Restrictions on new franchise names?

[ainsworth74]

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

Yes TfW was just crackers as the brand name for the actual operator. If they wanted something along those lines they'd have been far better going for something like Welsh Rail or Wales and Borders Railway.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

If there are all these restrictions in place now, surely the days of c2c have got to be numbered.

 

[eldomtom2]

As a side question, who actually holds the rights to historic railway company branding, logos, etc.? Presumably the rights went from the pre-grouping companies to the big four, and then on to BR, but what happened after privatization?

 

[ainsworth74]

As a side question, who actually holds the rights to historic railway company branding, logos, etc.? Presumably the rights went from the pre-grouping companies to the big four, and then on to BR, but what happened after privatization?

Still with the DfT hence why they can trot out LNER or LNWR without much difficulty.

 

[GrimShady]

Is there any need for the daft "Scotlands Railway" succeeding "ScotRail"?

ScotRail tells one everything you need to know.

 

[whhistle]

Is there any need for the daft "Scotlands Railway" succeeding "ScotRail"?

ScotRail tells one everything you need to know.

Nah, it'll be "Transport for Scotland" by then!

 

[Doctor Fegg]

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

Trains were branded as “Stagecoach SWT” in the first days of the franchise.

 

[Qwerty133]

If there are all these restrictions in place now, surely the days of c2c have got to be numbered.

I can't imagine that they'll be told to change name mid-franchise which gives them another decade. Beyond that I suppose it depends on what Trenitalia would want in return for giving up the rights to the name as by that point the name will have been in use for over 30 years and it would therefore make sense to continue using it if the franchise remains distinct.

 

[Meerkat]

London Thurrock & Southend would be descriptive and decent initials

 

[causton]

Still with the DfT hence why they can trot out LNER or LNWR without much difficulty.

I don't think anyone would use LNWR with WMT using LNR - would be too confusing!

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't think anyone would use LNWR with WMT using LNR - would be too confusing!

Sorry I meant LNR I'd forgotten that they'd dropped the W from the initials!

 

[thenorthern]

One thing to remember is when Franchises change hands its best to have a name that is similar to the previous TOC name than something completely different for example it went Thameslink > First Capital Connect > Thameslink which are not very similar to each other.

 

[scosutsut]

Is there any need for the daft "Scotlands Railway" succeeding "ScotRail"?

Agreed, and don't start me on the gaelic either. (Sorry if I offend any of the six people that speak the language...)

 

[Rail Blues]

Agreed, and don't start me on the gaelic either. (Sorry if I offend any of the six people that speak the language...)

About 60,000 actually, but hey don't let that get in the way of your blind prejudices.

 

[krus_aragon]

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

The Westminster Government specify and pay the Welsh Government to provide these services. They've also set limits on the numbers of cross-border paths/services that can be requested from Network rail without further permission, and a number of other conditions. These can be found in the Agency Agreement for devolving responsibility for letting the franchise.

 

[pdeaves]

This appears in the 2014 c2c franchise contract (https://assets.publishing.service.g...tachment_data/file/486697/essex-thameside.pdf):

The Franchisee shall, by the first anniversary of the Start Date, invest £xx [price redacted] (which shall include capital expenditure, operating expenditure and project management costs) in a refresh of the c2c brand. For the avoidance of doubt, such brand refresh will not include a change of the c2c logo.

This in the 2015 Northern contract (https://assets.publishing.service.g.../file/594494/northern-franchise-agreement.pdf)

“Northern Connect Brand” means a brand that is similar to, or in the same form as the following brand to be used for identifying and promoting the Northern Connect Passenger Services and Franchise Services in relation thereto:

followed by a given logo image; also

The Franchisee shall ensure that:
(a) except as otherwise agreed by the Secretary of State, any trading name that it adopts, from the Start Date and throughout the Franchise Term, for the purposes of the operation of the Franchise Services includes the name “North” or “Northern”

So it would appear that, in at least some cases, the DfT has some sort of say in the franchise name; the name is given if you are obliged to keep the same logo (c2c) or if you have to use certain words and a strongly suggested logo (Northern).

It seems there is no statement on company name in the 2015 FGW/GWR contract so it does not apply in all cases.

Perhaps the DfT lets operators use any old name until suddenly they go "ooh, that's a good one, we'll keep that from now on!"

 

[anamyd]

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.

The problem with Transport for Wales as a TOC brand is that Transport for Wales Rail Services is too long to say normally, TfW Rail is too short for everyone to know what it stands for, and Transport for Wales makes people think that the TOC is Transport for Wales itself, not contracted to "Rail Services" which is KeolisAmey Wales Cymru / Keolis Amey Operations. While an early introduction video mentioned the partnership with KeolisAmey, and the bottom of pages on tfwrail.wales and station CCTV signs state Keolis Amey Operations, it seems like Transport for Wales are otherwise being quiet about it. Even James Price refers to TfW Rail Services as "Transport for Wales" and "we", "us" and "our", even though he's the boss of not TfW Rail Services but rather Transport for Wales. Also, has anyone noticed that the "Delivering in Wales" section of KeolisAmey's website has been made broken - on both its English and (somewhat ironically remaining) Welsh language versions...? Although, there's now a "Transport for Wales" link at the bottom which intriguingly goes to tfw.gov.wales, not tfwrail.wales.

 

[anamyd]

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

It's actually London Northwestern Railway. Maybe they agree with you and didn't think they deserved the space and capital W

 

[anamyd]

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.

Will be interesting to see the Pendolinos (and *Super Voyagers*) in service with a non Virgin operator, in late 2019 or early 2020!

 

[anamyd]

Yes TfW was just crackers as the brand name for the actual operator. If they wanted something along those lines they'd have been far better going for something like Welsh Rail or Wales and Borders Railway.

How would they get across that it was them...? I think they chose Transport for Wales because they're a body contracting out to a TOC (KeolisAmey in this case) that wanted people to know it was them.

 

[anamyd]

London Thurrock & Southend would be descriptive and decent initials

Isn't it London Tilsbury & Southend...?

 

[thenorthern]

Will be interesting to see the Pendolinos in service with a non Virgin operator, in late 2019 or early 2020!

There is no reason why they won't as they aren't owned by Virgin Trains they are leased to them by Angel Trains.

 

[anamyd]

There is no reason why they won't as they aren't owned by Virgin Trains they are leased to them by Angel Trains.

exactly! This has already happened with the Voyagers and some of the "Super" Voyagers, nowadays with Arriva CrossCountry!

 

[transmanche]

The problem with Transport for Wales as a TOC brand is that Transport for Wales Rail Services is too long to say normally, TfW Rail is too short for everyone to know what it stands for, and Transport for Wales makes people think that the TOC is Transport for Wales itself, not contracted to "Rail Services" which is KeolisAmey Wales Cymru / Keolis Amey Operations.

I think you are over-complicating things.

Compare it with TfL Rail which is operated by MTR Corporation (Crossrail) Ltd. But passengers don't care about that. And why should they?

Everyone understands what TfL Rail means. There was no need to call it Transport for London Rail, so I'm not sure why you think TfW Rail would confuse passengers.

 

[anamyd]

I think you are over-complicating things.

Compare it with TfL Rail which is operated by MTR Corporation (Crossrail) Ltd. But passengers don't care about that. And why should they?

Everyone understands what TfL Rail means. There was no need to call it Transport for London Rail, so I'm not sure why you think TfW Rail would confuse passengers.

I wasn't thinking about TfL Rail but now you mention it, I see what you mean Although I do think that Transport for Wales is so new that people usually call it that, at least in spoken form, not so much TfW. TfL on the other hand has meant Transport for London for around 15 years or however long it's been!

 

[Meerkat]

Isn't it London Tilsbury & Southend...?

Yeah, but I was updating it for modern authorities!

 

[pdeaves]

Isn't it London Tilsbury & Southend...?

No, it was London, Tilbury & Southend

 

[anamyd]

No, it was London, Tilbury & Southend

and that

 

[anamyd]

Yeah, but I was updating it for modern authorities!

ah yes makes sense

 

[GrimShady]

About 60,000 actually, but hey don't let that get in the way of your blind prejudices.

He has a point though. 60,000 Vs 6,000,000 in Scotland doesn't in my book warrant it given that most of not all speak English and the majority are from the Islands and will rarely use the rail network.