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

[Iskra]

Are they banking on a massive claim against NR when they don't complete the promised electrification on time?

Otherwise this is just bonkers revenue abstraction.

 

[mp01]

I'm not supposing for a minute it will or should happen, but I can see several potential benefits:

1. I can't immediately find the proposed future GWR timetable, but IIRC correctly there was going to be one fast and one slowish train to Cardiff, so if this provides a second alternative fast train (which it looks as though it does by the station stops) that can't be a bad thing.
2. If it competes or betters on price, that's another good thing.
3. And a regular service from Severn Tunnel Junction (serving much of SE Wales) to Bristol Parkway (strong commuter flow (?) and fast links to the north) seems like a good thing too.

 

[dmncf]

It will not happen for varying reason but summed up in a few points.
1) Bar Severn Tunnel Jct the entire service is revenue abstractive.
2) Class 91 + 9 Mk.4 +DVT will not match future IET timetable thanks to IET's superior acceleration.
3) Very slim picking path wise between Bristol Parkway to London Paddington once the full IET timetable has been implemented.

Is the reason for the Severn Tunnel Junction stop so that the applicant can point to it and say 'we're providing a new service that the existing operator does not provide?'? Supported by photo opportunities with the local dignitaries of Severn Tunnel Junction?

 

[cle]

Well if they offer different service, experience and pricing - it's competition fair and square, like two airlines. True there aren't many other stations to call at.

Not a level playing field perhaps.. nor was BA having all the slots. Same legacy thing. But post-privatization, here we are, so let's see what happens.

Competition works great for Birmingham. Cardiff, and presumably Bristol once wired, are ripe markets for it. Loads of demand, including students, tourists, events - and business/BBC/govt too. Good luck to them.

 

[Suraggu]

Is the reason for the Severn Tunnel Junction stop so that the applicant can point to it and say 'we're providing a new service that the existing operator does not provide?'? Supported by photo opportunities with the local dignitaries of Severn Tunnel Junction?

One station will not convince the ORR fortunately.

 

[Mintona]

Too slow. 91s will not accelerate fast enough to keep out of the way of the increased IET timetable.

And Canton isn’t getting any wires so not sure how they will get the sets on and off there if that’s the maintenance plan.

 

[tbtc]

Standard Ian Yeowart, expect it to drag on for a couple of years and then die.

Given the seven figure costs of bidding for franchises that are quoted, how much money does Mr Yeowart spend on all of these speculative bids? (and, given that GC's long established Sunderland service took a long time to get anywhere near breaking even, how much money is being wasted on the off chance that a service can be set up to lose money for the first decade - whilst also making existing TOCs more subsidy dependent?)

It will not happen for varying reason but summed up in a few points.
1) Bar Severn Tunnel Jct the entire service is revenue abstractive.
2) Class 91 + 9 Mk.4 +DVT will not match future IET timetable thanks to IET's superior acceleration.
3) Very slim picking path wise between Bristol Parkway to London Paddington once the full IET timetable has been implemented.

I agree - I think @dmncf made a great point about the tokenism of the one "new" stop!

As for the part I've highlighted, when Bristol Parkway goes up to four/hour to Paddington (with Swindon getting seven/hour and Reading even more) I can't see the paths for anything new. It may be only a few services a day but in a world of clock face timetables those paths can't easily be used by other TOCs in the other hours)

I could see the argument for OA providing Hull/ Bradford/ Sunderland with regular London services but Blackpool and Cardiff don't justify this.

Is the reason for the Severn Tunnel Junction stop so that the applicant can point to it and say 'we're providing a new service that the existing operator does not provide?'? Supported by photo opportunities with the local dignitaries of Severn Tunnel Junction?

Nail. Head.

 

[Glenn1969]

Take it Ian Yeowart is now trying a different route after at least 10 rejections as GNER/GNWR/ Alliance Rail

Should he just give up or keep trying until something succeeds?

 

[ainsworth74]

Oh? Alliance have got another scheme in the works? Wake me up when they get Blackpool of the ground. You know that one that they actually got authorised (including quite impressive gymnastics from the ORR to get past the abstractive test) but still haven't gotten around starting operations yet and don't appear to be any closer to getting started.

Slightly more seriously it's hard to argue with what's been said by others. Pathing is surely going to be something of a nightmare once the full IEP timetable is in operation between London and Bristol Parkway. 91s with a full rake of Mk4s are going to get left for dust in acceleration stakes. Unless you either slim down the rake (yet another case of an OAO eating valuable paths with tiddly trains) or whack another 91 on instead of a DVT I'm not sure it's going to be possible to fit it in.

Though of course the elephant in the room is how on earth they intend to get past the abstraction test. Okay the test is 'not primarily abstractive' rather than 'doesn't abstract at all' but the only station where they're not going to be directly abstracting revenue from the GW franchise is by adding better links for Severn Tunnel Junction. But, with the greatest of respect to the good people of the Junction, I don't see that being sufficient overcome the requirements of the test.

This seems like it will surely be dead on arrival.

Though, even if by some miracle the ORR were to grant permission, if the Blackpool experience is anything to go on it won't happen anyway. We're now four years on from the initial award of the access rights from the ORR and a year beyond the expected commencement date and we're not particularly any closer to getting the service off the ground...

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

I wonder whether this is more to do with the rolling stock than anything else. Mark IV coaches are a valuable commodity - PRM compliant, power doors, retention tanks, 125mph capability. To date there have been some half hearted proposals to use them by franchised TOCs, such as MML with HST power cars, but only TfW have firm plans for the Cardiff-Holyhead route and only for a small number of vehicles.

Yeowart, on the other hand, has long recognised the value of MkIV as the Open Access operator’s used-vehicle of choice. It was the basis of his various WCML proposals. Is this perhaps one final Hail-Mary play to avoid losing them to a serious TOC proposal on a permanent basis, at which point his only real option will be to buy new rolling stock, which will kill most OA proposals anyway due to capital cost?

 

[ainsworth74]

which will kill most OA proposals anyway due to capital cost?

Most of his perhaps. First Group are proceeding with their own OA proposal on the ECML with an order for stock just the other week (as well as the new fleet for HT later this year).

 

[Ianno87]

The stated timings on the application form at both ends are to arrive at 20 past the hour, depart back at 35 past.

...so at Paddington that would mean heroic 15 minute turnarounds, or a platform-capacity chewing, stock-wasting 75 minutes.

Or that the proposed timetable is little more than a doodle on the back of an envelope.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Take it Ian Yeowart is now trying a different route after at least 10 rejections as GNER/GNWR/ Alliance Rail

Should he just give up or keep trying until something succeeds?

Isn’t the Blackpool-London Service the only one which got approval. I think I know what the ORR will say to this proposal.

 

[ainsworth74]

Isn’t the Blackpool-London Service the only one which got approval. I think I know what the ORR will say to this proposal.

Grand Central was his brain child as well to be fair.

 

[Class 170101]

Maintenance of the Mk4s could be easy enough at Canton.

No wires as far as I know planned here. Also Canton have nver maintained them before. Will be interesting to see how they fare once they start operating for TfW between Cardiff and Holyhead.

 

[CapitalStar378]

It may have legs if the proposal was from Cardiff Parkway (as long as it's built by then) as GWR aren't stopping there during this contract.

Would be good to have some competition for GWR, their advance fares are few and far between and their current standard off peak return is £81!

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Why Severn Tunnel Junction though? Was it a case of picking a random station that was on the route between Cardiff and London but not served by London trains. What is the point of this proposal?

 

[tiptoptaff]

Running 91s along the GWML would all but obliterate the new GWR December timetable (the highlights of which I've been able to enjoy reading this week as the indicative draft document got sent to my Exec) and after the money spent, the ORR and DfT are not in any way going to allow that to happen, or be at risk of happening.

STJ serves a relatively large conurbation, with direct London trains it'd serve the people of Magor, Caldicot, Chepstow, Sudbrook, Newbridge and Llanwern. Probably even Lydney and Forest of Dean There's a lot of Newport traffic that commutes in to Newport to catch the London. But, until some rather large developments spring up, filled by London commuters, it'll never quite be worth stopping London trains there regularly - otherwise GWR would have done by now. What it really needs is extra services to Bristol, as that's where most of its commuters go.

Canton won't get wired, so they can't be maintained there. It can't go beyond Cardiff as the wires will end there. There is no new market this serves.

A revenue grab that threatens the integrity of the GWML enhanced timetable. After the recent fiascoes, there is no appetite for anything that puts it at risk.

 

[Meole]

Price is everything to those paying their own fare.

 

[Antman]

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

I am on a oui sncf train (TER) out of Geneva at the moment. Three of us (2 adults one child) - 34 euros in total to Lyon. 1hr50 journey. Double decker emu. Clean enough. And very quiet. Got a train from Chambery today. 1.5hours. All three of us 22 euros. Again. Clean. The problem is a lack of intensive service. Trains are at two or four hourly intervals. Views beat the Kyle of Lochalsh line ...

 

[coppercapped]

It will not happen for varying reason but summed up in a few points.
1) Bar Severn Tunnel Jct the entire service is revenue abstractive.
2) Class 91 + 9 Mk.4 +DVT will not match future IET timetable thanks to IET's superior acceleration.
3) Very slim picking path wise between Bristol Parkway to London Paddington once the full IET timetable has been implemented.

Is this necessarily true?

1. The proposed service does not stop at Reading, Didcot or Swindon so there will be no abstraction of revenue from these stations.
2. If, as has been reported, the rules on Open Access may well be modified somewhat so that an OA operator pays not just the marginal costs of a path but the full costs, then does it matter if some of the revenue goes to an OA operator?
3. People complain about the 'Reading Commuter' clogging up the longer distance services. The proposed new service will give the longer distance travellers an alternative. What's not to like?
4. The westbound trains will make the first call at Bristol Parkway - apart from leaving Paddington their acceleration will not really be called into question.
5. The two places that eastbound trains might be disadvantaged are Didcot East Junction and if they are caught at Airport Junction at Hayes.
6. The last point is possibly valid - especially with conflicting movements at Didcot East Junction. But this needs grade separation anyway even without these extra trains.

Why is is that some people posting on this forum complain that on-rail competition doesn't really exist and yet when a proposal comes along it is dismissed as 'revenue abstractive'. I thought First Group wasn't among the favourite operators so why now defend it? What do people want?

 

[Lucan]

..... Supported by photo opportunities with the local dignitaries of Severn Tunnel Junction?

I cannot imagine Severn Tunnel Junction has anything like a local dignitary. Have you seen the place?

 

[Brissle Girl]

The indicative off peak departures from Paddington from Dec 19 (as reported elsewhere) are:-
00, 03, 07, 10, 15, 18, 20, 25, 30, 33, 37, 40, 45, 48, 50, 55 (those in bold are HEx, 20 and 50 call at Slough).

So where does an extra path come from?

Pathing, and almost totally revenue abstractive, seem to make this a non-starter. Don't forget GWR will be running two trains ph non stop to Bristol Parkway as well which this service would be seen to compete with.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If there is another path, a 12-car fast EMU running non-stop to Reading would be the best thing to do with it, not running extra services to Cardiff *not* serving Reading.

 

[Ianno87]

If there is another path, a 12-car fast EMU running non-stop to Reading would be the best thing to do with it, not running extra services to Cardiff *not* serving Reading.

In the peak for capacity I agree. Not off-peak, it would be commercial nonsense.

 

[Brissle Girl]

The timetable shown was off-peak. There may be an attempt to squeeze one or two more services in the peak hours already, though if these are not 125mph stock then that will constrain things further, even as far as Reading. But there needs to be some limited space for recovery, which already seems pretty minimal in the schedule quoted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The timetable shown was off-peak. There may be an attempt to squeeze one or two more services in the peak hours already, though if these are not 125mph stock then that will constrain things further, even as far as Reading. But there needs to be some limited space for recovery, which already seems pretty minimal in the schedule quoted.

91+Mk4 are 140mph capable, if we're talking of the OAO rather than GWR's EMUs.

 

[allaction]

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.

 

[Parallel]

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...

 

[ainsworth74]

91+Mk4 are 140mph capable, if we're talking of the OAO rather than GWR's EMUs.

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.