GWR accused of disrupting Wales-England train links

[whole diary]

[TaplowGreen]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c794pdy1jgjo

[grahame]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c794pdy1jgjo

From the article

Great Western Railway said the changes should not be "detrimental to existing services"

Great Western Railway has been accused by the Welsh government of trying to "disrupt" plans for new direct train services between west Wales and Bristol.

Transport for Wales (TfW^▸ (Transport for Wales)), which is owned by the Welsh government, wants the services from Milford Haven or Fishguard, in Pembrokeshire, to start before the end of the year.

It hopes to run two-hourly services from Monday to Saturday, with one beginning in Cardiff and the others in the west.

But Great Western Railway (GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)), which already runs Cardiff to Bristol trains, said the proposals would have a "significant effect" on its revenue.

Under the plans, passengers from west Wales could travel straight to Bristol Temple Meads without changing at Cardiff, as they currently need to do.

An interesting argument and position.  GWR has had an almost complete monopoly on South Wales to Bristol (and London) traffic got many years, and the monopoly was made complete when the daily Cross Country service was withdrawn.   

It has been natural to defend that monopoly, and I recall a side conversation with a senior DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) person who involved who indicated there were no plans - but that's a few years back - to change that.  Not an unexpected co-incidence of the DfT with GWR when you consider the same approach taken with the Bristol - West Wiltshire - Salisbury - London Waterloo service.   In both that case, and in a the case of a Bristol to West Wales service, there was and is a demand for a service that doesn't require people to change - at Cardiff, or at Salisbury.

And - yes - it perhaps affects revenue on the core (GWR) services.   But then a monopoly can provide a service that's less than ideal for the passengers, can't it?   If I want to go from Bristol to Carmarthen I have no choice but to changes at Cardiff at present (and maybe at Swansea too).  And I can understand GWR working still with the DfT, still looking to maximise revenue on a monopolistic service without having to complete with a Welsh service which for some sectors of the market would be very welcome.

Interesting to note from https://firstgreatwestern.info/BRI.html?limit=1500&sortby=0 some ticket sales counts
Bristol to Carmarthen - 8,000
Bristol to Swansea - 42,000
Bristol to Neath - 10,000
Bristol to Llanelli - 3,400
Filton Abbey Wood to Swansea - 1,250
All are there and back figures - so 8,000 is 4,000 eastbound and 4,000 westbound

[eXPassenger]

I see an interesting conundrum developing here.  One of the arguments pushing nationalisation is the different fare structures from different operators and the need to use a train run by the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) whose ticket you hold.  Hopefully GBR^▸ (Great British Railways) will rationalise this and passengers will be able to buy a ticket and use the next train (subject to time of day restrictions).

What will happen if GBR are running routes into Wales together with TfW^▸ (Transport for Wales).  Will there be revenue sharing or will passengers have to check that their ticket matches the train they are catching?

[REVUpminster]

Once GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) is nationalised, will the dispute over revenue be resolved between the Welsh government and English (British) government be resolved. I don't think so.

[Richard Fairhurst]

The Department for Transport has always instructed franchised train operators to object to new services, or service extensions, by non-franchised operators - because they (in theory) reduce the amount of money flowing back to DfT^» (Department for Transport - about). Remember way way back when Virgin's objections, at the behest of DfT, stopped Wrexham & Shropshire calling at Birmingham New Street.

What's different here is that the other operator is the Welsh Government, in the form of Transport for Wales. But it's the same principle there's always been.

[grahame]

The Department for Transport has always instructed franchised train operators to object to new services, or service extensions, by non-franchised operators - because they (in theory) reduce the amount of money flowing back to DfT^» (Department for Transport - about). Remember way way back when Virgin's objections, at the behest of DfT, stopped Wrexham & Shropshire calling at Birmingham New Street.

Sounds about right as to what happens.  But the theory is a crude one to be always applied.

First thought - open access license applications are supposed not to be primarily abstractive.  In other words to develop new markets.   And those new markets in many cases can help the older markets too.  Not Open Access, but the re-instated services from Oxford to Swindon and the west will abstract traffic from Oxford to Didcot locals and from trains heading west that call at Didcot.   But then many more people should make the journey from Oxford to Swindon and beyond, attracted by the new service - perhaps to the extent that many more people that before (rather than less) will do the "Didcot Dance" rather that waiting for the direct train which this year is only every 120 minutes.

I haven't data to say which way that balance goes in the case of Bristol to west of Cardiff, nor on the Oxford to Swindon example ... but I can tell you with some certainty that an extra service (whoever and however it's run) combed in with an every-2-hours Swindon to Westbury service run by GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) or GBR^▸ (Great British Railways) would (under the right conditions) increase the passenger numbers on the GWR/GBR service.     That may sound perverse, but analysis suggests that annual passenger journeys at Melksham (for example) would rise from around 70,000 to around 300,000 - in other words, twice the number of trains and each would be twice as busy..  I do need to qualify that; the service would truely need to be hourly (not two trains following each other closely then a long gap for the rest of the two hours), and the ticket system would need to be such that passengers could routinely get on the next train no matter who was running it (integrated fares).

[ChrisB]

First thought - open access license applications are supposed not to be primarily abstractive.  In other words to develop new markets.

In whose view? Yes to the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), not necessarily for the open access operator. There have been many requests whose obviously main reason was to extract from the franchisee.

   And those new markets in many cases can help the older markets too.  Not Open Access, but the re-instated services from Oxford to Swindon and the west will abstract traffic from Oxford to Didcot locals and from trains heading west that call at Didcot. 

Never a problem when they're both the same operator. GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) in this case, where all farebox goes back to the Treasury. Doesn't matter which farebox.

[Noggin]

Given that GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) will be back in public ownership later this year, it seems odd that they protested, other than under the instruction of someone senior at the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) or GBR^▸ (Great British Railways) who didn't want to be seen directly interfering. So perhaps there's some kind of English/Welsh railway turf war going on?

Of course the Welsh could have sweetened the deal/mixed up things by offering to rebuild and return services to Pilning station and contribute to electrification of the Filton Bank. Hard to object to that.

For their part, GWR could quietly whisper in the ears of AM's how direct trains will make it more convenient for those in West Wales to fly from Bristol instead of Cardiff. That might provoke a few reactions.

[TaplowGreen]

Given that GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) will be back in public ownership later this year, it seems odd that they protested, other than under the instruction of someone senior at the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) or GBR^▸ (Great British Railways) who didn't want to be seen directly interfering. So perhaps there's some kind of English/Welsh railway turf war going on?

That's what I thought too - odd for a zombie franchise to be rocking the boat in this way, unless as you say it's at the bidding of another organisation (..........and if senior people at GWR are hoping for a nice, taxpayer funded job going forwards with GBR, they are probably quite biddable to the right people just now!)

[grahame]

Given that GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) will be back in public ownership later this year, it seems odd that they protested, other than under the instruction of someone senior at the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) or GBR^▸ (Great British Railways) who didn't want to be seen directly interfering. So perhaps there's some kind of English/Welsh railway turf war going on?

That's what I thought too - odd for a zombie franchise to be rocking the boat in this way, unless as you say it's at the bidding of another organisation (..........and if senior people at GWR are hoping for a nice, taxpayer funded job going forwards with GBR, they are probably quite biddable to the right people just now!)

It is reported in the Bristol Post

Between Cardiff Central and Bristol Temple Meads they will call at Newport, Severn Tunnel Junction, Filton Abbey Wood, and Stapleton Road.

One train each way on weekdays and Saturday will additionally call at Bristol Parkway.

West of Cardiff the calling pattern will vary but will typically include Carmarthen, Pembrey and Burry Port, Llanelli, Gowerton, Swansea, Neath, Port Talbot Parkway, and Bridgend with most services originating from, or extending to, Fishguard Harbour or Milford Haven calling at all stations.

and in the Swansea Bay News on the Lumo proposals:

The route was first approved by the rail regulator in 2022 after a drawn-out battle with Great Western Railway, which operates its own south Wales to London Paddington services and had opposed the application. The original proposals were submitted by Grand Union Trains, which secured regulatory approval before selling its rights to the route to FirstGroup in 2024.

Lumo – FirstGroup’s open access train brand – will now operate the service, running five return journeys a day between Carmarthen and London Paddington. The service will call at Llanelli, Gowerton, Cardiff, Newport, Severn Tunnel Junction and Bristol Parkway.

Could it be that First's team at GWR also see an issue with more though services to England from west of Cardiff reducing income for First's team at Lumo ... on beyond 2026 ...

[ChrisB]

Given that GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) will be back in public ownership later this year, it seems odd that they protested, other than under the instruction of someone senior at the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) or GBR^▸ (Great British Railways) who didn't want to be seen directly interfering. So perhaps there's some kind of English/Welsh railway turf war going on?

Of course the Welsh could have sweetened the deal/mixed up things by offering to rebuild and return services to Pilning station and contribute to electrification of the Filton Bank. Hard to object to that.

For their part, GWR could quietly whisper in the ears of AM's how direct trains will make it more convenient for those in West Wales to fly from Bristol instead of Cardiff. That might provoke a few reactions.

Remember that the Welsh Government was their share of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) costs & this might be a way of achieving it....

[Noggin]

The route was first approved by the rail regulator in 2022 after a drawn-out battle with Great Western Railway, which operates its own south Wales to London Paddington services and had opposed the application. The original proposals were submitted by Grand Union Trains, which secured regulatory approval before selling its rights to the route to FirstGroup in 2024.

Lumo – FirstGroup’s open access train brand – will now operate the service, running five return journeys a day between Carmarthen and London Paddington. The service will call at Llanelli, Gowerton, Cardiff, Newport, Severn Tunnel Junction and Bristol Parkway.

Could it be that First's team at GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) also see an issue with more though services to England from west of Cardiff reducing income for First's team at Lumo ... on beyond 2026 ...

Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that one. The tangled we we weave eh?

[TaplowGreen]

.

Remember that the Welsh Government was their share of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) costs & this might be a way of achieving it....

They seem to be raising the stakes.............

https://streamlinefeed.co.ke/news/plaid-cymru-demands-historic-welsh-rail-devolution-in-fierce-westminster-railways-bill-debate

[IndustryInsider]

They seem to be raising the stakes.............

Goodness, there's so many incendiary phrases and words in that article that it could have been written by the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers)! 

[infoman]

Could any one explain what exactly TfW^▸ (Transport for Wales) want,I was under the impression that TfW was already in control of its trains in Wales and routes.