Grand Union Trains Plans to run from London to Cardiff - Now rejected by ORR

yorkie · 6 Apr 2019

It's not going to happen. It's an idea by Ian Yeowart that won't actually happen. It's all pure speculation.

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite · 6 Apr 2019

ainsworth74 said:
No-one, in their right mind, is going to do 140mph with a 91 or a Mk4. And that's before we start talking about the serious lack of in-cab signalling available to support such a thing.

Indeed not, but my point was that they are well capable of running at 125mph on the GWML.

Brissle Girl · 6 Apr 2019

allaction said:
House prices in the towns and villages in the STJ catchment area (and indeed, much of Monmouthshire) have shot up since the abolition of the Severn Bridge tolls (Bristol is expensive for housing, Monmouthshire was relatively cheap.)

This - and the fact that it would be serving a new area for direct London trains - must be behind the rationale. It’s a clever move in that respect and could get GWR to consider a couple of STJ stoppers in both directions as a potential competition killer.

But it wouldn't be catering for the vast majority of Bristol commuters, except for those within walking distance of Parkway. It would do nothing for those around Abbey Wood and Temple Meads who already have direct trains from STJ anyway.

Brissle Girl · 6 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Indeed not, but my point was that they are well capable of running at 125mph on the GWML.

I was referring to your suggestion to run an additional Class 387 to Reading off peak, not the capability of the Class 91s to run at or above 125mph.

Bletchleyite · 6 Apr 2019

Brissle Girl said:
I was referring to your suggestion to run an additional Class 387 to Reading off peak, not the capability of the Class 91s to run at or above 125mph.

Ah, sorry.

Brissle Girl · 6 Apr 2019

allaction said:
House prices in the towns and villages in the STJ catchment area (and indeed, much of Monmouthshire) have shot up since the abolition of the Severn Bridge tolls (Bristol is expensive for housing, Monmouthshire was relatively cheap.)

This - and the fact that it would be serving a new area for direct London trains - must be behind the rationale. It’s a clever move in that respect and could get GWR to consider a couple of STJ stoppers in both directions as a potential competition killer.

But the increase in house prices is down to commuting, and the new service would do very little to help that, as the majority of commuters are to Filton Abbey Wood or Temple Meads. There is some employment within walking distance of Parkway, but it's the minority, and its questionable whether a drive to STJ and then a train would be attractive enough to entice regular commuters to forgo the car, especially if the service is only hourly. Especially those for whom access to Bristol would naturally be via the M48, so STJ would mean heading in the wrong direction.

brad465 · 6 Apr 2019

Parallel said:
It would make sense if maybe it ran via different route like Cardiff - Newport - Filton - Keynsham - Bath - Bradford - Trowbridge - Westbury - Pewsey - Newbury - Reading - London as it would be quicker than SWT’s Bristol - Waterloo leg and give a quicker service between Bath and Wales by taking the Temple Meads avoiding curve. There’s also no direct service between Bath and Berks&Hants, and Trowbridge could do with some more services to Paddington. Decent advance fares from Cardiff-Bath to London and you have a budget alternative to GWR.

The route could be sped up more by omitting Westbury by using the curve but Westbury isn’t exactly gifted with Paddington services...

If that route was ever possible, I think under revenue abstraction risks it would probably have to run fast to Trowbridge from London and vice versa, then keep all the other calling points, although this also risks abstracting revenue from GWR's Portsmouth-Cardiff services. Westbury might be allowed for the sake of the poor London service you mentioned, but this is all hypothetical.

ainsworth74 · 6 Apr 2019

I think we can safely bring this thread to a close for the time being. Considering all we've got to go on is two page letter to the ORR that has more words in the notes than the actual description of the service there isn't much to go on!

So to avoid this thread going massively off-topic it is therefore locked. Anyone wishing to discuss the speculative ideas that have been mentioned (alternative routes for other OAOs or 12-car EMUs to Reading) is welcome to do so in a new thread in the Speculative Ideas sub-forum.

If or when there are developments the Forum Staff will give consideration to re-opening the thread or starting a new one.

Oscar46016 · 16 Jun 2019

New rail company wants to run trains between Cardiff and London

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/busine...D=ios_WalesOnlineNewsApp_AppShare_Click_Other

For the first time in almost 25 years train passengers between south Wales and London could have a choice between the operator they travel on.

The new open access rail company Grand Union Trains has submitted an application to operate an hourly service in both directions between the capitals of Wales and England.

Along with cutting the average journey time between Cardiff and London by 20 minutes, the company promises that any passenger who does not find a seat will get a 50% discount.

The operator has also said travellers will find more leg-room compared to other train providers and free wi-fi on the service.

The proposed service, which would start operating late 2020, would run from Cardiff Central, to Newport , Severn Tunnel Junction and Bristol Parkway, then express to London Paddington.

Jorge Da Silva · 16 Jun 2019

Grand Union does have some advantages over GWR:

Cuts Journey times between Cardiff and London by 20 minutes
Guaranteed a seat on every train
If you can't get a seat then you get a 50% discount
There may be quiet a bit of demand for such as service

It also has the backing of the Welsh Government. But there are several disadvantages:

Is there enough capacity post-GWR IET timetable to accommodate services?
Does it generate enough NEW revenue to justify its introduction and
How Abstractive is this service? Benefits have to outway the abstractive effects.

All these need to be considered.

stj · 16 Jun 2019

Hopefully it will happen as GWR should not be allowed a monopoly of the route.I thought that was the idea
of privatisation.Competition.

coppercapped · 16 Jun 2019

stj said:
Hopefully it will happen as GWR should not be allowed a monopoly of the route.I thought that was the idea of privatisation. Competition.

Yes - but not necessarily 'on rail' competition.

In the run up to privatisation and at different times five models for privatisation were put forward by different groups, these being the Cabinet Office, the DfT, the Treasury and some outside parties. Very briefly these were:

BR plc
Regional - essentially re-creating the ‘Big 4’ (but could have been up to 12)
Sectorisation
Track Authority
A hybrid of these models.

So several models were available - and the supporters of each produced their own arguments. The was no ‘basic premise’ apart from the feeling that costs could be reduced - BR being in receipt of subsidy - and the quality of service improved if the private sector were to be involved.

There were all sorts of arguments within the working groups on how to handle the necessary on-going subsidy.

The ‘BR plc’ approach was ruled out because, unlike the privatisation of BAA and telecoms and similar, BR was not profitable. Selling shares to the small investor on the basis that any dividends were reliant on the level of subsidy received from the Government would not have worked.

In the same way any ideas of a ‘trade sale’ were abandoned as no company would take on the risk.

One approach was a form of Open Access where potential operators bid for paths, or groups of paths. However it became clear that bidding for paths on a monthly or bi-monthly basis was not applicable because of the inter-related nature of railway operations. So that was dropped as well. It was decided the best way to handle the subsidy issue was for potential train operators to bid for a group of services - a clear figure was available for each area and any cross-subsidy between profitable and loss-making services was up to the individual operators to manage. This avoided the DfT having to identify costs and revenues on an individual service basis.

So, although on-rail competition was considered in the early phases of the privatisation debate it was dropped as it wasn’t compatible with the realities of railway operation. The competition is for the franchise - not between operators.

furnessvale · 16 Jun 2019

stj said:
Hopefully it will happen as GWR should not be allowed a monopoly of the route.I thought that was the idea
of privatisation.Competition.

I don't know if GWR are expected to pay a premium to HMG, but that will surely reduce, be eliminated or converted into a subsidy if another operator is allowed to cream off this long inter city traffic.

yorkie · 16 Jun 2019

If anyone wishes to speculate on future uses for Class 91s & Mk4s, and on whether or not they may be suitable for this service, please use this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/your-ideas-for-future-uses-of-class-91s-and-mk4-coaches.184417/

Brissle Girl · 16 Jun 2019

One positive aspect to the service is serving Severn Tunnel Jn station. This has the potential to be a railhead for the southern Forest of Dean, Monmouth etc. At the moment passengers from those areas heading for London (and Swindon and Reading) either have to double back to Newport, enduring the M4, or fight their way to Bristol Parkway, which isn’t much easier in the rush hour.

Whether that is enough to overcome the “not primarily abstractive” test is another matter.

Commercially, the operation would have the advantage that any rolling stock it uses is not going to have the cripplingly high lease costs that the 800s have, and so could probably survive on lower fares or loads than the franchise operator.

The Planner · 16 Jun 2019

Interested to see where the 20 minutes is coming from.

geoffk · 16 Jun 2019

stj said:
Hopefully it will happen as GWR should not be allowed a monopoly of the route.I thought that was the idea
of privatisation.Competition.

Whatever happened to open access services being "not primarily abstractive"? Grand Central and Hull Trains meet that criterion, as did the short-lived Wrexham & Shropshire operation. But Kings Cross - Edinburgh, Waterloo - Southampton and Paddington - Cardiff clearly do not, as they are 100% abstractive (OK apart from Severn Tunnel Junction). Nor does Euston - Blackpool now. Do we really want to fill up all the available slots with fast trains which offer nothing new, when on many parts of the network we need better local services (e.g. Newcastle - Berwick - Edinburgh) and more paths for freight? HS2 will free up paths, but not to Cardiff or Southampton, and not in the North-east. These Cardiff trains might be faster but how important is speed on a route with no airline competition?

Japan0913 · 16 Jun 2019

Brissle Girl said:
Commercially, the operation would have the advantage that any rolling stock it uses is not going to have the cripplingly high lease costs that the 800s have, and so could probably survive on lower fares or loads than the franchise operator.

First Group's East Coast Open Access recently ordered AT -300 from Hitachi.
If the rent is high, FirstGroup will not order AT -300.
If it is only for electrified sections, isn't it OK to use Stadler or CAF EMU?

The unit price of the car must have become cheaper because we were able to mass produce with GWR and LNER.

diffident · 16 Jun 2019

Jorge Da Silva said:
Grand Union does have some advantages over GWR:

Cuts Journey times between Cardiff and London by 20 minutes

Guaranteed a seat on every train

If you can't get a seat then you get a 50% discount

There may be quiet a bit of demand for such as service

It also has the backing of the Welsh Government. But there are several disadvantages:

Is there enough capacity post-GWR IET timetable to accommodate services?

Does it generate enough NEW revenue to justify its introduction and

How Abstractive is this service? Benefits have to outway the abstractive effects.

All these need to be considered.

Where the abstraction argument stands - if the service is restricted to pre-booked tickets only, with a "X Service Only" ticket, then surely there is no abstraction? A walk-up fare would still have to get GWR and only those who specifically booked to use Grand Union would be doing so.

ainsworth74 · 16 Jun 2019

diffident said:
Where the abstraction argument stands - if the service is restricted to pre-booked tickets only, with a "X Service Only" ticket, then surely there is no abstraction? A walk-up fare would still have to get GWR and only those who specifically booked to use Grand Union would be doing so.

I broadly agree but there would still be abstraction as there would be people by "X Service Only" tickets who would have previously bought tickets valid on and travelled with GWR instead. So GWR could still face losing revenue.

TheLastMinute · 16 Jun 2019

I wonder if those proposed Grand Union journey times include the 60(?)mph electric train restriction at Steventon?

Also, I'm sure they could have done better with the name that forms the acronym GUT!

coppercapped · 16 Jun 2019

Brissle Girl said:
One positive aspect to the service is serving Severn Tunnel Jn station. This has the potential to be a railhead for the southern Forest of Dean, Monmouth etc. At the moment passengers from those areas heading for London (and Swindon and Reading) either have to double back to Newport, enduring the M4, or fight their way to Bristol Parkway, which isn’t much easier in the rush hour.

Whether that is enough to overcome the “not primarily abstractive” test is another matter.

Commercially, the operation would have the advantage that any rolling stock it uses is not going to have the cripplingly high lease costs that the 800s have, and so could probably survive on lower fares or loads than the franchise operator.

geoffk said:
Whatever happened to open access services being "not primarily abstractive"? Grand Central and Hull Trains meet that criterion, as did the short-lived Wrexham & Shropshire operation. But Kings Cross - Edinburgh, Waterloo - Southampton and Paddington - Cardiff clearly do not, as they are 100% abstractive (OK apart from Severn Tunnel Junction). Nor does Euston - Blackpool now. Do we really want to fill up all the available slots with trains which offer nothing new, when on many parts of the network we need better local services (e.g. Newcastle - Berwick - Edinburgh) and more paths for freight? HS2 will free up paths, but not to Cardiff or Southampton, and not in the North-east. These Cardiff trains might be faster but how important is speed on a route with no airline competition?

There seems to be a slight misunderstanding about the current thinking about the "not primarily abstractive" test as things have moved on since the early days of Open Access.
In the early days Open Access operators were only required to pay the variable usage charge for track access to comply with, among other things, a EU requirement for promoting competition. The DfT was unhappy about funding the infrastructure through the franchised operators and assuming that rail funding was a zero sum game; it believed that every pound which went to an Open Access operator was lost to the franchised TOC. It had no understanding that more frequent services grew the market - although there was plenty of evidence which demonstrated this effect, one of the best ones being Cross Country. It and the ORR therefore developed the "not primarily abstractive" test to limit competition.

In recent years the Open Access operators have realised that they need to be seen to be contributing to the infrastructure and have proposed paying an "infrastructure levy" as part of their access arrangements. However the DfT and ORR are still dragging their feet, each one blames the other for its non-introduction. During the hearing for the East Coast Open Access (which first Group won) the ORR published transcripts of the proceedings on its web site - I can no longer find them there but I downloaded them at the time. These are dated 4th March 2016 and are entitled "OFFICE OF RAIL AND ROAD TRANSCRIPT OF ECML INDUSTRY HEARING" and on page 66 the DfT is quoted as saying:

I note again Alliance saying that they’re happy to contribute towards the cost of the network but really the current charging structure is a matter for ORR. DfT has commented many times on the current structure of access charges and its concern about the fact that open access operators both don’t pay anything towards the fixed cost of the network and receive very substantially discounted rates of capacity charge which is a really significant charge on the East Coast Main Line. But, these decisions have been a matter for ORR, not a matter for the DfT.

Later on page 68 Alliance Rail stated:

This is not just about the charging structure and we do want to engage with the DfT constructively. We did try and do this over two years ago. And we did have some good dialogue. We want to take it further. We want to reduce the burden on the taxpayer but you just sit there, using taxpayers’ funds, saying that you’re going to get the taxpayer to enter in to a SoSRA, why you’ve done that, I do not know, because the Public Accounts Committee criticised the DfT in respect of using taxpayers’ funds for the IEP. That is a fact because – you can shake your head as much as you want. One of the issues you’ve mentioned about fixed access charges, you say that to develop an access doesn’t make a contribution there. That is true. But that’s the making of the DfT who pays subsidy and a court decided in 2005 that it would be illegal for us to pay that – for open access to pay the subsidy which you require through the fixed access charges. That is the law. It’s the DfT’s making. You continue to pay that subsidy. It’s not the ORR. It’s the DfT.
And then there’s the issue about the levy which we keep raising, which is Directive 2012/34. And this relates to how anybody can contribute to the provision of public service obligations and we’d like to do that but, again, we’ve approached the DfT, and it’s missed the boat. So, I just want to know why the DfT doesn’t want third party open access businesses contributing to the financing of the network to reduce the impact on the taxpayer?

So the issue is not the abstractive test, but why the DfT is dragging its feet.

geoffk · 16 Jun 2019

coppercapped said:
There seems to be a slight misunderstanding about the current thinking about the "not primarily abstractive" test as things have moved on since the early days of Open Access.
In the early days Open Access operators were only required to pay the variable usage charge for track access to comply with, among other things, a EU requirement for promoting competition. The DfT was unhappy about funding the infrastructure through the franchised operators and assuming that rail funding was a zero sum game, it believed that every pound which went to an Open Access operator was lost to the franchised TOC. It had no understanding that more frequent services grew the market - although there was plenty of evidence which demonstrated this effect, one of the best ones being Cross Country. It and the ORR therefore developed the "not primarily abstractive" test to limit competition.

In recent years the Open Access operators have realised that they need to be seen to be contributing to the infrastructure and have proposed paying an "infrastructure levy" as part of their access arrangements. However the DfT and ORR are still dragging their feet, each one blames the other for its non-introduction. During the hearing for the East Coast Open Access (which first Group won) the ORR published transcripts of the proceedings on its web site - I can no longer find them there but I downloaded them at the time. These are dated 4th March 2016 and are entitled "OFFICE OF RAIL AND ROAD TRANSCRIPT OF ECML INDUSTRY HEARING" and on page 66 the DfT is quoted as saying:

Later on page 68 Alliance Rail stated:

So the issue is not the abstractive test, but why the DfT is dragging its feet.

Thanks for the explanation, but the fact remains that these trains, and other similar ones, will be taking up scarce paths on a crowded network for which there may be better uses, now or in the future.

coppercapped · 16 Jun 2019

Japan0913 said:
First Group's East Coast Open Access recently ordered AT -300 from Hitachi.
If the rent is high, FirstGroup will not order AT -300.
If it is only for electrified sections, isn't it OK to use Stadler or CAF EMU?

The unit price of the car must have become cheaper because we were able to mass produce with GWR and LNER.

For clarity GWR and LNER do not pay a lease for the trains supplied by Agility Trains under the IEP contract. The trains are supplied under a 'train service provision' contract under which Agility supplies the trains required to meet the number of daily operating diagrams agreed between Agility Trains and the DfT. If the train is not supplied then Agility does not get paid - although this part of the contract is not being fully enforced for the first couple of years of the contract. The high fees are because the DfT required Hitachi / Agility Trains to carry ALL the risks during the design, development, testing, manufacture and operation of the trains and also fund the building and equipping of the maintenance depots. The DfT managed to hid the financial effect of GWR having to operate very expensive trains in the 2nd Direct Award for the franchise extension. I'm not sure how the DfT hid the extra cost for the LNER batch.

For those Class 80X trains purchased by a leasing company and supplied to GWR or First Group the leasing costs are comparable to similar rolling stock from other manufacturers. It is the trains supplied under the IEP contracts which are so expensive - IEP = Incredibly Expensive Procurement.

coppercapped · 16 Jun 2019

geoffk said:
Thanks for the explanation, but the fact remains that these trains will be taking up scarce paths for which there may be better uses, now or in the future.

What is it about the Great Western that whenever a service is suggested or operated by an organisation which is not a franchised TOC there are always better uses for the paths?

Apparently according to many posters to this forum, Heathrow Express takes paths which could be better used to Reading and now these paths might be better used by some other undefined service.

If better uses become apparent later - change the timetable. In the meantime nobody has come up with a better idea, so let's stick with this one. And if this service is profitable and capacity is limited then spend some money and increase the capacity - there are plenty of pinch points on the Western which could be improved or removed.

CapitalStar378 · 16 Jun 2019

GWR it seems aren't interested in providing an express service to Cardiff unlike Bristol, so Grand Union should be welcomed. Things like journey times to London are key for the south Wales economy. 90 mins is being developed to Norwich from Liverpool St yet Cardiff has to make do with 110 mins in this December's timetable recast, not very ambitious for a newly electrified route.

geoffk · 16 Jun 2019

coppercapped said:
What is it about the Great Western that whenever a service is suggested or operated by an organisation which is not a franchised TOC there are always better uses for the paths?

Apparently according to many posters to this forum, Heathrow Express takes paths which could be better used to Reading and now these paths might be better used by some other undefined service.

If better uses become apparent later - change the timetable. In the meantime nobody has come up with a better idea, so let's stick with this one. And if this service is profitable and capacity is limited then spend some money and increase the capacity - there are plenty of pinch points on the Western which could be improved or removed.

There are plans, or at least, aspirations, for stations at Wootton Bassett and Corsham. There are also proposals for an open-access service between Taunton/Yeovil Junction and Oxford/Nuneaton via Melksham. These would be slower trains requiring paths between Didcot and Thingley Junction.

Japan0913 · 16 Jun 2019

coppercapped said:
For clarity GWR and LNER do not pay a lease for the trains supplied by Agility Trains under the IEP contract. The trains are supplied under a 'train service provision' contract under which Agility supplies the trains required to meet the number of daily operating diagrams agreed between Agility Trains and the DfT. If the train is not supplied then Agility does not get paid - although this part of the contract is not being fully enforced for the first couple of years of the contract. The high fees are because the DfT required Hitachi / Agility Trains to carry ALL the risks during the design, development, testing, manufacture and operation of the trains and also fund the building and equipping of the maintenance depots. The DfT managed to hid the financial effect of GWR having to operate very expensive trains in the 2nd Direct Award for the franchise extension. I'm not sure how the DfT hid the extra cost for the LNER batch.

For those Class 80X trains purchased by a leasing company and supplied to GWR or First Group the leasing costs are comparable to similar rolling stock from other manufacturers. It is the trains supplied under the IEP contracts which are so expensive - IEP = Incredibly Expensive Procurement.

So why did FirstGroup buy a vehicle that you thought was expensive with an open access service that requires low-cost operation? because it's actually not that expensive?

bastien · 16 Jun 2019

geoffk said:
There are plans, or at least, aspirations, for stations at Wootton Bassett and Corsham. There are also proposals for an open-access service between Taunton/Yeovil Junction and Oxford/Nuneaton via Melksham. These would be slower trains requiring paths between Didcot and Thingley Junction.

What does Corsham have to do with a London-Cardiff direct train?

Jorge Da Silva · 16 Jun 2019

geoffk said:
There are plans, or at least, aspirations, for stations at Wootton Bassett and Corsham. There are also proposals for an open-access service between Taunton/Yeovil Junction and Oxford/Nuneaton via Melksham. These would be slower trains requiring paths between Didcot and Thingley Junction.

Go-Op. It is not relevant to this though is??

Grand Union Trains Plans to run from London to Cardiff - Now rejected by ORR

Forum Staff

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Forum Staff

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member