Restrictions on new franchise names?

Doomotron · 13 Apr 2019

Is it true that new franchises can't have company names in them (ie First Great Western) or was the person who said lying?

RailUK Forums

Randomer · 13 Apr 2019

The trend has been for the DFT to specify a name as part of the franchising agreement. This can then be used longer term to establish a brand separate to a particular company and reduce the costs of redoing any company branded stations, rolling stock or other media going forward. E.g. WMR, LNER (not a franchise agreement but similarly specified) or the direct awards specifying the use of GWR over FGW.

I would suspect going forwards we are only going to see these names (and provided by X as a smaller company identifier) going forward. This would make it similar to some parts of Europe where commuter operations are branded as the local authority but provided by a train company on contract (e.g. Pågatågen run by Arriva for Skånetrafiken.)

Surreytraveller · 13 Apr 2019

Make it similar to the set up with London Buses.

LNW-GW Joint · 13 Apr 2019

I think it's still largely up to the TOC owner to decide branding.
They have to pay to debrand or hand over the brand free to their successor.
East Midlands Railway doesn't look like a long-lived brand, and is certainly not a classical one.

Agent_Squash · 13 Apr 2019

The interesting thing is we’re now entering a time where yet another generic brand (EMT) is being replaced by EMR. It’s baffling.

Randomer · 13 Apr 2019

I suspect the EMT vs. EMR thing is that the DFT will own the trademark and other rights to EMR which they can then license to the TOC concerned whereas EMT will probably be registered to Stagecoach.

The "Railway" part of the name also follows the trend of renaming companies this if they haven't got a classic name to use.

BluePenguin · 13 Apr 2019

It is really annoying how everything is becoming either London (compass direction) Railway or xxxx (compass point) Railway. Yes, we know it is the railway there is no need to be obvious. It is not cool, interesting or historical and simply boring as. Naming all of the franchises in this way gives the impression of a universal system and that the entire network is one national TOC with individual brands for each area. Whilst in reality, several private companies are contracted to provide services on behalf of the government.

It would make more sense for the franchise operators to have Stagecoach, Govia, First, Abellio or Arriva on the side of the trans the operate, with or without the word train or a compass point. That way it is clear to everyone. TFL have done this on their tubes, buses and river boats and got it right in my opinion. They don't have London Central & Greater Waterways, London Central & North Western tubes or Greater London Orbital Trains/Railways. Everything is simply TFL

Planes, trains and coaches for instance are not RyanAir Airlines, Virgin Railways and National Expres Coaches as everyone knows what mode of transport the company provides.

Agent_Squash · 13 Apr 2019

Randomer said:
I suspect the EMT vs. EMR thing is that the DFT will own the trademark and other rights to EMR which they can then license to the TOC concerned whereas EMT will probably be registered to Stagecoach.

The "Railway" part of the name also follows the trend of renaming companies this if they haven't got a classic name to use.

The DfT had the trademark and other documents for Stagecoach SWT - there seems to be a belief in the DfT that nostalgia in the term 'railway' will bring them all!

jimm · 13 Apr 2019

Randomer said:
The trend has been for the DFT to specify a name as part of the franchising agreement. This can then be used longer term to establish a brand separate to a particular company and reduce the costs of redoing any company branded stations, rolling stock or other media going forward. E.g. WMR, LNER (not a franchise agreement but similarly specified) or the direct awards specifying the use of GWR over FGW.

I have no idea where you get your ideas from - the creation of the GWR identity was an internal initiative by First Group. It had nothing to do with the DfT and nothing to do with the direct award either.

DanDaDriver · 13 Apr 2019

Bring back the London Midland and S(heffield) Railway

Andyh82 · 13 Apr 2019

Randomer said:
The trend has been for the DFT to specify a name as part of the franchising agreement. This can then be used longer term to establish a brand separate to a particular company and reduce the costs of redoing any company branded stations, rolling stock or other media going forward. E.g. WMR, LNER (not a franchise agreement but similarly specified) or the direct awards specifying the use of GWR over FGW.

I would suspect going forwards we are only going to see these names (and provided by X as a smaller company

Although of course this won’t happen as even if they keep the same name, the branding is likely to change (ie northern)

Helvellyn · 14 Apr 2019

Andyh82 said:
Although of course this won’t happen as even if they keep the same name, the branding is likely to change (ie northern)

True that could happen but brands are refreshed all the time. With Arriva committing to refurbish every unit that it is retaining long term alongside new units this means it has baked that cost in as part of a bigger plan rather than as has previously happened - a mad scramble to debrnd/rebrand.

The SWT example is interesting because First/MTR could have kept that brand seeing as it was DfT owned. But I wonder if it was perceived as being linked with Stagecoach so a tweak to SWR would help highlight the change of operator?

Agent_Squash said:
The DfT had the trademark and other documents for Stagecoach SWT - there seems to be a belief in the DfT that nostalgia in the term 'railway' will bring them all!

But it equally helps going forward that if track and train are more aligned post the William's Review that 'Railway' suggests an operation running more than just trains.

Western Lord · 14 Apr 2019

If they start running out of names they could always bring back the Old Worse and Worse.

NoMorePacers · 14 Apr 2019

GTR could become Worst Crapital Disconnect again.

Mikey C · 14 Apr 2019

If a franchisee was really rubbish, then surely the next operator wouldn't want to keep the "generic" name as that would be tarnished?

brad465 · 14 Apr 2019

jimm said:
I have no idea where you get your ideas from - the creation of the GWR identity was an internal initiative by First Group. It had nothing to do with the DfT and nothing to do with the direct award either.

Maybe rebranding FGW as GWR started the use of "railway" in franchise names

Presumably there are only so many names that can ever exist/have existed for a particular franchise area, that avoiding "copyright infringement" is now near impossible, or if we haven't reached that point yet it's not far off for some groups.

Doomotron · 14 Apr 2019

NoMorePacers said:
GTR could become Worst Crapital Disconnect again.

Nah, I quite like the name Govia Thameslink Railway. I actually would have preferred it if they rebranded all their operations to GTR or at least TSGN.

Mikey C · 14 Apr 2019

Are the colour schemes agreed with the DfT as well? It just seems odd that GWR and SWR have their own distinct livery, whereas GTR has a completely boring generic scheme for its 700s and 717s

Andyh82 · 14 Apr 2019

The worst name for me is "London North Western Railway"

Such a grandiose name for what is basically secondary/regional services, and too close to LNER

Also to me, using the suffix "Railway" is fine if you are going with a traditional look (like GWR), but if you are branding the franchise with modern colours and styles, it seems out of step.

JordyWM · 15 Apr 2019

I find it pretty weird when a travel reporter on the radio saying that there’s problems on Transport for Wales. Now thats pretty too generic. I’m sure TfW Rail would be more suited.

I’m not keen on the term Railway, especially as it’s use had dwindled over time. It seems old fashioned. The West Midlands franchise going from trendy sounding London Midland to London Northwestern Railway seems like a step back. Espcially when London Northwestern conveniently ignores it’s main franchise area (West Midlands), because were neither London or North West.

pdeaves · 15 Apr 2019

Just for interest's sake, the word 'Railway' appeared in franchise trading names ages ago:
Great North Eastern Railway/GNER [Great North Eastern Railway]
Chiltern Railways [Chiltern Railway Company]
Cardiff Railway Company/Valley Lines/Wales & Borders Trains [Cardiff Railway Company]
South Wales & West [South Wales & West Railway]
Great Eastern/First Great Eastern [Great Eastern Railway]
Anglia Railways [Anglia Railways Train Services]
West Anglia Great Northern/WAGN Railway/wagn [West Anglia Great Northern Railway]
'one'/National Express East Anglia [London Eastern Railway]
North London Railways [North London Railways]
North Western Trains [North West Regional Railways]
Regional Railways North East/Northern Spirit [Regional Railways North East]
ScotRail [ScotRail Railways]
New Southern Railway/Southern [Southern Railway]
Great Northern/Gatwick Express/Southern/Thameslink [Govia Thameslink Railway]

Trading name with legal name in [square brackets]. Many legal and/or trading names changed outside of the letting process.

When I started writing this list I was surprised how many date from very early in the privatisation process.

Andyh82 · 15 Apr 2019

Most of those were not public facing brands though, and also there is a big difference between ‘Railways’ and ‘Railway’ which is the latest fad.

JordyWM said:
I find it pretty weird when a travel reporter on the radio saying that there’s problems on Transport for Wales. Now thats pretty too generic. I’m sure TfW Rail would be more suited.

That’s another slight annoyance, every part of the country feeling the need to use the name “Transport for...” just copying TFL rather than coming up with something original.

I find the whole ‘LNWR/WMR operated by WMT’ thing along with multiple wacky liveries yet very traditional and confusing names a complete mess, and as said above ‘London Midland’ sounded much more original, much more modern and future sounding.

thenorthern · 16 Apr 2019

I think ScotRail has to be branded as ScotRail and they have to use the livery specified by Transport for Scotland with only "ScotRail is operated by [company name]" on the doors of the train.

Transport for Wales I think has to be branded Transport for Wales as well.

Not sure about the other franchises as inclusion of company names has varied depending on the parent company, for example Stagecoach has never has never used its name in its TOC branding, First regularly used its name in TOC names that it operated until recently, National Express didn't at first but started using its name in TOC names for a time and Virgin Trains has always used its name in TOC branding.

whhistle · 16 Apr 2019

Randomer said:
The trend has been for the DFT to specify a name as part of the franchising agreement. This can then be used longer term to establish a brand separate to a particular company and reduce the costs of redoing any company branded stations, rolling stock or other media going forward.

Not that I see the logic in this.
The private company is paying, so why does the DfT care?

All it means is in the end the branded company will get a bad reputation.
Who would want to run an operation with a name that people hate?

Would be interesting to know if people know the old Northern and new Northern (yes, I appreciate one has rail after it!) are run by different companies?

DelW · 16 Apr 2019

JordyWM said:
I find it pretty weird when a travel reporter on the radio saying that there’s problems on Transport for Wales. Now thats pretty too generic. I’m sure TfW Rail would be more suited.

Andyh82 said:
That’s another slight annoyance, every part of the country feeling the need to use the name “Transport for...” just copying TFL rather than coming up with something original.

It's unfortunate that "tee-eff-double-yew-rail" doesn't trip off the tongue quite as easily as "tee-eff-ell-rail".

I think they should have gone with "Wales Rails" :smile:

whhistle · 16 Apr 2019

JordyWM said:
The West Midlands franchise going from trendy sounding London Midland to London Northwestern Railway seems like a step back. Espcially when London Northwestern conveniently ignores it’s main franchise area (West Midlands), because were (sic) neither London or North West.

That's because in the future, TfWM (Transport for West Midlands) will take control of the central Midlands area of operation (IE, what is now West Midlands Railway). Hence the two brands.

bionic · 16 Apr 2019

Andyh82 said:
The worst name for me is "London North Western Railway"

Such a grandiose name for what is basically secondary/regional services, and too close to LNER

I guess Virgin could have had it first if they hadn't insisted on just being called Virgin. At least London Northwestern actually gives people an idea where the trains go rather than the brash, cynical, in-your-face Virgin splurge.

JordyWM said:
. The West Midlands franchise going from trendy sounding London Midland to London Northwestern Railway seems like a step back. Espcially when London Northwestern conveniently ignores it’s main franchise area (West Midlands), because were neither London or North West.

To be fair, LNR is only part of the West Midlands franchise, the longer distance part that goes to London and Liverpool and much of which isn't in the West Midlands at all. It doesn't conveniently ignore the West Midlands, if anything it makes the difference between the two types of route operated by this TOC clearer. Local services within the West Midlands area are branded West Midlands Railway. I don't know about London Midland being "trendy" but I do think it makes far more sense to do what they do now and run stoppers around the West Midlands with actual West Midlands branding rather than the previous incumbent plastering the word "London" all over units that never went anywhere the place.

Another anomaly thrown up recently is the Transport for Wales services that operate solely within England. Does the Welsh government subsidise these?

Andyh82 · 16 Apr 2019

With TfW, it doesn’t even sound like a train operator, it sounds like a higher up umbrella organisation.

Like it London Overground and TFL Rail was just called ‘TFL’

hexagon789 · 16 Apr 2019

Personally...

It's a name, it's not going to make the service any better or worse, most passengers don't care. As long as it's nothing ridiculous as far as I'm concerned TOCs or the DfT are welcome to come up with whatever they like!

thenorthern · 17 Apr 2019

One thing to remember is that on this forum we know quite a bit about how the railways are run and how First Great Western is not going to be run to the same way as First TransPennie Express despite them both having First in their name.

Joe Public doesn't have this knowledge and can assume many misconceptions about train operating companies, the most extreme can be things like in 2012 when Virgin Trains lost the West Coast franchise to First I heard several people mention that the Pendolinos currently in use would be withdrawn and replaced by HSTs and Pacers as that's what First Great Western use. I would think one reason parent companies their brand name in TOC names much anymore is to stop passengers associating their brand with how other unconnected franchises are run.

Restrictions on new franchise names?

Member

RailUK Forums

Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member