Wales & Borders Franchise Consultation

[Gareth Marston]

I'm not sure the old setup, which would be Northern in North Wales, LM in mid Wales and GWR in South Wales, wouldn't actually be better overall.

That said, there is a golden opportunity here, which will probably be missed, to fully integrate Wales's public transport.

The Welsh Government will find a way to drop the ball in some size shape or form rest assured. Having Grayling blunder busing around his ideological bubble world does not help either.

LM is a different creature to Central Trains or Regional Railways focusing on stoppers on the southern end of WCML and commuting around Birmingham. In the last year of Central we had brand new 3 car 170's running some of the Aberyswyth to Norwich/Stanstead trains. If it wasn't for Offas Dyke and devolved politicians wanting more powers the Cambrian Mainline to West Midlands trains might even be a fit with Cross County.

 

[Rhydgaled]

In the last year of Central we had brand new 3 car 170's running some of the Aberyswyth to Norwich/Stanstead trains. If it wasn't for Offas Dyke and devolved politicians wanting more powers the Cambrian Mainline to West Midlands trains might even be a fit with Cross County.

If that's the case I would argue that the Cambrian has done rather well; at least unlike CrossCountry's Stansted trains the Cambrian has fit-for-purpose (although in insufficient quantity at times) class 158s whereas the XC service gets Turbostars which are outer-suburban units at best and can't be longer than 3 carriages without locking pepole in seperate parts of the train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

LM is a different creature to Central Trains or Regional Railways focusing on stoppers on the southern end of WCML and commuting around Birmingham. In the last year of Central we had brand new 3 car 170's running some of the Aberyswyth to Norwich/Stanstead trains. If it wasn't for Offas Dyke and devolved politicians wanting more powers the Cambrian Mainline to West Midlands trains might even be a fit with Cross County.

Don't know about that, the Pwllheli stopper would be a terrible fit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If that's the case I would argue that the Cambrian has done rather well; at least unlike CrossCountry's Stansted trains the Cambrian has fit-for-purpose (although in insufficient quantity at times) class 158s whereas the XC service gets Turbostars which are outer-suburban units at best and can't be longer than 3 carriages without locking pepole in seperate parts of the train.

Have you ever actually been on a Turbostar, or are you just being prejudiced based on door layouts? 2 x 3-car would actually work quite well on the Cambrian (one set to Aber, one to Pwllheli), though they'd need SDO or single door only for some stations to Pwllheli. And 170s with a fully-aligned layout (like Chiltern's, so basically 2 rows of airlines or a table bay per window) are both comfortable to InterCity standards and have excellent window views. Don't be fooled by the awful knee-crushing layout of the initial MML sets.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Have you ever actually been on a Turbostar

Yes, I have had my knees crushed going from Newport to Gloucester on XC. The legroom in the airline seating is not even good enough for outer-suburban use in my opinion. Recently though I've done (seperately) Oakham-Leicester and Leicester-Birmingham on XC and had a table and that wasn't too bad; if the airline-style seating actually had decent legroom I'd be fine with them on outer-suburban services such as ATW's Cardiff-Cheltenham and, if a fast service was introduced alongside, the current (frequently stopping) version of Llandudno-Manchester.

are you just being prejudiced based on door layouts?

The door layout robs passenger space and compromises window alignment in order to minimise dwell times, so I'm never going to be happy with using Turbostars on the fastest service on any given route that's much over an hour. Swansea - Pembroke Dock all-stops might be ok for a Turbostar if there was an hourly faster service from Swansea to Clarbeston Road (ommiting Kidwelly and Ferryside and alternating between Fishguard and Milford) using something with end-doors.

2 x 3-car would actually work quite well on the Cambrian (one set to Aber, one to Pwllheli), though they'd need SDO or single door only for some stations to Pwllheli.

I disagree, no unit-end-gangways means portion working (in my view) is unacceptable. Given the frequency of stops there may be an argument for using 170s on the Cambrian coast if it were a shuttle from Machynlleth, though at over two hours that's a bit far for an outer-suburban unit with no option of changing onto a faster service in my opinion. The Aberystwyth-Birmingham service is well over an hour and is limited-stop east of Shrewsbury, so is Regional Express and needs something with end-doors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, I have had my knees crushed going from Newport to Gloucester on XC

Are those ones the ex-MML sets which have an extra row crammed in on the airline side? I think they might be because...

The door layout robs passenger space and compromises window alignment

...it doesn't on most Turbostars. The more generous layout used by other operators e.g. ScotRail has near-full window alignment like the original as-built Class 158 layout. And they're big, big windows with tiny walls between them, almost like a typical road coach. I can't think of a current UK unit more suitable for a scenic route.

I disagree, no unit-end-gangways means portion working (in my view) is unacceptable.

I'm really not sure it matters, people don't typically walk through that often (certainly on that line where most people will join the through coaches for their specific destination and stay there), and trolley/guard can move sets at stations.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Yes, I have had my knees crushed going from Newport to Gloucester on XC. The legroom in the airline seating is not even good enough for outer-suburban use in my opinion. Recently though I've done (seperately) Oakham-Leicester and Leicester-Birmingham on XC and had a table and that wasn't too bad; if the airline-style seating actually had decent legroom I'd be fine with them on outer-suburban services such as ATW's Cardiff-Cheltenham and, if a fast service was introduced alongside, the current (frequently stopping) version of Llandudno-Manchester.

The door layout robs passenger space and compromises window alignment in order to minimise dwell times, so I'm never going to be happy with using Turbostars on the fastest service on any given route that's much over an hour. Swansea - Pembroke Dock all-stops might be ok for a Turbostar if there was an hourly faster service from Swansea to Clarbeston Road (ommiting Kidwelly and Ferryside and alternating between Fishguard and Milford) using something with end-doors.

I disagree, no unit-end-gangways means portion working (in my view) is unacceptable. Given the frequency of stops there may be an argument for using 170s on the Cambrian coast if it were a shuttle from Machynlleth, though at over two hours that's a bit far for an outer-suburban unit with no option of changing onto a faster service in my opinion. The Aberystwyth-Birmingham service is well over an hour and is limited-stop east of Shrewsbury, so is Regional Express and needs something with end-doors.

Baring some major surprise I'm sure the Cambrian is "stuck" with its 158's hopefully without any stray diagrams in South Wales, North Wales Coast or Manchester.

My favored solution is portion working from Chester and Cambrian that join up/detach at Shrewsbury and reforming sets as 3 car. The current 24 x 2 can be rearranged as 14 x 3 & 3 x 2. Its enough for hourly BHI to Chester/Cambrian. Concentrates capacity between Shrewsbury and West Midlands. I would have 3 direct trains a day between West Midlands and Pwllheli and segregate out the through trade for the coast from that to Aberystwyth. The 2 car sets are for "locals" on the coast line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I just think that's too complicated. Personally I'd run everything through to get a perfectly standard pattern.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I'm really not sure it matters, people don't typically walk through that often (certainly on that line where most people will join the through coaches for their specific destination and stay there), and trolley/guard can move sets at stations.

Isn't the point more that portion working would mean passengers potentially having to move between units at stations to make sure they are on the correct portion of the train for their journey? Whereas if you have gangway doors, passengers can just walk through the train if they are in the wrong section.

 

[PHILIPE]

Don't think it would be ideal for 170s to go to the Cambrian as much of the time (between Shrewsbury and Machynlleth) the units work as a pair so there would be no through access between the two. Many passengers, I'm sure, would use the catering trolley on the trains and which would be prevented from servicing passengers for both Aberystwyth and the Coast.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't the point more that portion working would mean passengers potentially having to move between units at stations to make sure they are on the correct portion of the train for their journey? Whereas if you have gangway doors, passengers can just walk through the train if they are in the wrong section.

There's always time to sort it out at Mach.

Don't think it would be ideal for 170s to go to the Cambrian as much of the time (between Shrewsbury and Machynlleth) the units work as a pair so there would be no through access between the two. Many passengers, I'm sure, would use the catering trolley on the trains and which would be prevented from servicing passengers for both Aberystwyth and the Coast.

It can move from unit to unit at stations using the ramp.

 

[WelshBluebird]

There's always time to sort it out at Mach.

Not very passenger friendly though is it? Especially for those with luggage / mobility issues.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not very passenger friendly though is it? Especially for those with luggage / mobility issues.

It's more passenger friendly than inadequate capacity. If I was specifying new units they'd be gangwayed, of course.

 

[PHILIPE]

There's always time to sort it out at Mach.



It can move from unit to unit at stations using the ramp.

And delay the train ? The 158s are ERTMS fitted and have a few years left in them yet, and 170s now aging.. Would be very costly to fit to another fleet when there is no need.

 

[CosherB]

Given that Welsh Government Civil Servants have been planning for a franchise extension for years maybe not.

Tony Miles reported that they haven't even issued the ITT yet ... WAG and Westminster still arguing about finding and levels of control. It should have been out in mid-August, now due in September. And it gives NO clues whatsoever about who will win - partly because nobody knows what the bidders will be bidding against and partly because Tom himself is very aware it could be a short-term job (but worth the experience).

 

[Llanigraham]

There's always time to sort it out at Mach.

Not always, especially if there have been problems on the way.
And many people do move between units after Shrewsbury.

It can move from unit to unit at stations using the ramp.

Only if you increase the dwell times.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Tony Miles reported that they haven't even issued the ITT yet ... WAG and Westminster still arguing about finding and levels of control. It should have been out in mid-August, now due in September. And it gives NO clues whatsoever about who will win - partly because nobody knows what the bidders will be bidding against and partly because Tom himself is very aware it could be a short-term job (but worth the experience).

I had colleagues talking about franchise extension before I left Welsh
Government and that was nearly 18 months ago.....

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I had colleagues talking about franchise extension before I left Welsh
Government and that was nearly 18 months ago.....

Really would be a sensible compromise .....(which is not a dirty phrase) .....

 

[gareth950]

Really would be a sensible compromise .....(which is not a dirty phrase) .....

A compromise between what? There's no way on earth the current franchise should be extended on the original 2003 terms. Improvements need to be specified as part of any franchise extension - with increased capacity and Pacer and 153 replacement being top of the list.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

A compromise between what? There's no way on earth the current franchise should be extended on the original 2003 terms. Improvements need to be specified as part of any franchise extension - with increased capacity and Pacer and 153 replacement being top of the list.

Exactly -the existing franchise could be extended (maintaining the service of now- but with enhancements and committed obligations through a deed of amendment , to move on - pending a proper refranchising)

So many uncertainties etc...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A compromise between what? There's no way on earth the current franchise should be extended on the original 2003 terms. Improvements need to be specified as part of any franchise extension - with increased capacity and Pacer and 153 replacement being top of the list.

Exactly -the existing franchise could be extended (maintaining the service of now- but with enhancements and committed obligations through a deed of amendment , to move on - pending a proper refranchising)

If I've read the original franchise agreement correctly (section 20), WG has the option of extending the current franchise by up to 7 reporting periods (which is quite typical).
There is another clause allowing extension by up to 65 reporting periods (5 years!) if both WG and ATW agree.

Substantive changes (eg to the fleet) would be very hard to negotiate unless there was a detailed plan, including new leases, which there obviously isn't.
And as soon as you start moving the goalposts, the other bidders will object and the whole bidding process will be compromised.
I'm pretty sure the DfT and WG would have to agree the basis of extension, it would not be in WG's gift alone.
A Direct Award rather than an extension would allow new franchise terms to be negotiated, but you are then virtually into a full franchise negotiation.

Remember FirstGroup and Stagecoach have both walked away from offered extensions/direct awards, so it's not certain Arriva would play ball.

 

[gareth950]

If I've read the original franchise agreement correctly (section 20), WG has the option of extending the current franchise by up to 7 reporting periods (which is quite typical).
There is another clause allowing extension by up to 65 reporting periods (5 years!) if both WG and ATW agree.

Substantive changes (eg to the fleet) would be very hard to negotiate unless there was a detailed plan, including new leases, which there obviously isn't.
And as soon as you start moving the goalposts, the other bidders will object and the whole bidding process will be compromised.
I'm pretty sure the DfT and WG would have to agree the basis of extension, it would not be in WG's gift alone.
A Direct Award rather than an extension would allow new franchise terms to be negotiated, but you are then virtually into a full franchise negotiation then.

Remember FirstGroup and Stagecoach have both walked away from extensions/direct awards, so it's not certain ATW would play ball.

In an ideal situation, the most sensible and least complicated option would be to bring in Directly Operated Railways to start making improvements and run things until the franchise can be sucessfully re-let. No special treatment for Arriva could be then be claimed by the other bidders either.

But we have a DfT that will never allow that to happen, purely based on ideology. Even if it is the most sensible short term option.

 

[Gareth Marston]

In an ideal situation, the most sensible and least complicated option would be to bring in Directly Operated Railways to start making improvements and run things until the franchise can be sucessfully re-let. No special treatment for Arriva could be then be claimed by the other bidders either.

But we have a DfT that will never allow that to happen, purely based on ideology. Even if it is the most sensible short term option.

DfT and the Torys are almost in "bunker mode" about the railways where the primary objective is not to admit to past mistakes and plough on regardless of consequence. Its almost "us & them" mentality. The popular ism of rail nationalization in a nation that's not elected a Government committed to public ownership for 42 years should at the very least flag up all is not well with how our railways are being run. The problem is many of the problems stem from consequences of the 1993 Railways Act and its just too difficult for the Torys and the Civil Service to admit to they would rather circle the wagons than be seen to let Corbyn and Labour "win".

The trouble is the railways, environment, the traveling public and the economy are increasingly becoming collateral damage. Franchising and fragmentation has been the dumbest most inefficient way of operating the railways ever invented. Recreating the Big 4 would have been better.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

In an ideal situation, the most sensible and least complicated option would be to bring in Directly Operated Railways to start making improvements and run things until the franchise can be sucessfully re-let. No special treatment for Arriva could be then be claimed by the other bidders either.

DOR doesn't exist, although the DfT does have an "operator of last resort", engineering consultants SNC Lavalin.
I doubt ATW could be removed before the franchise term expires (Oct 2018).
But what is the "plan"?
Any plans are in the heads of the four bidders, not WG/DfT, which was the whole idea behind WG's non-prescriptive procurement strategy.

 

[PHILIPE]

Whatever happens, there is an urgent requirement for more stock as from yesterday

 

[daikilo]

Whatever happens, there is an urgent requirement for more stock as from yesterday

The urgent requirement is for Pacer replacement and probably sme additional stock for growth.

One posibility might be to split the ITT (and award) into Cardiff valleys and the rest with TfW taking responsibility for the valleys procurement (via a RoSCo) with the help of a consultant selected by competitive bid, but I doubt they could later be remerged.

An alternative might be to extend Arriva and have them do the stock selection (possibly by increasing the Northern order), but with the lease being by TfW or some other vehichle.

 

[Mollman]

Baring some major surprise I'm sure the Cambrian is "stuck" with its 158's hopefully without any stray diagrams in South Wales, North Wales Coast or Manchester.

My favored solution is portion working from Chester and Cambrian that join up/detach at Shrewsbury and reforming sets as 3 car. The current 24 x 2 can be rearranged as 14 x 3 & 3 x 2. Its enough for hourly BHI to Chester/Cambrian. Concentrates capacity between Shrewsbury and West Midlands. I would have 3 direct trains a day between West Midlands and Pwllheli and segregate out the through trade for the coast from that to Aberystwyth. The 2 car sets are for "locals" on the coast line.

I think in the long run the extra WM franchise Brum - Shrews service is meant to be handed over to W&B so that there can be an hourly Cambrian and hourly Chester without needing to attach / detach at Shrewsbury.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I think in the long run the extra WM franchise Brum - Shrews service is meant to be handed over to W&B so that there can be an hourly Cambrian and hourly Chester without needing to attach / detach at Shrewsbury.

I doubt it. NR route study's have no Wales and Borders paths east of Shrewsbury but do have an hourly fast service from London.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I think in the long run the extra WM franchise Brum - Shrews service is meant to be handed over to W&B so that there can be an hourly Cambrian and hourly Chester without needing to attach / detach at Shrewsbury.

In my opinion that doesn't make much sense, since via Shrewsbury is not the fastest route from Chester to Birmingham. In my view the short-term should be hourly Birmingham-Aberystwyth with a portion for Wrexham/Chester detached at Shrewsbury every two hours and one for Pwllheli in the other hours. What is really needed though as soon as possible is more paths through Wolverhampton so that an hourly north Wales - Chester - Crewe - Stafford - Birmingham can become the main service for Chester-Birmingham. The Cambrian service would still need the portion every two hours for Wrexham, but without the Chester-Birmingham through traffic the Wrexham portion could terminate there (if the Cambrian paths are ever moved such that terminating at Wrexham would actually save a unit, as it is it won't) or perhaps need fewer coaches that it would with the Chester traffic.

If you did want an hourly Birmingham-Wrexham-Chester service it would probably be better to hand it over to the West Midlands franchise to run as an extension of their services rather than handing a West Midlands Rail (WMR) path to W&B (only if the second WMR path is a semi-fast like the Cambrians and WMR doesn't get any suitable stock would making it a W&B service make sense).

 

[Gareth Marston]

In my opinion that doesn't make much sense, since via Shrewsbury is not the fastest route from Chester to Birmingham. In my view the short-term should be hourly Birmingham-Aberystwyth with a portion for Wrexham/Chester detached at Shrewsbury every two hours and one for Pwllheli in the other hours. What is really needed though as soon as possible is more paths through Wolverhampton so that an hourly north Wales - Chester - Crewe - Stafford - Birmingham can become the main service for Chester-Birmingham. The Cambrian service would still need the portion every two hours for Wrexham, but without the Chester-Birmingham through traffic the Wrexham portion could terminate there (if the Cambrian paths are ever moved such that terminating at Wrexham would actually save a unit, as it is it won't) or perhaps need fewer coaches that it would with the Chester traffic.

If you did want an hourly Birmingham-Wrexham-Chester service it would probably be better to hand it over to the West Midlands franchise to run as an extension of their services rather than handing a West Midlands Rail (WMR) path to W&B (only if the second WMR path is a semi-fast like the Cambrians and WMR doesn't get any suitable stock would making it a W&B service make sense).

However via Wrexham is for Shrewsbury and Telford to Chester. I still can't understand why people think there is the capacity and paths available for through trains from everywhere to the North Wales Coast. Back in the days of a handful of trains a day you could have multiple destinations but with modern high frequency expectations you have to pick your prime market.