Wales & Borders Franchise Consultation

[Gareth Marston]

I have checked out whoever said we were down to two bidders and it's not true.

Nothing about a disqualification either. It's business as usual.

Much the same i.e it came from within Welsh Government was said to me by my source (who I have known a long time).

 

[Gareth Marston]

Well when the whole process is being carried out in top secret, with nothing but carefully worded press statements coming from Ken Skates, rumours will circulate.

Apparently, when the ITT is eventually released, it will only be circulated to the remaining bidders under a 'secret classification' and no info will be released into the public domain about it at all, right up until the franchise award announcement.

So that's another 5 months + for rumours and speculation.

Playing secret squirrel over something that should be fairly straightforward has not done anyone any favours. Either there's much needed improvement coming or there not that's what it boils down to. The culture of "avoidance of responsibility" is probably driving it they want the photo opportunity of a positive announcement but don't want to face the music for any criticism.

 

[northwichcat]

It was reported on another forum that Porterbrook have told the WG that something needs to be done immediately if they want the Pacers replaced by December 2019 but the politicians have said it's a problem for the franchise bidders to resolve not them.

 

[Gareth Marston]

It was reported on another forum that Porterbrook have told the WG that something needs to be done immediately if they want the Pacers replaced by December 2019 but the politicians have said it's a problem for the franchise bidders to resolve not them.

Culture of avoidance of repsonbility again. How many times has the issue been flagged to WG in the last 5 years?

 

[Parallel]

It was reported on another forum that Porterbrook have told the WG that something needs to be done immediately if they want the Pacers replaced by December 2019 but the politicians have said it's a problem for the franchise bidders to resolve not them.

Absolute shambles.

 

[CardiffKid]

ATW currently advertising a role on a fixed 18 month contract

https://arrivatrainswales-newsroom....l-apprentice-wanted-right-here-in-south-wales

 

[gareth950]

It was reported on another forum that Porterbrook have told the WG that something needs to be done immediately if they want the Pacers replaced by December 2019 but the politicians have said it's a problem for the franchise bidders to resolve not them.

That I firmly believe, they have given various Welsh Assembly and UK Parliamentary committees a number of warnings since 2013. The latest warning to the Infrastructure & Skills Assembly Committee in April was that it was already probably too late.

Which is why I was surprised that 319 Flex order was so small. To replace 30 x 2 car Pacer sets, 15 x 319 Flex's are needed for equivalent number of carriages.

 

[Chester1]

That I firmly believe, they have given various Welsh Assembly and UK Parliamentary committees a number of warnings since 2013. The latest warning to the Infrastructure & Skills Assembly Committee in April was that it was already probably too late.

Which is why I was surprised that 319 Flex order was so small. To replace 30 x 2 car Pacer sets, 15 x 319 Flex's are needed for equivalent number of carriages.

Perhaps due to cost? Or the worry that if a large fleet of 769s are introduced then the Valleys Lines will never be wired? There are 15 x 769s on order and it will take a while to convert them, perhaps there will be sufficient time for the winning bidder to order more before the 5th for Wales is completed?

Accounting for growth in passengers and opperational flexibility more than 15 would be need to replace the pacers. There are 31 x 319s currently off lease.

 

[daikilo]

Playing secret squirrel over something that should be fairly straightforward has not done anyone any favours. Either there's much needed improvement coming or there not that's what it boils down to. The culture of "avoidance of responsibility" is probably driving it they want the photo opportunity of a positive announcement but don't want to face the music for any criticism.

And what if at least one of the bids is not at all straight forward and possibly includes 3rd party commitments which cannot be made public. Indeed, why any bidder or the WG would want a discolsure of any parts of a bids is beyond me, unless it is to destabilise the agreed process.

 

[northwichcat]

ATW currently advertising a role on a fixed 18 month contract

https://arrivatrainswales-newsroom....l-apprentice-wanted-right-here-in-south-wales

That's an internship so it's possibly a government funded position.

 

[northwichcat]

Accounting for growth in passengers and opperational flexibility more than 15 would be need to replace the pacers. There are 31 x 319s currently off lease.

Plus there's some 153s that need sorting out.

 

[gareth950]

And what if at least one of the bids is not at all straight forward and possibly includes 3rd party commitments which cannot be made public. Indeed, why any bidder or the WG would want a discolsure of any parts of a bids is beyond me, unless it is to destabilise the agreed process.

This isn't about any details of bids being disclosed, obviously that can't happen. But not even the ITT is going to be made public for consultation with stakeholders, as is normal practice with DfT let franchises. The whole process is being carried out in top secret until the whole thing is awarded, with just a drip of press statements until then.

Even the Welsh Assembly Infrastructure & Skills Committee was heavily critical of the Welsh Govt for not making the ITT public.

This is taken from pages 17 - 18 of the Committee report, which can be found here: http://www.assembly.wales/laid documents/cr-ld11093/cr-ld11093-e.pdf

37. One way in which the Welsh Government could increase transparency in the process is by publishing its draft tender specification. At present, the plan is to only share this with the bidders. Given the inability of TfW to provide feedback on input from stakeholders, this means that the first detailed statement of what will be included in the specification will be the specification itself, which would not be subject to comment or amendment.

38. Simon Jones, the Welsh Government’s Director of Transport and ICT Infrastructure, explained:
“…these things are written in pretty arcane, contractual language and they’re not designed for public consumption. It sounds a terribly patronising thing to say, but they are contract documents. And I suppose we could spend an awful lot of time dealing with misconceptions that come out of the draft specification rather than focusing on trying to flush the process through, in order for us to get the right award at the end of this.”

Conclusion 5. The Committee understands that the dialogue process demands a certain degree of confidentiality. But, taking account of the wider engagement and consultation taking place this spring, it believes that publishing the draft specification would go a long way to reassuring the public – passengers and potential future passengers alike – that the process was leading to improved rail services.

Recommendation 3. The Welsh Government should publish a passenger-friendly summary of the key elements included in the draft specification document – particularly where these amount to changes from the Welsh Government’s original priorities – and also ensure that a summary of the final specification is published with sufficient detail to allow plans to be understood.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

All they need to do is publish the train service specification (normally an appendix or schedule in DfT ITTs) which WG/TfW is seeking.
Nothing confidential or legal-speak in that.
All we have currently is the assumption that services will be the same as now.
We don't even know if the contract award will actually be to deliver a particular specification for the franchise, or just another stage in the process.
It's possible that the "partner" will only then start work on a detailed plan, in conjunction with WG/TfW.
On the Metro, they can't possibly be at the stage where construction contracts can be let.
I view the current competition as being for a "frame agreement" with a supplier, rather than a specific delivery contract like DfT franchises.

 

[Gareth Marston]

This isn't about any details of bids being disclosed, obviously that can't happen. But not even the ITT is going to be made public for consultation with stakeholders, as is normal practice with DfT let franchises. The whole process is being carried out in top secret until the whole thing is awarded, with just a drip of press statements until then.

Even the Welsh Assembly Infrastructure & Skills Committee was heavily critical of the Welsh Govt for not making the ITT public.

This is taken from pages 17 - 18 of the Committee report, which can be found here: http://www.assembly.wales/laid documents/cr-ld11093/cr-ld11093-e.pdf

For those of us around at the time of the last franchise replacement ( I was with Rail Passenger Council Wales) a bitter taste is still in the mouth from the stitch up we were given by "Nanny knows best behind closed doors" SRA. The reasons given by the SRA for no growth was that they had run a model showing rail use was going to go into decline and we should be thankful there weren't cuts. I suspect the same **** wrote the DfT bi mode guff.

Of course the franchise agreement was blantley not fit for purpose before the ink was dry on it and has held back the economy of Wales and the Borders ever since. I can remember going to a briefing from a bod from Arriva UK who swore at fellow rpc members who dared to raise concerns about peak crowding into Cardiff...
Now where having a behind closed doors process again no one knows if WElsh Government are even on the same page as the real world. Welsh politians have belatedly queued up to criticise the 2003 agreement but how do we know the same mistakes are not being made again?

 

[gareth950]

Here's another drip from the trickle of stories I was mentioning. From BBC News today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-40823787

Welsh railway network to be privatised, RMT union claims

The rail workers' union, the RMT, has said it is "appalled" about plans which it claims will lead to a £5bn privatisation of the Welsh railway.

It insisted a decision had been taken to privatise the work carried out by Network Rail, which is responsible for railway tracks and infrastructure.

It has written to the first minister to call for the plans to be halted.

But the Welsh Government said it had "absolutely no plan to privatise any part of the Welsh railway network".

The union claimed privatisation would start with the forthcoming South Wales Metro upgrade project - which promises better trains, faster buses and light rail or tram services in Cardiff and the south Wales valleys.

Four companies have been shortlisted to run the metro and also take over the Wales and Borders franchise, currently run by Arriva Trains Wales.
A contract will be awarded in early 2018.

But the RMT said it had now emerged the winning bidder would also take over the maintenance of the railway's infrastructure from the publicly-run Network Rail.

General Secretary Mick Cash claimed Network Rail staff would also be transferred to the new operator.

In a letter to First Minister Carwyn Jones he said the privatisation plans for the South Wales Valleys lines became clear following a meeting with Transport for Wales (TfW) on 25 July.

"The meeting was a sham as it was blatantly obvious to me that a decision had already been taken to give the private sector the South Wales Valley lines," he wrote, adding that the RMT was "appalled and angry".

Speaking on Radio Wales' Good Morning Wales programme, Mr Cash said he was "amazed" at the Welsh Government's denials over the plans.

'Enhanced services'

He said Network Rail would "lose responsibility for the South Wales Valley lines completely - lock stock and barrel going over to the new operator, who will be a private sector operator".

He added: "Our members are being transferred from the publicly-run Network Rail to the privately owned bidders for the franchises. Who incidentally will either be the French, German, Chinese or the Dutch government."

But the Welsh Government said no part of the Welsh railway network would be privatised.
"In taking forward our ambitious plans for the new rail franchise and the South Wales Metro, we will bring the core valleys lines under the direct ownership and control of the Welsh Government, and while we will work with the operator to run services and maintain the track on those lines, the railway infrastructure will remain in public sector ownership," a spokesman said.

"Ultimately this is about bringing together track and trains in Wales for the benefit of passengers, with safety as our number one concern.
"Our approach will provide passengers with enhanced services, better quality trains and a vastly improved travelling experience and ensures that a better deal for passengers can be delivered."

It's been known for at least 2 - 3 years since the light rail proposals for the 'Core' valley lines (everything north of Cardiff Queen St) first emerged that the Welsh Govt wanted to take ownership and control of these 'Core' valley lines from Network Rail to allow the ODP of the new franchise and Metro to develop the infrastructure, so I'm amazed that the RMT have only just realised that a private operator will be responsible for the 'Core' valleys infrastructure. We're still to hear publicly if DfT / NR have agreed a deal for the transfer of the infrastructure, but this story suggests the deal has been / is close to being done.

There have been firm denials from DfT of any other part of the rail infrastructure in Wales transferring from NR to Welsh Govt.

 

[gareth950]

For those of us around at the time of the last franchise replacement ( I was with Rail Passenger Council Wales) a bitter taste is still in the mouth from the stitch up we were given by "Nanny knows best behind closed doors" SRA. The reasons given by the SRA for no growth was that they had run a model showing rail use was going to go into decline and we should be thankful there weren't cuts. I suspect the same **** wrote the DfT bi mode guff.

Of course the franchise agreement was blantley not fit for purpose before the ink was dry on it and has held back the economy of Wales and the Borders ever since. I can remember going to a briefing from a bod from Arriva UK who swore at fellow rpc members who dared to raise concerns about peak crowding into Cardiff...
Now where having a behind closed doors process again no one knows if WElsh Government are even on the same page as the real world. Welsh politians have belatedly queued up to criticise the 2003 agreement but how do we know the same mistakes are not being made again?

I agree - the lack of transparency is appalling and worrying. Once the Competitive Dialogue Process is over, which it will be by the time the ITT or similar is released to bidders, the secrecy can end.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The transfer of the ownership of Valleys route infrastructure from DfT to WG doesn't privatise it.
But it's still possible that the WG partner ("ODP") will employ the operations and maintenance staff - just as happens on Manchester Metrolink or Nottingham Express Transit lines.
In the north-east, Nexus has recently taken back in house the operation of the Tyne & Wear Metro from Arriva.
It remains to be seen what the Valleys solution is, but private ownership (under contract) of operations and maintenance is not at all unusual.
DLR is another example of public ownership and private operation/maintenance (by Keolis/Amey who are bidding for the WG contract).

 

[daikilo]

The transfer of the ownership of Valleys route infrastructure from DfT to WG doesn't privatise it.
But it's still possible that the WG partner ("ODP") will employ the operations and maintenance staff - just as happens on Manchester Metrolink or Nottingham Express Transit lines.
In the north-east, Nexus has recently taken back in house the operation of the Tyne & Wear Metro from Arriva.
It remains to be seen what the Valleys solution is, but private ownership (under contract) of operations and maintenance is not at all unusual.
DLR is another example of public ownership and private operation/maintenance (by Keolis/Amey who are bidding for the WG contract).

I realise I have underestimated the significance of the plan for "secrecy", however, if anything like what is described above is the intent then I do not see how there can be only one TOC i.e. the franchise should be split into "Wales (except Cardiff Valleys) and Borders" and a second "Cardiff Valleys". Both could be let to a single TOC initially but with a carve out of the second at a point in time like 2020. As for EU funding, too late.

 

[gareth950]

I realise I have underestimated the significance of the plan for "secrecy", however, if anything like what is described above is the intent then I do not see how there can be only one TOC i.e. the franchise should be split into "Wales (except Cardiff Valleys) and Borders" and a second "Cardiff Valleys". Both could be let to a single TOC initially but with a carve out of the second at a point in time like 2020. As for EU funding, too late.

We had that prior to the current franchise from 1996 - 2000. Then in 2000/01 the SRA absorbed the Valley Lines into Wales & Borders before the current franchise being awarded in 2003.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Rumour doing the rounds is were down to two bidders left (Abeilio and Arriva) and Welsh Government has a preferred bidder already however DFT under orders from Grayling are putting scanners in the works as Garyling is now not happy at the assumed transfer of powers to Cardiff Bay.

Also MTR was dismissed due to "irregularities in their bid" which included ATO on the Cambrian Coast!

Just had chat with a person who said he had meeting with MTR this week.....

Then again he was hearing that redundant Pacers were being converted into "Tourist Trains"

 

[Rhydgaled]

All they need to do is publish the train service specification (normally an appendix or schedule in DfT ITTs) which WG/TfW is seeking.
Nothing confidential or legal-speak in that.

The Service Level Commitment published with the franchise agreement for the current Arriva Trains Wales franchise requires just two trains per day to and from Fishguard. When it emerged that the Fishguard line would be cut from 7 services each way per 24 hours to 6 I felt that might be in-breach of ATW's updated commitments following the introduction of additional trains in 2011 so I put in an FOI request for details of the 2011 contract. My FOI request was refused on 'commertially confidential' grounds; I have now written back to them trying to be clearer that I'd be happy with a version with costs redacted, similar to the published 2003 franchise agreement, but I've probably missed the compliants window so I might not here from them again.

if anything like what is described above is the intent then I do not see how there can be only one TOC i.e. the franchise should be split into "Wales (except Cardiff Valleys) and Borders" and a second "Cardiff Valleys". Both could be let to a single TOC initially but with a carve out of the second at a point in time like 2020.

The problem is that a sensible "Cardiff Valleys" franchise would keep the current service pattern that avoids trains terminating at Cardiff Central (otherwise, the turn-round times at CDF will be rather short with only 3 or 4 platforms available and high-frequency services on the ValleyLines). However, the Vale Of Glamorgan routes (Penarth/Barry/Bridgend) will remain Network Rail managed and not under the full control of WAG and their ODP, so you still have services crossing between seperately managed infrustructure and therefore there is little or no benifit from splitting the franchise into two.

We had that prior to the current franchise from 1996 - 2000. Then in 2000/01 the SRA absorbed the Valley Lines into Wales & Borders before the current franchise being awarded in 2003.

Did the previous ValleyLines franchise also run to Penarth/Barry (I don't think the line from Barry to Bridgend was open to passenger services back then)?

As for EU funding, too late.

In what way? Too late to bid for it or just too late to actually get the money from the EU (I seem to recall that any successful bid for EU funds will be covered by a grant from Westminster if the payment is due after the UK has left the EU)?

 

[PHILIPE]

Barry and Penarth were part of the Valley lines and at the time the Vale line hadn't been re-opened.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Barry and Penarth were part of the Valley lines and at the time the Vale line hadn't been re-opened.

Thanks; confirms my suspisions that a sensible ValleyLines franchise would cover a wider area than the 'Core ValleyLines' area that WAG intends to take over.

 

[gareth950]

Did the previous ValleyLines franchise also run to Penarth/Barry (I don't think the line from Barry to Bridgend was open to passenger services back then)?

Yes, it was the same network that is classed as the Valley Lines now. Penarth was paired up with some Coryton services back then as well. The Barry to Bridgend line re-opened in 2005.

The Barry and Penarth lines were part of the Valley Lines under BR as well. Through journeys from the Valleys to Barry & Penarth have been possible for as long as I can remember.

 

[northwichcat]

Then again he was hearing that redundant Pacers were being converted into "Tourist Trains"

I think the 144 which has been converted to an 'ePacer' would be ideal for the Cardiff Bay shuttle but normally 'tourist routes' have high usage in season while Pacers are low capacity trains.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I think the 144 which has been converted to an 'ePacer' would be ideal for the Cardiff Bay shuttle but normally 'tourist routes' have high usage in season while Pacers are low capacity trains.

This idea of "tourist trains" has come from public sector stakeholders whilst they have a vague notion that there are a lots of tourists in certain parts of Wales and there important to the economy and that getting them on rail is a good idea for a variety of reasons, there is a lack of understanding at how they fit the realty of the rail market/ rail operations.

Just what does a "tourist train" do? Does it bring the tourists to an area from away or does it move tourists around an area who have prolbably arrived in it by other means?

Take the Cambrian coast the 158's are almost certainly the wrong sort of train for the summer high season loadings doing short hops along the coast. 3 car 170's with seats aligned to windows would be ideal doing self contained diagrams but any hint of this and cutting through trains to the West Midlands will see the stakeholders go into meltdown.

No one is looking forward to the prospect of Pacers being sent to areas that have never had to endure them as some sort of investment in tourism.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Apparently they will be using bimode Northern 319 units.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Apparently they will be using bimode Northern 319 units.

there is a separate thread for the units to cover for disability mod refurbishments this one is for the replacement Wales and border franchise. You unrepentant lover of price gouging.

 

[northwichcat]

Apparently they will be using bimode Northern 319 units.

Incorrect. They will obtain their own converted 319s. Less than half of the 319 fleet has been acquired by Northern so there are still plenty of units available for other operators.

 

[Darandio]

You unrepentant lover of price gouging.

A couple of days late to this one, but it deserves a