Why are Great Northern and Thameslink separate brands?

[Tazi Hupefi]

I'm not sure if it was meant to be temporary, or if it was more the case that they weren't certain it was going to be permanent?

It was all temporary. Similarly to West Midlands Trains with their two distinct brands, the 3/4 x franchise components of GTR were deliberately designed to be easily severable with the minimum of expenditure. The plain livery etc wasn't intended to be the final position - but DfT/Govia didn't want highly identifiable, expensive, brand identities being developed only for it all to change shortly afterwards with the resultant confusion. Part of what is Great Northern would have gone into LNER.

 

[Mikey C]

Well originally GTR being brought together by the DfT was meant to be temporary for the large engineering works programme affecting the 4 areas (Southern, Thameslink, GN, GatEx) so that is partly why. It has now however been going on for 10 years and various events (Thameslink Programme, DOO strikes, Covid, the end to real 'franchising' and pending nationalisation) have all sort of combined into this 'temporary' brand going longer than many expected.

It's a slightly daft situation really, considering all the trains that have entered service in recent years, in various colourful liveries. The repaints across the SWR fleet. And when you consider the 707s which have had a complete change of livery from SWT red to Southeastern blue after transferring.

 

[yorkie]

It was all temporary.

But do you have any evidence that it was only ever intended to be temporary, rather than being a case of easy to reverse if it didn't go well?

 

[Horizon22]

But do you have any evidence that it was only ever intended to be temporary, rather than being a case of easy to reverse if it didn't go well?

GTR was always the intention of the DfT and was not planned to "reverse"; it was specifically done for the Thameslink Programme, GTR sponsored by them and was unique at the time of being a management contract not on the standard franchise terms. The branding is deliberately simple (and in many cases, grey) to allow easier (cheaper) repainting once the programme had come to an end and would then be refranchised. The contract was intended to run until 2021

That was of course the plan - bidding process would have probably started in late 2019 / early 2020 but of course this never happened. Internally GTR staff did talk about how it was unlikely to remain, but of course lots has changed since so we can never be absolutely certain and much of the DfT documentation about what was to occur post-2021 is not publicly accessible.

It was spoken about briefly in Parliament by then minister Chris Grayling: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/east-coast-rail-update

Mr Speaker I have already set out my plans to restructure the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise following the successful delivery of the Thameslink Programme.

I have indicated that we will separate it into 2 or more franchises after the end of the current contract in 2021. We have not yet reached a decision about how to operate Great Northern services.

However I have had initial discussions with the Mayor of London about the possibility of transferring some of these to the London Overground, as recommended by Chris Gibb in his report.

Any change would be subject to consultation. But there is also an operational case for integrating Great Northern services from Kings Cross into the new LNER operation, and this is an option that I am asking my officials and the new LNER route board to do feasibility work on.

 

[mathstrains19]

Ah yes but this is only because the core is closed so Thameslink is being routed into and terminating at Kings Cross.

Normally, the Cambridge, Ely, Peterborough and Kings Lynn services from KGX are all operated and branded Great Northern. So ordinarily no TL services originate or terminate there, in normal hours (there's an odd TL starter at 05:32 and terminator at 23:59 tomorrow for example).

There are some 700 operated services to CBG PBO ELY KLN but they're stated as GN operated. The trains clearly have a Thameslink logo on the side. An example the 08:12 to Ely, operated by GN but with a 700.

There was a 2-3 year period (when the Cambridge semifasts first became Brighton TL services), that the Cambridge stoppers became 700/0s and also became operated and branded Thameslink. This is because they were eventually supposed to run to Maidstone, but this plan has been permanently abandoned. At that point (May 2022 or 2023, I forget which) the Cambridge stoppers were rebranded Great Northern again and the 387 diagrams were modified to mostly interwork Cambridge to London stopper/London to King's Lynn services.

As far as I'm aware, most of Sunday's PBO services (which all go into KGX) are Thameslink. The only GN's are, like Monday-Saturday, the "peak" extras - which on a Sunday are exactly half an hour between the main service. On a Sunday, you can get a 387 or a 700 (though more likely 700) on any of those services.

 

[Royston Vasey]

As far as I'm aware, most of Sunday's PBO services (which all go into KGX) are Thameslink. The only GN's are, like Monday-Saturday, the "peak" extras - which on a Sunday are exactly half an hour between the main service. On a Sunday, you can get a 387 or a 700 (though more likely 700) on any of those services.

The Peterborough to Horsham doesn't run on Sundays so this is effectively a rerouting into Kings Cross as well, and they've left the branding as-is.

It's not a clean split still (peak extras being GN and stock lottery as you suggest) and I'm not defending it or claiming it makes perfect sense!

I'm not sure how permanent this Sunday service pattern is, others will know. The Cambridge to Brighton is not similarly curtailed.

 

[The exile]

Whatever the logic behind it, faffing around with it in isolation now (when there are clearly going to be major changes in the short to medium term) would just be a waste of time and money. “This doesn’t need to be the case” is very different from “This needs not to be the case”.
As far as liveries are concerned, I think TL has only ever managed one livery that wasn’t dull, a mess or both.

 

[Transilien]

It’s surprising that Southern have never changed their branding considering their reputation amongst passengers! It’s interesting that that livery is the only one still in use that was applied to slam door trains.

 

[The exile]

It’s interesting that that livery is the only one still in use that was applied to slam door trains.

Know what you mean - but there were plenty of HSTs in service in GW green - they were “slam-door” trains as well (indeed isn’t the Night Riviera stock still slam-door?)

 

[Transilien]

Know what you mean - but there were plenty of HSTs in service in GW green - they were “slam-door” trains as well (indeed isn’t the Night Riviera stock still slam-door?)

I should have specified MK1 stock.

 

[Minstral25]

It’s surprising that Southern have never changed their branding considering their reputation amongst passengers! It’s interesting that that livery is the only one still in use that was applied to slam door trains.

If I recall correctly, there was only one set of slam door stock painted green as a token gesture before they were phased out.

But do you have any evidence that it was only ever intended to be temporary, rather than being a case of easy to reverse if it didn't go well?

I don't have time to go through all my stakeholder information from 2015-18 but it was mentioned many times that the grouping was intended as temporary. I also remember commenting that I didn't think it would ever get broken up again.

 

[GatwickDepress]

If I recall correctly, there was only one set of slam door stock painted green as a token gesture before they were phased out.

A handful of CIGs and one VEP were repainted into Southern, if I recall. One of the slammer boffins will correct me, I'm sure.

 

[norbitonflyer]

A handful of CIGs and one VEP were repainted into Southern, if I recall. One of the slammer boffins will correct me, I'm sure.

 

[MikeWM]

No-one ever really worked out what to do with the Ely/Kings Lynn services - it would be hard to justify a separate franchise just for them (!), but the idea of attaching them to the East Coast franchise always seemed rather a case of 'we have no better ideas' rather than something that really made sense. With the Cambridge slows going to Maidstone (and hence being Thameslink) and possibly the inners going to TfL, that's all GN would have had left by now, if things had 'gone to plan'. Of course things did not go to plan...

I agree the situation is a bit odd, but I'm not sure what can sensibly be done about it. I suppose you could do a reverse WAGN breakup and give them to Greater Anglia?

 

[mathstrains19]

The Peterborough to Horsham doesn't run on Sundays so this is effectively a rerouting into Kings Cross as well, and they've left the branding as-is.

It's not a clean split still (peak extras being GN and stock lottery as you suggest) and I'm not defending it or claiming it makes perfect sense!

I'm not sure how permanent this Sunday service pattern is, others will know. The Cambridge to Brighton is not similarly curtailed.

Yeah that is true, it's a rerouting (albeit one that has continue for over 6 years now!). Regarding the permanence, in May 2018 we were supposed to get through to HRH all days of the week, but that was completely reverted with the interim timetable. We got Monday-Friday sometime after that, with Saturdays coming in a bit later. Sundays haven't changed in the 5+ years since we got Saturday, so feels pretty permanent.

 

[bramling]

No-one ever really worked out what to do with the Ely/Kings Lynn services - it would be hard to justify a separate franchise just for them (!), but the idea of attaching them to the East Coast franchise always seemed rather a case of 'we have no better ideas' rather than something that really made sense. With the Cambridge slows going to Maidstone (and hence being Thameslink) and possibly the inners going to TfL, that's all GN would have had left by now, if things had 'gone to plan'. Of course things did not go to plan...

I agree the situation is a bit odd, but I'm not sure what can sensibly be done about it. I suppose you could do a reverse WAGN breakup and give them to Greater Anglia?

It will be interesting to see what the GN fleet situation looks like in another 5 years. One wonders if the “GN” fleet will be entirely 387 + 379, with 700s working solely TL core services (with just a few outliers at the start and end of the day). It wouldn’t do any harm to deploy the surplus 700/0s on SN inner-suburban routes where there high capacity would be more valuable, especially as all SN’s metro routes are currently worked by 377s which aren’t exactly ideally suited.

 

[Somewhere]

I'm not sure if it was meant to be temporary, or if it was more the case that they weren't certain it was going to be permanent?

Southern/GX and Thameslink/GN were combined to get the Thameslink project through. It was always the intention to split them up again afterwards. That's why there's separate T&Cs for Southern staff and GN/Thameslink staff, with only head office functions combined.
As another poster has stated, external events have caused the situation to be extended into more of a permanent situation

 

[yorkie]

Southern/GX and Thameslink/GN were combined to get the Thameslink project through. It was always the intention to split them up again afterwards...

I've seen people say this, but is it actually documented anywhere that this was "always" the intention? And if so, at what point did it cease to be the case?

My understanding is that they were allowing provision for them to be split, if the merger didn't work well.

That's why there's separate T&Cs for Southern staff and GN/Thameslink staff

By that logic, someone could argue that Northern was intended to be separated

with only head office functions combined.

GTR is more coherently operating as one company than Northern does!

As another poster has stated, external events have caused the situation to be extended into more of a permanent situation

I'm still not convinced and haven't been shown evidence that it was "always" the case that they were to be separated, rather than a case of allowing provision and a "see how it works" approach, which - ultimately - is what we got, and it has been proven that it does work.

 

[Somewhere]

I've seen people say this, but is it actually documented anywhere that this was "always" the intention? And if so, at what point did it cease to be the case?

GTR is more coherently operating as one company than Northern does!

I'm sure you're aware that GTR aren't ones for providing evidence!
And the reason it appears to be operating as one company, is because it has cut costs back so much, there's no one left to work out where all the missing money has gone

 

[yorkie]

I'm sure you're aware that GTR aren't ones for providing evidence!

I had assumed you were suggesting it was "always" the DfT's intention to split the franchise, rather than GTR's own intention to split themselves up

If it doesn't exist publicly, are you a DfT insider?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Ah, I'm 7 years old again.

It was all temporary. Similarly to West Midlands Trains with their two distinct brands, the 3/4 x franchise components of GTR were deliberately designed to be easily severable with the minimum of expenditure. The plain livery etc wasn't intended to be the final position - but DfT/Govia didn't want highly identifiable, expensive, brand identities being developed only for it all to change shortly afterwards with the resultant confusion. Part of what is Great Northern would have gone into LNER.

What would have gone to LNER? The Kings Lynn line? I think Cambridge would suit a proper intercity service again.

 

[Somewhere]

I had assumed you were suggesting it was "always" the DfT's intention to split the franchise, rather than GTR's own intention to split themselves up

If it doesn't exist publicly, are you a DfT insider?

Perhaps it was more of a 'leaving options open' type decision, rather than a definite. No, I'm not a DfT insider
I distinctly remember instructions at the time of the merger to keep both operations separate, but over time they've been merged together and I believe it's only really HR that's separate now.
And I'm sure the Southern logo copyright is actually owned by TfL, to muddy things even further

Ah, I'm 7 years old again.



What would have gone to LNER? The Kings Lynn line? I think Cambridge would suit a proper intercity service again.

I'm sure the Azumas were going to be cleared for King's Lynn (perhaps they are?)

 

[Transilien]

What would have gone to LNER? The Kings Lynn line? I think Cambridge would suit a proper intercity service again.

Would it be possible to divert some London-Leeds/Edinburgh services via Cambridge in that case? It could be useful for Cambridge to have more national connectivity as it is a growing place. There would be lots of long distance passengers bound for the university too.

 

[Somewhere]

Would it be possible to divert some London-Leeds/Edinburgh services via Cambridge in that case? It could be useful for Cambridge to have more national connectivity as it is a growing place. There would be lots of long distance passengers bound for the university too.

I think there were half-baked plans for Thameslink to be Thameslink, the Moorgate services to go to TfL, which would only have left the Kings Lynns - LNER would have made sense for those

 

[Transilien]

(There would need to be electrification between Ely and Peterborough though)

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder to please avoid straying into speculative territory in this particular thread please.

However, if anyone would like to create a spin-off thread in Speculative Discussion, you are very welcome to link to it from here!

 

[Horizon22]

I've seen people say this, but is it actually documented anywhere that this was "always" the intention? And if so, at what point did it cease to be the case?

My understanding is that they were allowing provision for them to be split, if the merger didn't work well.

I listed this above in post #34

You'd struggle to find documentation of this - seeing as how much of the effort was placed into making the merge - but my understanding is that it was "always" to split the TOCs up as Chris Grayling states on record in 2018 (and there might be earlier statements out there), 4 years after the new TSGN franchise started.

 

[bramling]

I think there were half-baked plans for Thameslink to be Thameslink, the Moorgate services to go to TfL, which would only have left the Kings Lynns - LNER would have made sense for those

It doesn’t really make operational sense for LNER to take these over. Apart from adding another TOC at Cambridge, and indeed sharing the whole route between Hitchin and Cambridge, it would add a layer of complexity during engineering work and disruption. As has been seen, the ability to inter-work between GN and TL has proved both useful and efficient.

Even if we have a situation of the Moorgate services going to TFL, this doesn’t mean that the Kings Lynn route *has* to be torn out of the TSGN franchise.

Indeed, were a split to occur it would probably make more sense to remove Southern from TSGN.

I listed this above in post #34

You'd struggle to find documentation of this - seeing as how much of the effort was placed into making the merge - but my understanding is that it was "always" to split the TOCs up as Chris Grayling states on record in 2018 (and there might be earlier statements out there), 4 years after the new TSGN franchise started.

Are we talking here that the intention was to split GN and TL, or TL/GN from SN/GX?

 

[Horizon22]

Are we talking here that the intention was to split GN and TL, or TL/GN from SN/GX?

Well even Grayling isn't sure in 2018! It's one thing stating that they were always going to be split up (@yorkie's point) but quite another to state how that would be done.

 

[yorkie]

I listed this above in post #34

You'd struggle to find documentation of this - seeing as how much of the effort was placed into making the merge - but my understanding is that it was "always" to split the TOCs up as Chris Grayling states on record in 2018 (and there might be earlier statements out there), 4 years after the new TSGN franchise started.

Well even Grayling isn't sure in 2018! It's one thing stating that they were always going to be split up (@yorkie's point) but quite another to state how that would be done.

OK thanks for providing this; I'll concede in that case that it was indeed Chris Grayling's intention to split GTR, along with a load of other stuff that - predictably - didn't happen!