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

Tomos y Tanc · 13 Sep 2019

It's kind of interesting that the train pictured carries the TfW logo despite it being operated by Gran Union rather than TfW Rail Services. Of course TfW can use their logo in way they want and we'll probably see it appearing on buses as well once bus regulation is introduced.

RailUK Forums

CapitalStar378 · 2 Feb 2020

Any news on this?

popeter45 · 2 Feb 2020

CapitalStar378 said:
Any news on this?

would not be surprised if GWR's new express services have killed off the argument for a open access operator to run this route

TheLastMinute · 2 Feb 2020

popeter45 said:
would not be surprised if GWR's new express services have killed off the argument for a open access operator to run this route

It doesn't appear so. A letter written by Grand Union Trains' MD uploaded to the ORR website states that work is ongoing. The letter is undated, but it's responding to a Network Rail letter dated December 2019.

Apparently, of the 12 (out of 14) train slots that GUT have so far provided to NR, only 9 slots can be accommodated within the December 19 timetable and 5 of those would require "significant changes to multiple services operated by Great Western and Freight Operators".

The consultation responses to the Section 17 application (i.e. an application for a disputed contract) have also been published by the ORR. Unsurprisingly, there is a large list of objections including Cross Country, Department for Transport, Freightliner, GWR, Transport for Wales, MTR Crossrail, Transport for London and DB Cargo. GO-Op and GB Railfreight also offered conditional objections. The objections themselves include

Concerns around performance and capacity, particularly the desire to provide a clock-face timetable
The long term granting of paths while other TOCs/FOCs have been refused firm paths beyond 2020
Location of the depot
The requirement to fit ATP to the Class 91s for 125mph operation of the GWML
Fare abstraction
Compatibility of Class 91 with the Great Western Main Line OLE (apparently NR believe that some electrical emissions may be out of spec for the GWML)
Lack of firm date to electrify the Severn Tunnel
Lack of electrified diversion routes
Platform capacity at London Paddington and Cardiff Central

GUT's responses to these objections are also published, which mainly consist of GUT saying "that's what's always said to a Open Access application".

I've no idea how much weight the ORR will place on these objections or to GUT's responses. There is also the Economic Equilibrium Test that the ORR will be undertaking to decide if the application will have an undue effect on a government contract. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess.

Wolfie · 2 Feb 2020

30907 said:
And is wholly part of SNCF - almost as if they were getting their retaliation in first before open access finally gets allowed

Not to mention making sure that there are no spare high-speed trainsets...

swt_passenger · 2 Feb 2020

TheLastMinute said:
It doesn't appear so...

Don’t you mean it ”does appear so”, ie it does appear that GU will be killed off by objections?

TheLastMinute · 5 Feb 2020

swt_passenger said:
Don’t you mean it ”does appear so”, ie it does appear that GU will be killed off by objections?

I was replying to the previous post that stated GWR's super-fasts had killed off the argument. I should have written that it doesn't appear that Grand Union think their plan is dead as they appear to be still working to support their application. I would imagine that the ORR will make a objective decision based on a collection of predefined criteria - how relevant the objections are to the criteria I don't know.

allaction · 6 Feb 2020

I note from Companies House that GUT recently appointed three new Directors - someone with an accountancy background; somebody from Scotland (perhaps because they’re also looking to start a similar service to and from Stirling), and somebody who has been involved in the Tornado steam loco project.

allaction · 1 Sep 2020

I contacted Grand Union for an update on their proposals to run a Paddington - Cardiff service from 2021, extending to Llanelli in 2023.

They replied that they hope to hear from the Regulator in late October.

Jorge Da Silva · 1 Sep 2020

allaction said:
Please move this if necessary - all previous threads are closed.

I contacted Grand Union for an update on their proposals to run a Paddington - Cardiff service from 2021, extending to Llanelli in 2023.

They replied that they hope to hear from the Regulator in late October.

preview of the result:

It’ll be rejected

Darandio · 1 Sep 2020

Jorge Da Silva said:
preview of the result:

It’ll be rejected

Is the correct answer, even more so these days. Another Yeowart pipedream.

Mag_seven · 1 Sep 2020

allaction said:
I contacted Grand Union for an update on their proposals to run a Paddington - Cardiff service from 2021, extending to Llanelli in 2023.

They replied that they hope to hear from the Regulator in late October.

Thanks for the update @allaction.

Once the regulator has made their decision (or there are any other developments) we will reopen the thread.

ainsworth74 · 10 Feb 2021

In a move which I doubt would surprise anyone, the ORR have rejected the application:

We have carefully considered Grand Union Train Limited’s (Grand Union) application for a track access contract with Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail). This was submitted to us under section 17 of the Railways Act 1993 (the Act) in May 2020. ORR has rejected the application.

Full details can be found in the letter sent by the ORR here.

Ianno87 · 10 Feb 2021

ainsworth74 said:
In a move which I doubt would surprise anyone, the ORR have rejected the application:

Full details can be found in the letter sent by the ORR here.

Basically rejected on grounds of Absolute abstraction of government funds; i.e. the level reduction in revenue to GWR (thus DfT) which is not adequately offset by the track access fees paid. Effectively running these services indirectly costs DfT c. £25m/year in lost revenue that instead goes to Grand Union.

Interestingly it *does* pass the Not Primarily Abstractive test (i.e. generates sufficient level of new income relative to what it extracts), but the absolute impact on DfT (during the current industry post-Covid funding pressures) is deemed too high.

ainsworth74 · 10 Feb 2021

Ianno87 said:
Interestingly it *does* pass the Not Primarily Abstractive test (i.e. generates sufficient level of new income relative to what it extracts), but the absolute impact on DfT (during the current industry post-Covid funding pressures) is deemed too high.

Yes I thought that was quite interesting! It suggested to me that if it wasn't for Covid-19 they might have approved it.

Ianno87 · 10 Feb 2021

ainsworth74 said:
Yes I thought that was quite interesting! It suggested to me that if it wasn't for Covid-19 they might have approved it.

Yes, my reading too. Deemed not acceptable to impact government finances when they are already highly constrained due to Covid and loss of passenger revenue etc.

Watershed · 10 Feb 2021

ainsworth74 said:
In a move which I doubt would surprise anyone, the ORR have rejected the application:

Full details can be found in the letter sent by the ORR here.

It's actually somewhat surprising - the application wasn't rejected for being operationally impractical, or even for being too abstractive in relative terms (the calculated NPA was 0.45:1, which is a good deal higher than most other OA proposals).

It appears that they rejected it predominantly for taking too much absolute revenue away from GWR. On the basis of that test, if a service of 'just' 6 trains per day is too abstractive, it's difficult to imagine how any other OA passenger proposals can be approved in the current circumstances.

This appears to make it even harder to justify having separate management of the tracks and trains - if you can't even have OA competition.

Roast Veg · 10 Feb 2021

Only rejected on the basis that the SoS will lose out on £30m. Otherwise it might have been accepted it seems.

LNW-GW Joint · 10 Feb 2021

Watershed said:
This appears to make it even harder to justify having separate management of the tracks and trains - if you can't even have OA competition.

Freight is effectively open access, and relies on the level playing field regulated by ORR.
There are also other franchise operators on GWR's patch, at least for the time being.
There will also now be two public owners on a cross-border route.

Watershed · 10 Feb 2021

LNW-GW Joint said:
Freight is effectively open access, and relies on the level playing field regulated by ORR.
There are also other franchise operators on GWR's patch, at least for the time being.
There will also now be two public owners on a cross-border route.

Freight is, frankly, small fry compared to the passenger market. Most freight operations are only "profitable" because they have heavily subsidised access to the network. This really shouldn't be the tail that wags the dog.

Ianno87 · 10 Feb 2021

Watershed said:
Freight is, frankly, small fry compared to the passenger market. Most freight operations are only "profitable" because they have heavily subsidised access to the network. This really shouldn't be the tail that wags the dog.

Depends how you value freight. The congestion / environmental benefits of removing lorries from long distance roads are arguably considerable, and justify such a subsidy.

ainsworth74 · 10 Feb 2021

Watershed said:
It's actually somewhat surprising - the application wasn't rejected for being operationally impractical, or even for being too abstractive in relative terms (the calculated NPA was 0.45:1, which is a good deal higher than most other OA proposals).

Yes, my initial response was before reading the actual letter so you can imagine my surprise when I then later got to the section on NPA and it was well above the level of 0.3:1 and that there were concerns raised regarding capacity but that overall they were considered to be manageable!

Watershed said:
It appears that they rejected it predominantly for taking too much absolute revenue away from GWR. On the basis of that test, if a service of 'just' 6 trains per day is too abstractive, it's difficult to imagine how any other OA passenger proposals can be approved in the current circumstances.

Indeed, though I think it would be brave individual who tried to bid for paths for a new OAO in the current climate anyway. I can't imagine that the ORR will hold this view in the long term unless the collapse in wider railway revenue is both significant and permanent (neither of which I think we can be sure about right now).

Watershed said:
This appears to make it even harder to justify having separate management of the tracks and trains - if you can't even have OA competition.

Well quite, but I think that that might be taking us slightly off-topic

CapitalStar378 · 10 Feb 2021

A sad outcome for the passenger however, GWR's fares on the south Wales route have always been eye watering. An alternative would have been most welcome (as would a buffet!).

Wolfie · 10 Feb 2021

Watershed said:
It's actually somewhat surprising - the application wasn't rejected for being operationally impractical, or even for being too abstractive in relative terms (the calculated NPA was 0.45:1, which is a good deal higher than most other OA proposals).

It appears that they rejected it predominantly for taking too much absolute revenue away from GWR. On the basis of that test, if a service of 'just' 6 trains per day is too abstractive, it's difficult to imagine how any other OA passenger proposals can be approved in the current circumstances.

This appears to make it even harder to justify having separate management of the tracks and trains - if you can't even have OA competition.

Interesting. So it met the criteria which have previously been applied but was then still rejected. I wouldn't be wholly surprised if they consider an application for judicial review.

northernbelle · 10 Feb 2021

CapitalStar378 said:
A sad outcome for the passenger however, GWR's fares on the south Wales route have always been eye watering. An alternative would have been most welcome (as would a buffet!).

I see what you're saying, but the response identifies the potential impact on the sustainability of other services, along with the potential impact on train service performance as an unacceptable outcome for many other passengers.

Parallel · 10 Feb 2021

ainsworth74 said:
Yes I thought that was quite interesting! It suggested to me that if it wasn't for Covid-19 they might have approved it.

That surprised me too. I would’ve thought it would have been rejected based on it effectively paralleling GWR’s route. I thought if they had run to Marylebone or Waterloo (or even Paddington) via a different route would make it more likely to be approved as would have been less abstractive, but apparently not!

Rhydgaled · 10 Feb 2021

Is there a topic for Grand Union's proposed services to Stirling (I assume a similar conclusion)?

swt_passenger · 10 Feb 2021

Rhydgaled said:
Is there a topic for Grand Union's proposed services to Stirling (I assume a similar conclusion)?

Yes there is, it’s currently a closed thread pending any news.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/grand-union-trains-london-euston-to-stirling-from-may-2021.190237/

tiptoptaff · 10 Feb 2021

Just seen on twitter someone complain about the decision, and attached was a livery sample with TfW branding.

Did the WG have a hand in this operation? And could that have influenced the outcome? Looking too much like a franchise over-reaching using an OA proxy?

popeter45 · 10 Feb 2021

that is a shame
would love to see some OA on the GWML some day thou, i do wonder if after Covid if any kind of tweek would make this proposal more palitable to ORR?

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

Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member