick search and couldn't find anything up to date (although the information in OP is on Grand Union's website). The website suggests they would use IC225s from LNER - but given the answer to one of the questions refers to this
On Friday 14 June, Grand Union submitted a Form P with the ORR for a passenger track access agreement. Then on 18 July, Grand Union submitted an updated Form P. This then restarted the 28-day consultation period for the ORR to gather feedback on our proposal.
I am assuming this is from an old application and thus the website has not been updated since last time.

That would take some doing, new bi-modes delivered, tested and staff trained by May 2023?
Looking here there is no sign of a new formal application
This is making me think that this is just information from an old application?
 

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
6,754
Location
South Wales
Here we go found a pdf copy of the new application.

Future plans slightly changed in the they will use the Swansea district line serving the proposed Swansea parkway
 

Attachments

  • 14 Form P 2704-2022 Carmarthen.pdf
    556.6 KB · Views: 400

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
17,073
Location
Glasgow
Would their stopping patterns of these services be similar to GWR's or would they be hoping to operate faster services with less stops, or slower services with more stops?
Bristol Parkway, Newport, Severn Tunnel Junction plus Cardiff Parkway when it opens were the stops in the previous application. Press they would be aiming for the same?
 

CyrusWuff

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
4,687
Location
London
Consultation is being handled by Network Rail and closes on 3rd June: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/indus...ormation-for-operators/sale-of-access-rights/

Can't link directly to it, alas, due to how NWR's website is configured.

Initial plan is to use Class 91s + 9 Mk4s + DVTs whilst awaiting the new build Bi-modes.

Calling points to be Bristol Parkway, Severn Tunnel Junction and Newport, plus "Cardiff Parkway" when/if it opens.

Long term aim to extend to Carmarthen, with a new parkway station near M4 J46, which they're planning to build.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
8,212
Location
West Wiltshire
Here is the link


Following a series of discussions with the Welsh Government, TfW and others, Grand Union has submitted an application for 5 return services a day to operate between Carmarthen and London Paddington with calls at Llanelli, Felindre (new parkway station), Cardiff, Newport, Severn Tunnel Junction and Bristol Parkway. The overall abstraction level from the application is at the lower levels approved by the ORR on a number of previous open access applications.
These services are of significant importance not only for ‘levelling up’, but also to the Welsh economy and the Welsh Government and are planned to begin between Cardiff and London Paddington during the timetable due to start in May 2023. Services will then be extended to Carmarthen approximately 2 years later as suitable new rolling stock becomes available. Services will call at an upgraded Severn Tunnel Junction [Parkway] and the new and privately funded Cardiff Parkway station when it opens. Both are identified within the South East Wales Transport Commission Report [The Burns Report], with Cardiff Parkway being one of a number of new stations recommended and planned by the Welsh Government for the South Wales Main Line and for which planning permission has been approved. When Carmarthen services begin, they will also call at a new Felindre parkway station which will be located adjacent to the M4 Motorway at junction 46. Services to Carmarthen will be operated by new build bi-mode trains that are planned to replace the initial traction to be used between Paddington and Cardiff.
The application sits squarely at the centre of the UK Government’s levelling up agenda as outlined in the final report of Sir Peter Hendy’s Union Connectivity Review by boosting the transport options connecting the UK, with focus on providing high-quality transport infrastructure to communities that have been passed over for investment in previous decades. It is also aligned with the Prime Minister’s vision to build back better from coronavirus by boosting transport connectivity across and between the whole of the UK, as part of ambitions to truly level up across the country.
The initial service between Cardiff and London Paddington will be operated by off lease 125mph rolling stock. This will ensure that Grand Union is part of the important rail recovery process as the UK builds back better in the coming years, providing a vital improvement in Union Connectivity to many parts of south east and west Wales currently relatively poorly served by fast and direct links to London. Private investment, competition and innovation are critical in ensuring the railway comes back stronger following its period of enforced slowdown, as evidenced by the strong recovery on the ECML, and this application shows private sector confidence in the railway’s resurgence.
Grand Union is also redefining the interior of the train, with a new 1st class offering and a significant improvement in seating quality and luggage space in standard class. Additionally, Grand Union is looking at the various technologies that can be installed on trains to inspire further passenger confidence. In particular, the use of UV in air conditioning systems is being rolled out by a number of operators across Europe and elsewhere to reduce viral and bacterial risks and is an issue that Grand Union is discussing with providers and stakeholders.
As well as the service introduction, alongside developing plans by others, Grand Union will be investing in infrastructure improvements by building a new parkway station at Felindre and investing in Severn Tunnel Junction Station where we will increase parking, give direct access from the adjacent M4 motorway and improve passenger and staff facilities to a standard appropriate for use by Intercity trains. This will further boost and support the plans currently under evaluation by the Welsh Government for Severn Tunnel Junction station.
Operation of this service will attract the new Infrastructure Cost Charge introduced by the ORR for PR18 and represents a significant increase in track access revenue for Network Rail, a charge not paid by franchised/concession operators. This charge was introduced in line with the expectations of the Secretary of State for Transport who stated that a precondition for an increase in Open Access is that all operators make a fair contribution to the costs of the network. On a path-by-path basis, track access charges for Grand Union on this route will exceed those paid by the current intercity operator.
Grand Union is requesting a 20 year track access contract to reflect the significant planned investment in the infrastructure and its new build train fleet.
Date of commencement: May 2023 End date: May 2043

The withdrawal of the Paddington- Bristol superfasts is being used as a reason why the previous revenue abstraction no longer applies

Further down the link is photo mock up of First Class (in compartments) and standard (open saloons)

It sounds like the new 9car bi-modes will also have a light freight compartment for urgent parcels and goods

There seems to be a plan to try and raise the 50mph speed limit on Swansea District line to save time, and a new parkway station at Felindre (near M4 junction 46) to avoid people having to drive to Swansea through city traffic.
 
Last edited:

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
21,262
Yet grand union have pointed out the competition has helped bring customer numbers back on the east coast mainline like I suspect it will on the GWML.
GWR's advance fares are much higher now than they were prior to March 2020 but equally it is saddled with the costs of the IET fleet. There probably isn't much scope to reduce GWR's fares within that background.

Cheaper rail fares will be very attractive you only have to look at how the coach market has recovered between South Wales/ Bristol and london
The coach fares will always be cheaper though. Are you suggesting that the part of the market that coach companies operate in, that is airports and leisure, has not recovered for GWR? I get that business travel will be down but that is irrelevant in the context of coaches.

Grand Union is requesting a 20 year track access contract to reflect the significant planned investment in the infrastructure and its new build train fleet.
20 years? What power does the DfT / Welsh government have to just put this extra stuff in the GWR concession?
 

Lemmy99uk

Member
Joined
5 May 2015
Messages
516
Interesting that standard will be 2+1 seating, with another class called ‘standard economy’ having 2+2. It looks like ‘standard economy’ is a return to third class.
 

Envoy

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2014
Messages
2,833
It’s beginning to sound to me like it was a waste of money and effort doing up the old HST’s for work on the south west to Cardiff route.

I note that it is First who run the GWR and the new Lumo service on the ECML. So, it is OK for the the DfT to allow other operators onto the ECML but not on the south Wales to London route because it is revenue abstractive. That being so, how were First (Lumo) allowed onto the ECML to abstract revenue from LNER?

As has been pointed out in the Grand Union application, they plan to serve Cardiff Parkway (once opened) and Severn Tunnel Junction as well as extending services westward to serve a Swansea Parkway at Felindre, Llanelli and Carmarthen making use of the Swansea District Line. I note that GWR run practically nothing west of Swansea. They can’t even be bothered to run the busy Saturday only services between London and south Pembrokeshire leaving TfW to deal with this route when they are still short of rolling stock.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
14,165
Location
UK
I note that it is First who run the GWR and the new Lumo service on the ECML. So, it is OK for the the DfT to allow other operators onto the ECML but not on the south Wales to London route because it is revenue abstractive. That being so, how were First (Lumo) allowed onto the ECML to abstract revenue from LNER?
Essentially, Lumo benefitted from submitting an application before Covid. When Grand Union's previous application was rejected, the reason wasn't the relative proportion of revenue abstraction (which was within guidelines, and in fact better than previously accepted applications).

It was evident that the DfT had leaned on the ORR to invent a new test, namely that the absolute amount of revenue abstraction cannot be too large. The large amount of overall government support to the industry during Covid was cited, but frankly, this rejection always seemed highly dubious to me. How can it be OK to allow existing OAOs to continue to abstract revenue, yet refuse to allow a new operator to start running in much the same way? An irrational decision if ever I've seen one.

I suppose Grand Union must have decided it would be better to wait and submit an improved application, rather than go straight down the slow and expensive route of a legal challenge. If this new application isn't successful, I wouldn't be surprised if they do challenge it.

Frankly, I really do hope they either succeed or successfully challenge a further rejection - the current ORR and DfT position is totally at odds with the OAO friendly position which the government claims to be adopting with GBR. If OAOs face an impossible barrier to entry, then what is the point of wasting so much money by having the system split up into a thousand companies? It makes a mockery of privatisation and the separation of track and train.
 

geoffk

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
3,639
While we have a nationwide shortage of train crew and rolling stock, this kind of abstractive proposal should be kicked into touch.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
8,212
Location
West Wiltshire
While we have a nationwide shortage of train crew and rolling stock, this kind of abstractive proposal should be kicked into touch.

This seems a very uncompetitive stance.

GWR don’t really serve anything west of Swansea, and if they were worried about staff being poached they can always offer existing staff bonus remuneration

They either need to fill the consumer gap themselves, so a competitor doesn’t see a profitable flow, or they need competition to force them to raise their game.

I doubt if Network Rail cares if a track slot is taken up by a bi-mode painted green, or another colour provided each pays for track usage.

DfT should only worry about it’s loss of profit share and that is more a derivative of customers switching if GWR choose to offer inferior product or poorer value. Conversely competition could result in better marketing and new additional passengers, so more revenue. It doesn’t automatically mean GWR revenue will fall.
 

Wyrleybart

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2020
Messages
1,979
Location
South Staffordshire
While we have a nationwide shortage of train crew and rolling stock, this kind of abstractive proposal should be kicked into touch.

Who says there is a nationwide shortage ?
Th TOC I work for has drivers sitting at home as "Covid spares" and guards who similarly book on from home spare and a few of them don't actually come to work even if needed.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,777
This seems a very uncompetitive stance.

GWR don’t really serve anything west of Swansea, and if they were worried about staff being poached they can always offer existing staff bonus remuneration

They either need to fill the consumer gap themselves, so a competitor doesn’t see a profitable flow, or they need competition to force them to raise their game.

I doubt if Network Rail cares if a track slot is taken up by a bi-mode painted green, or another colour provided each pays for track usage.

DfT should only worry about it’s loss of profit share and that is more a derivative of customers switching if GWR choose to offer inferior product or poorer value. Conversely competition could result in better marketing and new additional passengers, so more revenue. It doesn’t automatically mean GWR revenue will fall.
GU probably don't really want to serve west of Swansea or even Cardiff but they hope/feel doing so will help their case. They'd be more than happy to just scoop up the Cardiff / Newport / Bristol Parkway - Paddington non-stop Traffic if they could.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
4,251
They can’t even be bothered to run the busy Saturday only services between London and south Pembrokeshire leaving TfW to deal with this route when they are still short of rolling stock.

That is a very ill informed comment you may wish to consider. The reason there are no summer Saturday GWR services to Pembroke this summer is TfW were unable to allow access to GWR crews to re-learn the route and asked that GWR did not run the route this summer due to the complication this would bring with route learning (as it’s been some years since GWR crews worked to Pembroke it would be classed as full route learning, which must be done in daylight and thus would disrupt TfW services).
 
Last edited:

James90012

Member
Joined
21 Sep 2016
Messages
170
Ultimately as a user of the ECML Open Access I strongly believe there has been an overall benefit to both the industry and passengers. Fares have come down - particularly the on the day fares which before OA were exceptionally high on the East Coast, yet train service frequencies have continued to increase, new markets have been served, etc, etc.

However, the first phase of this proposal is, definitely, entirely abstractive. The full service has a much better case (i.e. beyond Cardiff) but I'm not sure how that would work with the ORR in terms of approving access without any levers (unless they do have levers) to enforce that GU do order the new trains, and enter into contracts to operate beyond Cardiff. Perhaps GU would be better trying to lease some 222s or 221s as/when/if they become available to go for the full service in one go, and then order the 80X down the line.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
14,165
Location
UK
However, the first phase of this proposal is, definitely, entirely abstractive. The full service has a much better case (i.e. beyond Cardiff) but I'm not sure how that would work with the ORR in terms of approving access without any levers (unless they do have levers) to enforce that GU do order the new trains, and enter into contracts to operate beyond Cardiff. Perhaps GU would be better trying to lease some 222s or 221s as/when/if they become available to go for the full service in one go, and then order the 80X down the line.
The Access Contract could specify the type of rolling stock to be operated. GU would effectively forfeit their right to operate if they didn't order stock in line with the contract.
 

Envoy

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2014
Messages
2,833
That is a very ill informed comment you may wish to consider. The reason there are no summer Saturday GWR services to Pembroke this summer is TfW were unable to allow access to GWR crews to re-learn the route and asked that GWR did not run the route this summer due to the complication this would bring with route learning (as it’s been some years since GWR crews worked to Pembroke it would be classed as full route learning, which must be done in daylight and thus would disrupt TfW services).
TfW don’t seem to care about their often overcrowded trains spreading Covid amongst the passengers yet it is deemed a risk for crew - odd that. Anyway, I have not driven my car to Tenby for a couple of years but I am pretty confident that I know the route and would be able to see the speed limits so I don’t see why it is such a big deal for train drivers.

Why can’t the GWR drivers sit on the right hand side of a 150 being as they need to re-train for this route that they last drove pre-covid - after all, the connecting passage system separates the two cabs. Failing that, I don’t see why TfW could not simply video the route and the Swansea GWR drivers could learn from that. (I thought GWR had a simulator for training purposes).

It all sounds to me like one big excuse. Perhaps TfW don’t want the GWR to run to south Pembrokeshire because they would rather ram the public into their overcrowded trains to get the revenue and this Covid stuff is just one big excuse? Police, fire crews, bus drivers, ambulance crews & many other professions have been sharing vehicles through most of the pandemic. Why are train drivers any different?
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
4,251
Why can’t the GWR drivers sit on the right hand side of a 150 being as they need to re-train for this route that they last drove pre-covid

The agreement TfW had with their own drivers during this spring when the route learning for GWR would have needed to take place precluded this.

Failing that, I don’t see why TfW could not simply video the route and the Swansea GWR drivers could learn from that. (I thought GWR had a simulator for training purposes).

This is not an agreed industry standard for learning a route. It can however be used for refreshing a route but not signing a route from scratch.

It all sounds to me like one big excuse.

You may see it as that but logistically it just hasn’t been possible this year. Both the aviation and railway industry have shown current (high) safety standards don’t simply let you just switch things back on again. The Pembroke GWR trains will return just timescales/lifting of covid restrictions didn’t match up for this year.

Anyway, I have not driven my car to Tenby for a couple of years but I am pretty confident that I know the route and would be able to see the speed limits so I don’t see why it is such a big deal for train drivers.

The RSSB standards for route knowledge here I’ve linked will help show what is required for route knowledge for driving a train and you will see that standard of knowledge is much higher than for driving a car.

 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
14,165
Location
UK
The agreement TfW had with their own drivers during this spring when the route learning for GWR would have needed to take place precluded this.
This is really what is at the root of it - operators are no longer cooperating on route learning, having used the excuse of Covid to get rid of it. It's utterly pathetic and the opposite to what the industry should be doing right now.
 

Mintona

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2006
Messages
3,592
Location
South West
TfW don’t seem to care about their often overcrowded trains spreading Covid amongst the passengers yet it is deemed a risk for crew - odd that. Anyway, I have not driven my car to Tenby for a couple of years but I am pretty confident that I know the route and would be able to see the speed limits so I don’t see why it is such a big deal for train drivers.

Why can’t the GWR drivers sit on the right hand side of a 150 being as they need to re-train for this route that they last drove pre-covid - after all, the connecting passage system separates the two cabs. Failing that, I don’t see why TfW could not simply video the route and the Swansea GWR drivers could learn from that. (I thought GWR had a simulator for training purposes).

It all sounds to me like one big excuse. Perhaps TfW don’t want the GWR to run to south Pembrokeshire because they would rather ram the public into their overcrowded trains to get the revenue and this Covid stuff is just one big excuse? Police, fire crews, bus drivers, ambulance crews & many other professions have been sharing vehicles through most of the pandemic. Why are train drivers any different?

I think that every single thing you have written in this post is wrong.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
4,251
This is really what is at the root of it - operators are no longer cooperating on route learning, having used the excuse of Covid to get rid of it. It's utterly pathetic and the opposite to what the industry should be doing right now.

That is incorrect, operators are now cooperating again on route learning, the lifting of different covid restrictions in Wales just meant that timescales were in the end too short for this summer (the summer timetable starts this coming weekend).

I’m not sure why operators would try and find an ‘excuse’ to make route learning harder. Covid was not an excuse, it was a global pandemic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top