Barnstaple to Exeter overcrowding, September 2026

[whole diary]

[REVUpminster]

You invest to get a return, but GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) see no return in the South West but are prepared to ride on the backs of others. Taxpayers, Stakeholders, third parties.

Some more passing loops and increased services would give them more passengers, more revenue.

This applies to SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) as well. They were under the same umbrella once long before nationalisation.

They just don't seem to see what is happening to a city like Exeter which has become a hub for most of Devon, Somerset, and Dorset.

[grahame]

You invest to get a return, but GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) see no return in the South West but are prepared to ride on the backs of others. Taxpayers, Stakeholders, third parties.

But then that is the very way the system has been designed to work. 

* The operator has been able to invest his own money if he wishes and can see a return to him on that.  And we've seen that done on longer franchises such as Chiltern in its earlier phases.

* The local authority or wider taxpayers can invest is they get a return in a more buoyant local economy - more local business, more local tax, etc

* Third parties can invest if they get a business return - for example a developer building a new station at Bristol Brabazon or Cranbrook to be able to turn open countryside or a derelict site into more valuable land for houses.

I've seen it suggested in Devon / current topic that the movement of 6th form education from across North Devon into Exeter has lead to a rather significant rise in train (wannabe) or bus (oops!) traffic from Barnstaple, and because that's where the rise came from, the funding should come from the educators.    Who knows - perhaps the 175 program that's not (it seems) gone as planned HAS been partly funded by the education department?

[eightonedee]

You invest to get a return, but GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) see no return in the South West but are prepared to ride on the backs of others. Taxpayers, Stakeholders, third parties.

Some more passing loops and increased services would give them more passengers, more revenue

But surely the infrastructure elements are the responsibility of Network Rail, and funded by them (ie. us!). Coincidentally, today is the 25th anniversary of the announcement of the intention to take Railtrack back into public ownership on "a very good day to get out anything we want to bury".

The current rolling stock crisis has also been precipitated by the Government's order to GWR to reduce its leasing commitments, resulting in the cancellation of the class 769 programme (although may simply have been a trial run for the current problems with the 175s) and reduction in its fleet, and the Government decision to curtail the Oxford and Bristol electrification, so that GWR have ended up operating a reduced Electrostar fleet and retaining Turbos^▸ (Class 165 and 166 trains used on Thames Valley services) in the Thames Valley.

There's still every reason to criticise aspects of GWR's performance, notably the inconsistent standard of passenger information as constantly highlighted by posts on this forum. But we do need to bear in mind that First Group/GWR primarily have (and have had since 2022) a time limited management contract. It is unreasonable to expect any substantial capital investment from them, and its not their responsibility when it comes to track and fixed infrastructure. Hopefully when GBR^▸ (Great British Railways) is one unified body this might help, but comments such as DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) waiting to see the outcome of the procurement of rolling stock in Scotland before undertaking further procurement, and that the new Trans-Pennine battery trains are due to enter service in 2034 do not give hope of an early improvement.

[REVUpminster]

Railtrack seem to spend all their money on renewals, but if someone pays them to build a passing loop such as Newquay branch they will do it. If GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)/First Group paid them (it's what shareholders money is for) they would build. We might have had more loops in Devon, Cornwall, and Somerset.

GWR are not interested in the Southwest unless dragged screaming and kicking by third parties. It's just a loss l(fee)ader for the main line.

[grahame]

Railtrack seem to spend all their money on renewals, but if someone pays them to build a passing loop such as Newquay branch they will do it. If GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)/First Group paid them (it's what shareholders money is for) they would build. We might have had more loops in Devon, Cornwall, and Somerset.

GWR are not interested in the Southwest unless dragged screaming and kicking by third parties. It's just a loss l(fee)ader for the main line.

Shareholder's money (and that's, perhaps, your and my pension pots) is there son that it can be an engine for the company to invest and provide more money over time as value and dividends.  Where there's only a short time before a cutoff after which the gains from investment won't come to your shareholders then, yes, the company won't build. 

The temptation must be to use their resources (including income from operation) to build for the longer term, which perhaps means vibrant markets from London to Carmarthen (from Paddington), Stirling (from Euston) and Hull and Edinburgh (from Kings Cross) where there is potential for significant ongoing healthy income without the need to support loss-leader service and trains line the - perhaps - 04:57 Plymouth to Gunnislake.

There's a further temptation when doing stuff that will last longer term for others to do so at as high a price as can be reasonably charged to increase the shareholder benefit, and where there's a resource shortage to auction it to the highest bidder.  That's the way it's designed to work, and that ripples down too so that other suppliers *to* GWR can also charge a market rate for scarcity resources, and not what it really costs.

As Webmaster, I should point out these are my own musings and do not suggest a forum's view on the system.


Now - take a local or regional train from ... Par to Newquay, Bristol to Portishead, Swindon to Westbury, Exeter to Barnstaple or any other non-intercity route.   
* It's shorter than a London to Plymouth train so it needs more staff per passenger carried
* The fares per mile are typically regulated lower
* The miles are covered slower, so the "take" per seat per minute is less, even at the same mileage route
* The route is shorter so there are more turn around times when the train is idle
* They are commuter-y routes with a much sharper peak than the intercity stuff
* Flows tend to be one way in the morning and back in the evening - no revenue one way even in peaks
* Higher proportion of unpaid fares / fewer barriers and shorter time to engage with people

Many of these may not be very significant on some lines, but compounded that make an order of magnitude difference.

Edit to add another reason that intercity trains are so much more lucrative for the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company)

[ChrisB]

It will also be interesting to see what happens to First Group-owned assets currently being used by GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)....don't they own some of the 803xxx IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train - replacement for HSTs (manufactured by Hitachi in Kobe, Japan)) for example? I've been told that they're staying in the train plan after Dec 13th, by someone who possibly is high enough to have heard....

[grahame]

It will also be interesting to see what happens to First Group-owned assets currently being used by GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)....don't they own some of the 803xxx IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train - replacement for HSTs (manufactured by Hitachi in Kobe, Japan)) for example? I've been told that they're staying in the train plan after Dec 13th, by someone who possibly is high enough to have heard....

First Group becomes a RoSCo ... supplying to the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s companies.  The old rule about not being both the operator and the owner of the stock (for the most part) goes away when the company is no longer the operator, and First Group open access operators could take a commercial decision to have a portfolio of rolling stock in excess of their needs and hire the rest out to the HMG operators.

[John D]

It will also be interesting to see what happens to First Group-owned assets currently being used by GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)....don't they own some of the 803xxx IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train - replacement for HSTs (manufactured by Hitachi in Kobe, Japan)) for example? I've been told that they're staying in the train plan after Dec 13th, by someone who possibly is high enough to have heard....

Presumably they will be able to lease them out at very high rates to the new operator.   Train leasing where there is no alternative fleet is very lucrative.   Confirmed by some of the very expensive lease extensions that have happened in recent years.    

It's not a competitive market, it's take it (the high price) or go without, and without a decent pool of universal alternatives, pay up seems to be DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) default short term option.

[TaplowGreen]

It will also be interesting to see what happens to First Group-owned assets currently being used by GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)....don't they own some of the 803xxx IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train - replacement for HSTs (manufactured by Hitachi in Kobe, Japan)) for example? I've been told that they're staying in the train plan after Dec 13th, by someone who possibly is high enough to have heard....

First Group becomes a RoSCo ... supplying to the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s companies.  The old rule about not being both the operator and the owner of the stock (for the most part) goes away when the company is no longer the operator, and First Group open access operators could take a commercial decision to have a portfolio of rolling stock in excess of their needs and hire the rest out to the HMG operators.

A configuration of that nature has the potential to get very messy indeed, and this suggests "nationalisation" (in its true sense) is already unravelling.

[grahame]

A configuration of that nature has the potential to get very messy indeed, and this suggests "nationalisation" (in its true sense) is already unravelling.

In some ways, "nationalisation" could just be considered to be a change to one element of the system.  Freight operation, rolling stock provision and leasing, station buffets and I suspect advertising will remain private.  Fare systems such as regulated fares and Network Rail don't really change as they are nationalised anyway, and I suspect that cleaning and security contractors aren't being nationalised. On GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), the cleaning contract is with the OCS^▸ (One Control Switch) group and is reported to run until June 2027, for example.

[IndustryInsider]

It will also be interesting to see what happens to First Group-owned assets currently being used by GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)....don't they own some of the 803xxx IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train - replacement for HSTs (manufactured by Hitachi in Kobe, Japan)) for example? I've been told that they're staying in the train plan after Dec 13th, by someone who possibly is high enough to have heard....

There's no such thing as an 803xxx IET.  If you mean 8003xx then, no, I don't think they own any of them.

[grahame]

It will also be interesting to see what happens to First Group-owned assets currently being used by GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)....don't they own some of the 803xxx IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train - replacement for HSTs (manufactured by Hitachi in Kobe, Japan)) for example? I've been told that they're staying in the train plan after Dec 13th, by someone who possibly is high enough to have heard....

There's no such thing as an 803xxx IET.  If you mean 8003xx then, no, I don't think they own any of them.

It is incredibly opaque trying to work out who owns (as opposed to operates, or maintains) IET trains. A very old table https://www.railengineer.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Table-1-Hitachi-800-802-orders-V3-Avenir.pdf suggests ownership split between Eversholt, Angel Trains and Agility Trains.  WikiPedia (quotes below) - though it could be just loose words - suggests that Hitachi Rail will own new units to be delivered for open access enhancments in 2027; Hitachi Rail, as I understand it, are already a major player in Agility Trains.

Many other UK^▸ (United Kingdom) operators have bought Hitachi AT300 trains, including orders for Class 802 units by TransPennine Express (branded as Nova 1) and Hull Trains (branded as Paragon). East Midlands Railway have ordered Class 810 units (branded as Aurora), Lumo purchased Class 803 units and Avanti West Coast have ordered Class 805 and Class 807 units (branded as Evero)

In December 2024, Hitachi Rail stated in a press release that it had entered into a contract with FirstGroup and Angel Trains to lease 14 new five-car electric, battery-electric or bi-mode trains for First Rail's open-access operations, which will be manufactured at Newton Aycliffe, with their delivery expected to commence in late 2027. These trains will be used on a newly announced London-Carmarthen route, and to increase the number of carriages on the existing Lumo and Hull Trains services. The agreement includes an option to add 13 more trains to the order if more of First Rail's recently submitted open-access applications are successful.

First (group) did actually own a few of the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) - not sure which ones they were, whether they have been scrapped, sold, stored or are still owned and leased to Scotland, Nigeria or Mexico.

** image of that Rail Engineer table:

[Mark A]

See if you can land this article before it's edited to correct a reference to a 'Train from Braunton'.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c933k8eypknpo

[Chris from Nailsea]

I've got it. 

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

...

On a drizzly morning at Barnstaple station Sky, from Braunton, and her friend Sofia, from Westward Ho!, are not looking forward to the daily challenge of trying to get a seat on the 07:22 train service from Barnstaple to Exeter - known as the Tarka^▸ (Branch line from Barnstaple to Exeter) Line.

Sofia said: "My dad spent over £300 for a monthly term pass but then you're still being kicked off the train.  So you then just have to go onto the coach after spending that much money."  She added: "It's just a bit of a scam really."

Sky said she had to get a train from Braunton at 06:50 to get to Barnstaple in time for the connecting train.  She said: "Sometimes you get kicked off the train then you have to wait an hour for the next one."

 

[grahame]

I've got it. 

Sky said she had to get a train from Braunton at 06:50 to get to Barnstaple in time for the connecting train.  She said: "Sometimes you get kicked off the train then you have to wait an hour for the next one."

That would be a bus from Braunton to Barnstaple [Road/Junction] these days.

Looking back to 1965, there were trains from Braunton to Exeter at 07:23 and 08:28, with an extra from Barnstaple Junction at 07:05. They reached St David's at 08:10, 08:50 and 09:51.

By 1967, there was an 08:18 from Braunton into Exeter at 09:32 and the following train wasn't until 11:35.   There was an 06:50 from the Junction arriving in Exeter at 07:49

Today, no trains from Braunton.  From Barnstaple Junction at 06:25, 07:22 and 08:35 arriving St David's at 07:30, 08:35 and 09:43.