Great Western Coffee Shop

And now another one....
https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/40812/open-access-economic-equilibrium-test-oa-form-gut-2019-03-27.pdf

Must be something in the spring air :P

By my reckoning that would mean 12-13 trains each off peak hour running on the main lines between Reading and Paddington.  16-17 between Airport Junction and Paddington.

4 x Bristol
2 x South Wales
1 x Open access
1 x South Cotswolds
2 x North Cotswolds/Oxford
1 x West of England express
1 x West of England semi-fast (every other hour)
1 x Bedwyn

Enough to make me very doubtful that it will gain approval.

Yes, II, a bit of a challenge.  If I remember correctly the signalling allows for a 3 minute headway on the MAIN LINES but that assumes all trains have consistent acceleration and braking and inbetween travel at a consistent non-stop speed.

The fly in the ointment is HEATHROW EXPRESS which probably uses up two paths for each trip (due to the turnout speeds at Stockley Junction).  You only need to watch an up HEATHROW EXPRESS being routed to the UP MAIN by the signalling ARS system and completely stuffing the UP MAIN services running on clear signals tail to nose at 125mph, back to Maidenhead.  Completely destroys the service.

Then there are the OXFORDS that stop at Slough and the 95mph BEDWYNS ( although that will be eased once they become IETs).

No room for any contingency.  Perhaps the new service could use the RELIEF lines.... ::) :P

Or if they're really desperate there's always the SLOW lines?  :P

There may be other capacity issues further west too ...
* Didcot (or Foxhall Junction) to Swindon
* Swindon to Royal Wootton Bassett
* Area though Bristol Parkway
* We were also told of capacity / timetabling issues between Patchway and Severn Tunnel Junction

Indeed.  Not to mention platform availability at Cardiff and Paddington.  It would be nice to see the Class 91/Mk IV/DVT's continue in service as they've still got a lot of useful life in them, though compared with IETs they are painfully slow at accelerating, especially if they are staying at their current length of nine carriages, which will also likely cause capacity issues and difficulties pathing them on the GWML.

Potential SEWWEB Express?

Grand Union Trains. A company with one director, incorporated last year, with a share capital of £1.

That one director being serial open access-er Ian Yogurt Yeowart, previously behind Grand Central, Alliance Rail and associated enterprises.

They will also need to have replaced the bridge at Steventon or slowed down as per the 387's going to Swindon.

That seems to be a direct raid on GWR revenue, which I thought was not allowed for Open Access applications?  I hardly think calls at STJ would be enough of a difference to persuade the regulator that it wasn't. I'm surprised it doesn't mention calling at the Cardiff East station once open. That would then be a bit different as I suspect GWR won't want to.

Also, I would have thought they would be carrying a lot of fresh air, particularly outside the peak times. Maybe if they cut down to 6 coaches they would have better acceleration and be less empty, but even that is a lot of seats to fill.

If they alternate the calls at Severn Tunnel Junction with calls at a relocated Pilning Westgate station built to SEWWEB specifications, then we will fill those seats, while providing the difference for the regulator, and generating revenue that no-one can say GWR have been desperate to capture thus far.

Dont bet against us - Remember we've done it before on services that we were told would carry fresh air if they were provided.

Couple of other points.

They seem to be  proposing using 91s and Mark4s presumably  off the East Coast. Where will they be maintained?

I am reliably informed that the 91s are the most sluggish accelerating locos on the system how will they compete with IETs?

They won't.  See my post way above how Heathrow Express consumes the train paths.  Anyway, reading on another forum, the Class 91s and MK4s are 'shot to pieces' and would need major rebuilds, and isn't that why they are being replaced by IETs?.......

Don't get me wrong, though.  I'm all for new services but they do need to be practicible in their application.  Concentrate on filling the gaps elsewhere first, before trying to compete with an already established market.

That's rather unfair on the Class 91s themselves - you just try one without a heavy train hanging off its back (or front, in this case) end and see what it'll do. However, it is very much true of the IC225s and of electric LHCS in general. A big electric loco has both more power and less weight than a diesel one, and that limits its pulling power, however you measure it.

I'd not looked at 225s before, but assuming Wikipedia's numbers are even roughly right the effect is striking. My preferred figure of merit is the "weight fraction" - the fraction of the weight on powered axles. That, times the adhesion (friction coefficient) give you the maximum possible acceleration. Since adhesion is the same for all trains, it gives a direct comparison whatever number you assume - 0.1 is not unusual, and means that the following numbers are limiting accelerations in m/s²:
Cl 800: 0.6
HST: 0.33
IC225: 0.15

So sluggish? Yes. So what do you do? Not stop much (as intended for the ones kept on the ECML), and buy a good WSP (though they don't AFAICS have one for slip) or train your drivers to have a light touch. And keep your rails clean!

edit: to correct definition of figures

My reading is that the open access proposal has trains making a long non-stop from Bristol Parkway to Paddington.   And what's the best use of trains with a high top speed but poor acceleration?
Exactly  ;D  ;D

Bearing in mind the line from Parkway to Paddington is pretty straight most of the way .. (not like Boston to Skegness, for example) the need to recover from line speed restrictions will be limited too. Someone has thought it through.

Perhaps it is time for HEX to move to the reliefs... That's a vast amount of capacity  being used up by a short distance service that will be duplicated,  with fewer changes, by Crossrail.

My thoughts are: Will we need HE once CROSSRAIL starts?

Needed or not, I believe its franchise runs to 2023.

Wasn't the agreement for it to run (I don't think it is a franchise) extended by another five years or so last year when they announced that GWR would run the service.

Ah, but you see, CROSSRAIL (proper) may not start until then (well, the way its going at the moment, anyway) ;D

I'll put my cynics hat on and quitely leave the room (and this is not the place to discuss it anyway).

Yes - see this First Group Press Release (https://www.firstgroupplc.com/news-and-media/latest-news/2018/28-03-18a.aspx) from just over a year ago.

There's lots of informed comment over on londonreconnections.com on the role of Heathrow Express post-Crossrail. As I understand it, NR would like it to move to the reliefs, but HX has a contract to operate as per now and has resisted any changes. After a year or two of full Crossrail operation I suspect the picture will be clearer.

From Passenger Transport (http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2019/04/yeowart-plans-first-competition-for-gwr/)

Report today....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-48615464

Original press release:

Source: Grand Union Trains

An article in today's Bristol Post was helpfully illustrated with a photo of Bristol Temple Meads station which is, erm, not on the route Grand Union have applied for...

You missed the important part of the quote:



Also...

That'd be fun trying to board at Paddington, unless platform 1 is used

Or platforms 8 and 9.

The main problem that I can see is the electric loco blocking the line when the wires come down, as seems to occur regularly.
Whilst I don't think much of the downgraded internal fit out of the IETs, they do have the considerable merit of being able to proceed on diesel power if needed.

If this proposed service is to become a reality, perhaps it might be a good opportunity to trial a DVT with traction motors and a lithium battery ?
This would allow limited operation when the wires come down, and would also improve the acceleration.

Why would that be any different to the local electric units that now work in and out of Paddington?

And earlier someone said that the locos are sluggish.  I'm not sure why the application suggests 9 coach trains - I would have thought 6 or 7 would be more than enough (even with a buffet), and that would mean they could be a bit more sprightly. 

Alliance are due to start running services from Euston to Blackpool North in September this year, after 9 years of planning and one lapsed permission. It will be interesting to see how that goes.

My money’s on nothing whatsoever happening with that plan, because there’s no news of any confirmed rolling stock or staff training.

Paul

Which is what happened to the first effort - there were no Pendolinos. This time, they are planning to use Class 91s, but have had to drop some of the stops, because they are limited to 110 mph.

The local electric trains have caused a few notable blockages when the OHLE fails, at least the IETs can still proceed.

My suggestion of batteries and traction motors in an ex DVT would solve this problem AND improve acceleration.
With paths in short supply, it seems to me that longer trains are the war forward.

Longer trains mean more wear and tear as well as power use. Less frequent but longer would discourage some from using the train, but I agree in principle. Batteries are big and bulky, and could even need replacement before ever being needed - small diesel instead?

Battery technology has improved a lot in recent years.
I was proposing a battery not JUST for emergency use when the wires come down, but also for daily short term use in order to improve the acceleration rate.

Something like
Before leaving Paddington---------------battery 100% full
Accelerating away from Paddington-----15% used, now 85% full.
In reserve for acceleration after a signal check, another 15%.
In reserve for wires down, the remaining 70 to 85%.

En-route the battery would normally be at about 70 to 85%  but could be fully charged by regenerative braking.
At Cardiff fully charge the battery so that energy is available for improved acceleration.

Who would pay for the development costs?  Modifying DVT’s and then the 91s and carriages so they would be compatible would no doubt be expensive.  Beyond the means of a small Open Access Operator?

There is of course a company that specialises in fitting diesel engines and battery packs to formerly electric-only trains. Though a Class 91 + stock is a bit heavier than a D78...

It would in my view be reasonable for public money to be used, possibly via the research department of a university.
The DVTs would need significant work.
I do not believe that any modifications to the coaches would be needed, and only very minor modifications to the locomotives.

The use of batteries and traction motors in a former DVT is IMHO innovative enough to be publicly funded as a research project.

I missed this tread when it first hit the forum.

Filton Bank 4 tracking was a means of increasing capacity between Dr. Days Junction and Filton Junction/Abbey Wood where the 4 tracking ends. All as part of the MetroWest Project and which has noticeably improved the time keeping over the stretch. The 4 tracking ends at Filton Junction and a few hundred metres further on there is another junction, Patchway, with just two tracks to Severn Tunnel Junction with both a down and an up loop at Pilning. We are told that additional services can't be stopped at Pilning due to lack of paths through the Tunnel.

Moving on from Bristol Parkway we have the promise of an additional 2tph from Bristol TM via Parkway to London and the aspiration of an additional local 1/2 hourly service serving Yate and the Gloucester line. The cessation of the coal traffic from Avonmouth to Didcot has freed up some paths on the Badminton line but from Wotton Bassett to Swindon ? Grahame has aspirations for an hourly service for Melksham so onto Swindon.

With an hourly Cheltenham - Paddington service promised together with the 2 additional Bristols means that the defunct coal traffic paths have been gobbled up with these and also we are told that with the looming lack of paths Swindon - Didcot is the reason why a rejuvenated Bristol - Oxford service can't be introduced and this would have an impact on Go-ops open access operation which I have never considered to be 'a starter'.

Moving onto Didcot - Reading there may be available paths here, I'm not clued up enough on that section but on the section Reading - Paddington especially from Hayes / Airport Junction we are  told the lines are at near capacity and when the Liz line gets going proper that's it, full.

Paddington station is also claimed to be full and I have known times when Zulus making their way to Cardiff for an event at the MS or as its known now, PS, or other destinations west, their London departure and returning point being one of Victoria, Waterloo or Euston.

Has the shelf at the supermarket that NR uses been emptied of porkies and fresh supplies are awaited or has THIS Open Access Application seen the cessation of porkie production.

Honestly, people in high profile positions seem to think we, Joe Public, are all the proverbial village Idiots, but it's about becoming more common for us Joe Public to start calling the authorities 'bluff'.

Do I need my tin hat ?

It works fine over at King's Cross with Grand Central and Hill Trains, who both allow on board ticket sales without penalty. You just mention to the gateline staff that you're boarding a GC or HT service and you are let through.

And we all know how customer friendly Paddington gateline is. So I foresee no problems there... :P

This may have to be shortened to London to Pilning if the problems with Severn Tunnel electrification are not fixed. (Or more realistically they will switch to HSTs.)

From The BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-48992125)

Any new train service is to be welcomed but I do ask is there enough demand for more trains from South Wales to London, especially with GWR about to operate even more services from December.

In the past, whenever there’s been major disruption on the GW mainline, the first IC services that get pulled are the hourly Cardiff-London trains.

Maybe revenue apportionment between them and another operator will discourage GWR from doing that. After all, it would make far more sense for them to cancel the Oxford IC services first, direct Oxford passengers to Marylebone, and Slough and Reading ones to the stoppers, but then the money would, as I understand it, go to Chiltern.

When there’s a problem east of Reading, the Oxford-Paddington services are usually amongst the first to be cancelled, along with the Bedwyn-Paddington’s and, as mentioned, the Cardiff-Paddington’s.  They are the three least disruptive to lose.

I can see the two Bristol-Paddington fast trains via Parkway joining that list after they are introduced.

Just to be clear II - do these go entirely? If so, surely it would be better to start and terminate these services at Reading, so that passengers could change there. And does this mean those of us who use the stopping services lose them as well, or is it just the Inter Cities from these locations that go? If the former, even more strong case for stopping services to start and finish at Reading, so we do not lose a substantial proportion of our rail service

The Bedwyn’s usually start/terminate at Reading and the others cancelled throughout.  Oxford-Paddington still usually runs hourly as the trains from the Cotswold Line still run.  Stoppers generally run, but it depends where the problem is, which lines are affected and how badly they are affected.  GWR/Network Rail have various strategies depending on the problem.

Not sure if it's been mentioned before but I've heard a rumour that the Severn Tunnel is to be de-electrified.

IETs OK, Class 91 stymied.

This relates to the corrosion problems discovered in the tunnel on the overhead equipment only 4 years after installation. A solution is still being looked at but I've seen quotes here and in the general news media that suggest de-electrification is an option being looked at by the DfT.
I keep my hopes up here by having a lot more belief in the abilities of the railway engineering community than in the DfT.*

*Yes, it looks like an engineering issue was the cause of this but this tunnel apparently presented previously unencountered challenges due to it's unusual conditions.

Build a Second Severn Tunnel then, they did it for the bridge.

Oooo's gonna pay for it? ;D

Same as whats paying for HS2, the taxpayer.

Could a railway be cantilevered off the Prince of Wales bridge?

Ha ha ha!  ;D ;D ;D

Hang on, though - it could work. It might be easier to cantilever an extra lane of car traffic either side and lay track down the middle but...

Additionally, wouldn't a 2nd tunnel still have the same corrosion problems to resolve as the first one?

No, cos the new tunnel would be built learning the lessons of the original, digging it deeper for a start and lining it with concrete sections like the channel tunnel and other undersea tunnels on this planet of ours.

Isn't the current position that electric services to Cardiff will likely begin before the problems in the tunnel have been solved, rather than they are thinking of giving up on electrifying through it?  Although the impact on IET services might be negligible, I think it would be hugely embarrassing if Network Rail (and the company who supplied the kit) can't come up with a plan.

I wonder if it's practical to "waterproof" the tunnel roof in the leakiest sections?  If the water entered through the lower parts of the wall it presumably wouldn't be a problem.  About half the length of the tunnel isn't even under the Severn Estuary.

From Network Rail (https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/south-wales-passengers-urged-to-check-before-they-travel-as-electrification-work-continues) with my bolding:


Looks like passing through the Severn Tunnel on diesel after completion of the project is not an option.

From Transport Extra (https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/62305/grand-union-trains-plans-to-link-passengers-and-freight)


Article continues, mostly behind a paywall

Again from Transport Extra (https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/63080/dft-and-firstgroup-try-to-thwart-open-access-rail-plan) continuing behind a paywall (sorry, folks)

They were always going to weren’t they.

Is there really a market between London and Cardiff for a Open Access Operator with the increased level of service offered by GWR?

Love the abbreviation GUT.

What will an open access operator offer to the travelling public that GWR or any single operator doesn't already. There is only one sensible route from Cardiff to London. I've said it before but the general public only say I'm going by train, not I'm going by a specific TOC. When they get to the station they want the first train going to where they are going and don't want to wait for a specific company's train.

Exactly Reginald25. The only reason most people would know the actual name of a TOC is because of all the press they receive for offering such a poor service.

I can't see how there is capacity on the route now

A bit of competition would be excellent - may make GWR raise their game a bit?

Yes indeed.  Bring it on!  Though I don’t think it will be brought on sadly as the paths will be virtually impossible to find, and the business probably not there.  Though there’s marginally more chance of it happening than Go-Op!

This proposal originally touted impossible timings, didn’t it?  Perhaps we might have had another thread about it?

IIRC they reckoned they’d be 15 mins or so faster than GWR, but I suspect that was based on a spurious comparison with last years HST timetable.   Can’t actually see DfT allowing GWR IET services to be overtaken anyway...

Paul

It would be even great if one of these Open Access Operators opened a service that wasn't going to London, as those are the services that really need to be improved.

Quite. If there really is spare capacity,  then can we have the Didcot stops put back on Cardiff trains, to give better connections for Oxford; and bring back the direct Bristol to Oxford service, rather than duplicating existing services to London.

They already do - though within the franchise.  Superfasts overtaking other GWR IET services at Reading.



Agreed ... but government policy is all about London enhancements.  Came out loud and clear from Chris Heaton-Harris speaking at the GWR Stakeholder's briefing at Paddington a couple of months back.

Huge logic in 10 minute service Paddington - Reading - Didcot - Swindon. 2 onward to Bristol, 2 onward to South Wales, one onward to Cheltenham Spa, final one a 387 terminating at Swindon. Good path use, plenty of scope for decent Oxford connections.  Snag being that everyone would split their tickets!

Swindon to Oxford direct trains?  YES PLEASE ... and with Swindon being in "England's Economic Heartland" it makes huge sense with such trains carrying on to Bletchley, Bedford and Cambridge - but they can be instigated long before that line is re-opened.

From Business Live (https://www.business-live.co.uk/opinion-analysis/passengers-rails-south-wales-paddington-18560278)


I checked the date on the article, and it IS current in spite of the reference to "First Great Western" and the picture of an HST illustrating the article.

A long article carries on ... quotation from further down:


If TOCs move from a franchise to a management contract model, and get further rebuild support which I suspect they'll need over the next 18 months from September, it will be interesting to see how new open access operators might fit in.

Yes I spotted the reference to FGW too. Getting that kind of detail wrong is never a good sign in terms of an article's credibility.

I don't buy the argument that Hull Trains and Grand Central have resulted in the main East Coast operator raising its game. They are fairly niche markets which the main operator had chosen more or less to ignore, although the revenue raid at York in particular would be an annoyance. But they don't serve Leeds, Newcastle or Edinburgh, so are little more than a scratch in the side of its operation.

The road to Hull is paved with good intentions. I made the mistake of catching a Hull Trains service to Grantham once. It was an old dirty diesel train, absolutely packed despite being early afternoon. I came back on a nice electric zoomer, very nice, with a sort of buffet.

Hull Trains ditched the HSTs & 180s for 802s a few months before they suspended service, which they call 'Paragons' as it is the law that every operator of these have to call them something different. No buffet though, as always as a result of 'customer request' :) (for more seats).

It's nice to know that TOCs do respond to customer citicism of their rolling stock, although I must emphasise that I didn't offer an opinion on the buffet.

Hull trains is an open access operator and therefore not subject to DfT whims and control. Don't expect any conventional TOC to act similarly. The "boss" would not allow it

What a load of garbage!  Every TOC still calls the HST a HST.  The only reason TOC call their trains different names is to make them stand out and for corporate rubbish, quite frankly it's a stupid idea and they should just have a standard name for example IET instead of Azuma, Paragon etc.



As for the open access plan I doubt it's going to happen as most of the 91/Mk4 stock that hasn't already been taken up is scrapped or stripped down.

I never did make the transition from Marathon to Snickers.


I also doubt that it will happen, although I haven't chosen one specific reason.That said, as the existing open access operators started somewhere, nothing can be entirely ruled out.

Grand Union application has been rejected, basically because although it is workable, (6 of 7 return services can be pathed), and generates adequate new fare income, it still abstracts from DfT’s overall funds, and that isn’t acceptable in times of COVID service reductions etc, etc...

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-02/2021-02-10-gand-union-london-carmarthen-s17-decision-letter.pdf

Thanks for that, Paul. I have mirrored that document here (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/mirror/orr_grandunion_20210210.pdf) for members - see http://www.passenger.chat/24635 .  In this case, I expect the original URL may change soon when ORR notices it contains "gand" rather than "grand"  :D

No great surprise that it has been rejected.

Interesting what you learn from one 'case' to another ... if six paths were available all the way, it follows that six paths were available over the subset from Wootton Bassett to Didcot - potentially allowing the extension of something coming up from Chippenham into Swindon to be extended to Oxford ... whether you look at running frachise, central or local transport board contract, or open access ...

From RailAdvent - https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2022/10/grand-union-trains-submits-proposal-for-new-carmarthen-to-london-paddington-service.html

As a fairly regular Carmarthen to London traveller there just doesn't seem enough demand although I'm guessing it might be more to do with logistics and Swansea station perhaps. More (than the one currently anyway) direct services would be useful but its not something I ever found myself feeling I really needed.

I did quite a bit of work in the Swansea area, and the current Swansea station is very much downtown if you call it that - near the centre, and on a regional map not all that far from the sea.   Front the hinterland of south and west Wales, not an easy park and ride off the motorway - Port Talbot Parkway may be, but it is further east.  Llanshamlet and perhaps Skewen serve the area to the north of the city, but neither has an intercity service and local trains are below the attractive level when you add in a need to changes to get there from anywhere in England.   On that basis, a station at Felindre (just to the north of Morriston) with good access to and from the M4 and A4067 junction, and plenty of parking and a decent reliable train service to London at a decent price and good service and comfort on the train would be very attractive.

Open Access is about reaching the parts of travel other (Dft specified and supported) services don't reach, and there are also opportunities to be explored along this route for calls at Llangennech, Severn Tunnel Junction, Pilning, Hayes and Harlington and Ealing Broadway ... and I kinda wonder about Lawrence Hill and Oldfield Park when I'm in "Crayonist" mode, as well as stations for Cardiff, Newport and Reading and some of the other  town along the way.

To clarify that, the name "Felindre" has been used for proposals for a station at this location - but it's really in a no-persons-land between multiple places, and Felindre is a village some miles north, so really it's "Felindre Road" in best "Llanbister Road" tradition.

The application's been granted. Here's the ORR.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/search-news/regulator-approves-new-grand-union-train-service-carmarthen-london-paddington

"This decision supports more choice for passengers, new direct journey opportunities, more price competition, and new comfortable trains<snip>"

'Comfortable trains' is a bit of a self-troll, given that the DfT specced those IEP trains & seats, yes?

Mark

Picked up by the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-63819582 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-63819582)

It will make my life much easier from Carmarthen but still not something I felt I needed.

"...opens up the Great Western Main Line to competition for the first time."

What about GoAhead's Thames Trains before they were gobbled up by FirstGroup? GWML 'competition' on services between Paddington - Didcot and Oxford - Bristol TM.

Grand Union Trains: their web site:

http://www.granduniontrains.co.uk/ (http://www.granduniontrains.co.uk/)

Not to mention Heathrow Express.  ;)

Didn't someone else used to run trains from South Wales, and Bristol and Bath too, into London (Waterloo)?

Today's 07:25 from Carmarthen to Paddington not the best running as was 50 minutes down by Llanelli. Not that a GWR service will be in the position that they'd be able to short-notice divert via the Swansea avoiding line and claw back 20 minutes that way. Or, perhaps they could, as there's reports that they inadvertantly took some Paddington to Reading and Swindon passengers off to Bristol Parkway this morning.

Mark

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:W43705/2022-12-01/detailed#allox_id=0

Offtopic for this thread: it's so short sighted that the DfT forced the Waterloo trains to be axed rather than being developed. The railway would have been able to use them to contribute to the recovery in passenger numbers in the changed market that they face.

That late eighties/early nineties approach from the then Regional Railways and its descendents to develop inter-regional services is on record as having found its feet. A local example, the one from Portsmouth that picked up at Bath around 8:30 and headed off to Liverpool was busy, useful for a range of long distance trips and even avoided a stop at Newport, let alone a change. (For the present, a change at Newport onto the first off-peak in the direction of Crewe is a bit of a gamble, as it's often just two carriages). There needs to be a mechanism for the railway to revisit this.

To return to the thread subject, with Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire together having a population of over 300000, and many journeys by rail subject to poor connections at either Carmarthen or Swansea (or both), the new service can offer a slick saving of 20 minutes via the Swansea avoiding line, so it may well be able to grow the market for rail from West Wales. In the process it might well  abstract revenue not from GWR but from traffic flows on the M4. Though how the timetable for the new service will fit around GWR's sole up train from Carmarthen at 07:25: perhaps it will simply eat it for breakfast.

Mark

I hope it's a roaring success, like Lumo has been so far.

Worth a note of caution though in so much as we live in very turbulent times, and Grand Union's last successful application to run between Blackpool and Euston never quite made it to fruition as a result of the previous turbulent times of Covid.

I wonder what rolling stock GU will go for. Ambitious to have new build ready in time for December 2024. Suspect bimode Hitachi AT300 (Class 8xx) is most likely to be ordered.

Short term lease of Class 221 Super Voyagers (ex Avanti West Coast) or Class 222 Meridian (ex East Midlands Railway) for start up perhaps. Those fleets are both homeless next year, although they could go to CrossCountry. Another option for start up would be the delightful (*cough) and ever popular (*cough cough) Class 180s - also homeless next year.

Whatever is chosen short and long term obviously has to be 125mph capable.

NOOOOOOOO!  ;)

I know the 180 infamously had (has?) numerous faults, but………..At least on the 180 in 1st, the seats were very comfortable and there were curtains not blinds. Having said that a Thames Turbo 1st class seat beats an IET 1st class seat in my book for comfort.

If they do go for an 8XX rolling stock I do hope they don’t get the same Fainsa seats.

Wasn’t Euston <> Blackpool the Arriva backed Grand Central, not the “completely separate” open access operator now using the name Grand Union? 

It might be thought by some that the use of “Grand” was an attempt to sow confusion.

Paul

I wonder which is more ambitious: to get new rolling stock in two years or to be calling at an as yet unfinished station (Cardiff Parkway)?

...or indeed Cross Country between Reading and Banbury, or between Penzance or Paignton and Bristol!

According to the boss, GWR plan to increase the number of trains to Carmarthen and reinstate the Pembroke summer service next year.

Is that subject to DfT approval?

It would be interesting to examine the DfT thought processes involved.

Suggestion on WNXX was that the application was contingent on new build rolling stock, the only feasible solution in the timeframe is Hitachi with the obvious choice being to tack new vehicles onto the end of the 805 order.

Veering a little off topic, note that the Cross-Country franchise comes to an end in 2023 and the GWR Castles are going imminently, so might we see 805's being ordered for XC too?  

Nothing is done without that anymore!  ;)

Modern Railways saying the start date for Grand Union pushed back to end of 2027.

 https://www.modernrailways.com/article/gu-carmarthen-service-delayed#:~:text=Grand%20Union%20Carmarthen%20service%20delayed&text=In%20late%202022%20the%20Office,services%20to%20begin%20in%202025. (https://www.modernrailways.com/article/gu-carmarthen-service-delayed#:~:text=Grand%20Union%20Carmarthen%20service%20delayed&text=In%20late%202022%20the%20Office,services%20to%20begin%20in%202025.)

And GWR's maximum contract (if they get the additional 3 years) expires in 2028.

Oh dear.  Go-Op or Grand Central to launch first…place your bets please…all bets refunded if neither launches before 2050… ;)

I can't see Go-Op getting off the ground before 2100 frankly

A joint launch with HS2 could be on the cards?  ;)

Why not? It's only 1858 just now.

I've had a look at my copy of "Old Bore's Almanac" for the year 2100 and find:

 - new fares for rail passengers to be charged according to weight to reflect the strain being put on the network. The first 150 kg will be included in the standard fare, with £10 per kg per kilometre for the next 50 miles, and £20 per kg per km over 200 kg. Anyone complaining that the fares now cost an arm and a leg can leave them at the station.

 - Keith Richards will headline Glastonbury on Sunday night

 - Go-Op announce that they will start small, and a new shorter route will begin "soon", between Bedminster and Parson Street

 - the first attempt by Malaysian King and Emperor Marvin to charge an access fee for the Ashton Vale guided busway, following its 11th reconstruction, results in the withdrawal of the twice daily MetroBust service

 - England lose on penalties