South Wales 'Metro' updates

[Llanigraham]

NotATrainSpot,
Have you even been to Cardiff?

 

[Gareth Marston]

That being the case makes it even more likely that HR routes will be shifted over to LR. Under one contract, there's a fairly strong financial incentive for bidders to propose infrastructure changes with long-term benefits.



The alternative is that costs never come down. If you invest lots of money in HR, you'll see the costs pretty much stay the same at the end of those new assets' lifespans as they are today. With LR, the costs at the end will be lower. The business case for an investment like this runs for decades, not just months or years.



I'm not proposing replacing the Bay Car with a tram. I'm proposing that significant numbers of trains from the Valleys would start running down to the Bay, removing any need for a shuttle service in that direction. The Bay Car can stay around for the people who won't have a direct service. A direct service to the Bay will be far more attractive than any sort of interchange at Central or Queen Street onto a bus or tram.



Oh for goodness' sake. Is Lloyd George Avenue immediately ready for tram lines to be installed? No. Can it be fairly easily made to be? Yes. There are plenty of roads in various cities and towns which are not at all suitable for any sort of tram, and this avenue is not one of them. It is a wide modern boulevard able to be reconfigured to add two tram lines without needing to lose the existing traffic lanes. Whether those tram lines are best laid in a widened central reservation, or over to the side, would depend on detailed analysis. Would this choice make any meaningful difference? No.

Have you ever bothered to look at other modern street running systems? A road like this is a dream for a tram network designer. Sure, it might be busy at times, but it has the width needed to provide trams in addition to existing traffic and pedestrians. Having those trams will also lead to a reduction in road traffic.



No I don't want to close the rest of the Welsh rail network.

You are wanting the government to spend many hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds on improving the network using HR technology. No government, of any political persuasion, has unlimited money. Transport is not the only thing that money can be spent on, and because there is limited money, it will have to compete against other funding priorities.

What you want is the government to spend a lot of money upfront to make the system better. That's a laudable aim, but what is the financial impact of that? Limiting yourself to HR means you're committing to high levels of subsidy in perpetuity. The scope for cost savings as a result of this investment would be very limited. Therefore, when the government is deciding where to spend its money, that scheme would have to compete with other schemes which have a better financial impact.

There is no business case, however, for closing down the network and seemingly stemming the losses. That's because the existence of the network is useful for the Welsh economy, and trying to save money by closing it would ultimately cost more. Therefore, that's not an option. The only remaining option though is that the bare minimum is done to keep the rail network chugging along - not closing it, but not spending any more money on it than is absolutely required. That's the only realistic HR alternative for the Valleys. Ken Skates wouldn't be lavishing the Valleys with lots of brand new CAF DMUs providing longer trains at higher frequencies. Even if new trains were provided, these would be about minimising costs and capacity would be deliberately stretched to the limit. New trains would be about minimising fleet size and maintenance requirements, not increasing capacity. Merseyrail is seeing exactly that right now as the new fleet is actually going to be smaller than the one it replaces. Yes, the trains are better, but the overall investment is only about keeping things going.

I'm not a Tory and I do know fine well that investments in public services can and will pay for themselves in the right circumstances. The lump of money idea is a nonsense for governments, since their spending decisions stimulate the economy and generate extra tax revenue. The truth of this fact does not mean that any and all public investments are going to pay for themselves. If you want that to happen, you need to work on minimising costs and maximising benefits. An LR system in the Valleys can provide a better service than today at lower cost. The upfront investment needed to get the ball rolling will end up paying itself back. That won't be true for a more expensive investment programme which can't do so much. On a regional suburban stopping railway, almost entirely separated from other heavy rail services, there is not an incredible amount that HR can actively do better than LR.

You have still not presented any empirical evidence or study's for your hypothesis that Light Rail can reduce long term operating costs or whether that is actually desirable given the trade offs that are all too apparent when someone try's to do it in practice ( the TfW split network plans with existing staff costs retained in short to medium term) versus the theory.

Its clear you've struggled from the start with the actuality's and drawbacks of the Geography/Politics/Funding of the proposed TfW South Wales Metro plans. This is the real world not the fluffy theory of HR conversion to LR. Its clear from your own posts that your uncomfortable with TfW's split system and you have no real answer to Welsh Government's pledge on existing HR jobs. You still believe theirs a magic funding fairy for extension/street running and further conversion despite being repeatedly told the £ that's on the table is it for the short to medium term.

Now no one whose been involved in this thread or have dipped in and out to read it will expect you to concede anything despite the weight of evidence that's been presented by myself and other posters. But we will try one more time.

In your world Heavy Rail Subsidy = Bad, assumed lower Light Rail Subsidy = Good.
So where do you stand on whats actually being proposed by TfW?
Remember

1. its not a whole system conversion. Most place in South Wales will still have HR.
   
2. There are significant dis benefits of splitting the network at Cardiff Central.
   
3. Theirs no prospect of £ for extensions/street running /further conversions in the short/medium term.
4. The Welsh Government pledge on current jobs means that it will have exiting HR staffing costs going forward.

 

[NotATrainspott]

So now you've discovered a bit more about Cardiff's geography you want to run trams rather than trains from Queen Street to the Bay, abandoning the existing alignment and spending a good chunk of the money available on a new one a few yards away just so a different set of passengers need to change at Queen Street? Far more continue to Central than change for the Bay.

You really ought to spend a few days in South Wales getting to know the area and its public transport.

I haven't changed my proposal at all. Whether it would be best to lay tram tracks down the middle or to the side of Lloyd George Avenue is immaterial to the concept of using street running to replace the Bay branch.

Yes, my proposal is very explicitly about demolishing most of the existing Bay branch and replacing it with standard tram operation. Why? Because transport systems mean more than just their own infrastructure. The HR Bay branch acts as a massive barrier between Bute Street and Lloyd George Avenue. Over the last kilometre there's only one single dingy crossing. There's no good reason why pedestrians shouldn't be allowed to cross it every couple of hundred metres, other than the inflexibility of HR technology.

You have still not presented any empirical evidence or study's for your hypothesis that Light Rail can reduce long term operating costs or whether that is actually desirable given the trade offs that are all too apparent when someone try's to do it in practice ( the TfW split network plans with existing staff costs retained in short to medium term) versus the theory.

Let's say there are 200 drivers affected by the SWM. Let's say HR drivers currently earn £50,000 a year, but totally new LR drivers earn £30,000. HR drivers retain their pay when they switch to LR, but their replacements don't inherit that pay. This is a settlement which has been successfully used elsewhere when roles have been downgraded. Finally, let's assume that every year, the oldest 5% of the workforce retires and needs replacement.

In year 0, the total wage bill for the system is 200*50,000 = £10,000,000 a year.
The next year, 10 HR drivers leave and are replaced by LR drivers at LR pay, so the wage bill is 190*50,000 + 10*30,000 = £9,800,000. That's an incremental saving of £200,000.

Year HR drivers LR drivers HR pay LR pay Total pay This years LR saving Incremental saving
0 200 0 £ 10,000,000.00 £ - £ 10,000,000.00 £ - £ -
1 190 10 £ 9,500,000.00 £ 300,000.00 £ 9,800,000.00 £ 200,000.00 £ 200,000.00
2 180 20 £ 9,000,000.00 £ 600,000.00 £ 9,600,000.00 £ 400,000.00 £ 600,000.00
3 170 30 £ 8,500,000.00 £ 900,000.00 £ 9,400,000.00 £ 600,000.00 £ 1,200,000.00
4 160 40 £ 8,000,000.00 £ 1,200,000.00 £ 9,200,000.00 £ 800,000.00 £ 2,000,000.00
5 150 50 £ 7,500,000.00 £ 1,500,000.00 £ 9,000,000.00 £ 1,000,000.00 £ 3,000,000.00
6 140 60 £ 7,000,000.00 £ 1,800,000.00 £ 8,800,000.00 £ 1,200,000.00 £ 4,200,000.00
7 130 70 £ 6,500,000.00 £ 2,100,000.00 £ 8,600,000.00 £ 1,400,000.00 £ 5,600,000.00
8 120 80 £ 6,000,000.00 £ 2,400,000.00 £ 8,400,000.00 £ 1,600,000.00 £ 7,200,000.00
9 110 90 £ 5,500,000.00 £ 2,700,000.00 £ 8,200,000.00 £ 1,800,000.00 £ 9,000,000.00
10 100 100 £ 5,000,000.00 £ 3,000,000.00 £ 8,000,000.00 £ 2,000,000.00 £ 11,000,000.00
11 90 110 £ 4,500,000.00 £ 3,300,000.00 £ 7,800,000.00 £ 2,200,000.00 £ 13,200,000.00
12 80 120 £ 4,000,000.00 £ 3,600,000.00 £ 7,600,000.00 £ 2,400,000.00 £ 15,600,000.00
13 70 130 £ 3,500,000.00 £ 3,900,000.00 £ 7,400,000.00 £ 2,600,000.00 £ 18,200,000.00
14 60 140 £ 3,000,000.00 £ 4,200,000.00 £ 7,200,000.00 £ 2,800,000.00 £ 21,000,000.00
15 50 150 £ 2,500,000.00 £ 4,500,000.00 £ 7,000,000.00 £ 3,000,000.00 £ 24,000,000.00
16 40 160 £ 2,000,000.00 £ 4,800,000.00 £ 6,800,000.00 £ 3,200,000.00 £ 27,200,000.00
17 30 170 £ 1,500,000.00 £ 5,100,000.00 £ 6,600,000.00 £ 3,400,000.00 £ 30,600,000.00
18 20 180 £ 1,000,000.00 £ 5,400,000.00 £ 6,400,000.00 £ 3,600,000.00 £ 34,200,000.00
19 10 190 £ 500,000.00 £ 5,700,000.00 £ 6,200,000.00 £ 3,800,000.00 £ 38,000,000.00
20 0 200 £ - £ 6,000,000.00 £ 6,000,000.00 £ 4,000,000.00 £ 42,000,000.00

After 20 years, £42m has been saved in wage bills, and the current wage bill is down by £4m.

There's no point doing the same calculation for an HR system, because there is no saving to be made. No money is saving on current expenditure at the end of the time period, and that lack of savings sums to £0.

It's the job of people working for the bidders and for TfW to come up with spreadsheets like these. Any 'cheap' scheme which involves extra staff being required to provide the same amount of benefit will end up not looking so cheap after someone does some fairly basic Excel calculations. That's why I do not expect we will see a 'penny wise, pound foolish' split network. Even then, that's assuming there would be no upfront capital costs involved in making a split network feasible operationally. I cannot see there being any business case for money to be spent allowing services to turn back in the middle of Cardiff, when that split has no benefit. If more trains will come down from the Valleys than can be funnelled along into Central, then the excess can be sent down to the Bay instead.

Its clear you've struggled from the start with the actuality's and drawbacks of the Geography/Politics/Funding of the proposed TfW South Wales Metro plans. This is the real world not the fluffy theory of HR conversion to LR. Its clear from your own posts that your uncomfortable with TfW's split system and you have no real answer to Welsh Government's pledge on existing HR jobs. You still believe theirs a magic funding fairy for extension/street running and further conversion despite being repeatedly told the £ that's on the table is it for the short to medium term.

As outlined above, small changes have a long term financial impact. You're expecting the entire governmental system of the UK to be 'penny wise and pound foolish'. You're expecting that even if the folk down in Cardiff make a complete mess of everything, the UK government is still going to allow the handover of assets even when they're ultimately responsible for picking up the bill if it all goes wrong.

Now no one whose been involved in this thread or have dipped in and out to read it will expect you to concede anything despite the weight of evidence that's been presented by myself and other posters. But we will try one more time.

In your world Heavy Rail Subsidy = Bad, assumed lower Light Rail Subsidy = Good.
So where do you stand on whats actually being proposed by TfW?
Remember

1. its not a whole system conversion. Most place in South Wales will still have HR.

Wow, isn't that a surprise?

The network within scope to be converted to LR is large enough to stand on its own two feet. It could get larger, but getting larger isn't an absolute requirement for it to survive. This network is the one which involves the least interaction with other HR services.

There will still be HR in South Wales because LR isn't suitable for all transport requirements in South Wales. I have never argued that it is. Within the confines of the Cardiff commuter area, along lines not shared with other services, it's a different story.

It's like you're saying LR can't be the solution for anything because it isn't the solution for everything. That's a logical fallacy.

1. There are significant dis benefits of splitting the network at Cardiff Central.

I agree, which is why I have set out why I cannot see this happening in the final scheme. I cannot see Keolis or MTR going along with this idea, because it would make their own lives harder. In a competitive bidding process, they can't know what the other bidders are proposing. If they want to win, they have to come up with the best possible proposal. A proposal for the LR vehicles to take over certain local HR services around Cardiff will perform better than leaving them as HR.

1. Theirs no prospect of £ for extensions/street running /further conversions in the short/medium term.

If the purpose of those extra capital investments is to significantly reduce costs or increase benefits, then funding can and will be made available.

1. The Welsh Government pledge on current jobs means that it will have exiting HR staffing costs going forward.

For the umpteenth time there is no obligation for new hires to earn the same amount as existing staff. If you can't understand what financial impact that has, then there's no point trying to argue with you.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In reality the stats are actually better than you say, money wise, because the current Valley Lines drivers could also work on other services around the Cardiff area. So logic is that when a "mainline" driver retires, a Valley Lines driver replaces them, then a tram driver replaces the Valley Lines driver on the trams.

 

[Envoy]

It would appear that people are not happy with the Manchester Metrolink tram system. (Some say that the system gets jammed up on city centre streets)!

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...nk-apology-refund-compensation-claim-14331007

Metrolink bosses have taken the unusual step of offering a public apology to passengers caught up in the chaos that brought the network to a standstill.

Passenger comments :>

The bigger the tram system gets the worse it becomes . Nearly every tram on the Bury line and I'm sure all the others from 8am onwards is pretty much standing room only if you can
find a space . Overcrowded and over priced . This is why I choose to use the bus to get to work . At least if the bus is full the driver won't let anyone on .

There have been many occasions over the weeks/months/years where the entire network went down.

 

[NotATrainspott]

NotATrainSpot,
Have you even been to Cardiff?

Is that essentially all you can argue? That people in Wales definitely, absolutely always know what's better for their rail network than people from elsewhere?

One of the justifications for people to go on fact-finding trips and get consultants in is to get a fresh view of things. People get exposed to how things are done elsewhere, or the people who're responsible for things elsewhere get to suggest changes to how things are done here.

Being from the region and using the current system can blind you to problems. The network as it exists today might serve its existing customers well, but what we want to do is to make it better serve all of the South Wales region. That means appealing to passengers who don't or can't currently use the system. Appealing to these people requires you to think of ways to significantly change the product you're offering. HR electrification alone will not fundamentally change the system, so it won't magically start working for lots of people for whom it doesn't work today.

It would appear that people are not happy with the Manchester Metrolink tram system. (Some say that the system gets jammed up on city centre streets)!

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...nk-apology-refund-compensation-claim-14331007


Passenger comments :>

Ah yes, the vox populi. That's always the best way of getting cold, hard data about the success of a transport system.

See what the person using the bus said? "At least if the bus is full the driver won't let anyone on." That's not about buses being a superior mode of transportation. That's about other people being massively inconvenienced in order to slightly convenience that person. If this person were the one blocked from getting on the bus, they would be complaining a lot more.

How often does the rail network go down? Is Metrolink significantly more susceptible to breakdowns than comparable networks? Are the costs of these breakdowns in excess of the costs involved in making them not happen? There's no point using a few breakdowns to justify spending billions of pounds on magical tunnels if the breakdowns aren't that frequent and are really not that costly.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Let's say there are 200 drivers affected by the SWM. Let's say HR drivers currently earn £50,000 a year, but totally new LR drivers earn £30,000. HR drivers retain their pay when they switch to LR, but their replacements don't inherit that pay. This is a settlement which has been successfully used elsewhere when roles have been downgraded. Finally, let's assume that every year, the oldest 5% of the workforce retires and needs replacement.

In year 0, the total wage bill for the system is 200*50,000 = £10,000,000 a year.
The next year, 10 HR drivers leave and are replaced by LR drivers at LR pay, so the wage bill is 190*50,000 + 10*30,000 = £9,800,000. That's an incremental saving of £200,000.

Year HR drivers LR drivers HR pay LR pay Total pay This years LR saving Incremental saving
0 200 0 £ 10,000,000.00 £ - £ 10,000,000.00 £ - £ -
1 190 10 £ 9,500,000.00 £ 300,000.00 £ 9,800,000.00 £ 200,000.00 £ 200,000.00
2 180 20 £ 9,000,000.00 £ 600,000.00 £ 9,600,000.00 £ 400,000.00 £ 600,000.00
3 170 30 £ 8,500,000.00 £ 900,000.00 £ 9,400,000.00 £ 600,000.00 £ 1,200,000.00
4 160 40 £ 8,000,000.00 £ 1,200,000.00 £ 9,200,000.00 £ 800,000.00 £ 2,000,000.00
5 150 50 £ 7,500,000.00 £ 1,500,000.00 £ 9,000,000.00 £ 1,000,000.00 £ 3,000,000.00
6 140 60 £ 7,000,000.00 £ 1,800,000.00 £ 8,800,000.00 £ 1,200,000.00 £ 4,200,000.00
7 130 70 £ 6,500,000.00 £ 2,100,000.00 £ 8,600,000.00 £ 1,400,000.00 £ 5,600,000.00
8 120 80 £ 6,000,000.00 £ 2,400,000.00 £ 8,400,000.00 £ 1,600,000.00 £ 7,200,000.00
9 110 90 £ 5,500,000.00 £ 2,700,000.00 £ 8,200,000.00 £ 1,800,000.00 £ 9,000,000.00
10 100 100 £ 5,000,000.00 £ 3,000,000.00 £ 8,000,000.00 £ 2,000,000.00 £ 11,000,000.00
11 90 110 £ 4,500,000.00 £ 3,300,000.00 £ 7,800,000.00 £ 2,200,000.00 £ 13,200,000.00
12 80 120 £ 4,000,000.00 £ 3,600,000.00 £ 7,600,000.00 £ 2,400,000.00 £ 15,600,000.00
13 70 130 £ 3,500,000.00 £ 3,900,000.00 £ 7,400,000.00 £ 2,600,000.00 £ 18,200,000.00
14 60 140 £ 3,000,000.00 £ 4,200,000.00 £ 7,200,000.00 £ 2,800,000.00 £ 21,000,000.00
15 50 150 £ 2,500,000.00 £ 4,500,000.00 £ 7,000,000.00 £ 3,000,000.00 £ 24,000,000.00
16 40 160 £ 2,000,000.00 £ 4,800,000.00 £ 6,800,000.00 £ 3,200,000.00 £ 27,200,000.00
17 30 170 £ 1,500,000.00 £ 5,100,000.00 £ 6,600,000.00 £ 3,400,000.00 £ 30,600,000.00
18 20 180 £ 1,000,000.00 £ 5,400,000.00 £ 6,400,000.00 £ 3,600,000.00 £ 34,200,000.00
19 10 190 £ 500,000.00 £ 5,700,000.00 £ 6,200,000.00 £ 3,800,000.00 £ 38,000,000.00
20 0 200 £ - £ 6,000,000.00 £ 6,000,000.00 £ 4,000,000.00 £ 42,000,000.00

After 20 years, £42m has been saved in wage bills, and the current wage bill is down by £4m.

There's no point doing the same calculation for an HR system, because there is no saving to be made. No money is saving on current expenditure at the end of the time period, and that lack of savings sums to £0.

It's the job of people working for the bidders and for TfW to come up with spreadsheets like these. Any 'cheap' scheme which involves extra staff being required to provide the same amount of benefit will end up not looking so cheap after someone does some fairly basic Excel calculations. That's why I do not expect we will see a 'penny wise, pound foolish' split network. Even then, that's assuming there would be no upfront capital costs involved in making a split network feasible operationally. I cannot see there being any business case for money to be spent allowing services to turn back in the middle of Cardiff, when that split has no benefit. If more trains will come down from the Valleys than can be funnelled along into Central, then the excess can be sent down to the Bay instead.



As outlined above, small changes have a long term financial impact. You're expecting the entire governmental system of the UK to be 'penny wise and pound foolish'. You're expecting that even if the folk down in Cardiff make a complete mess of everything, the UK government is still going to allow the handover of assets even when they're ultimately responsible for picking up the bill if it all goes wrong.



Wow, isn't that a surprise?

The network within scope to be converted to LR is large enough to stand on its own two feet. It could get larger, but getting larger isn't an absolute requirement for it to survive. This network is the one which involves the least interaction with other HR services.

There will still be HR in South Wales because LR isn't suitable for all transport requirements in South Wales. I have never argued that it is. Within the confines of the Cardiff commuter area, along lines not shared with other services, it's a different story.

It's like you're saying LR can't be the solution for anything because it isn't the solution for everything. That's a logical fallacy.



I agree, which is why I have set out why I cannot see this happening in the final scheme. I cannot see Keolis or MTR going along with this idea, because it would make their own lives harder. In a competitive bidding process, they can't know what the other bidders are proposing. If they want to win, they have to come up with the best possible proposal. A proposal for the LR vehicles to take over certain local HR services around Cardiff will perform better than leaving them as HR.



If the purpose of those extra capital investments is to significantly reduce costs or increase benefits, then funding can and will be made available.



For the umpteenth time there is no obligation for new hires to earn the same amount as existing staff. If you can't understand what financial impact that has, then there's no point trying to argue with you.

So this Light Rail system you propose that will save money will operate at the current HR frequencies then? Well it must do as you have the same number of drivers. You've been telling us how frequencies can improve and that means more drivers even if they are employed at lower rates. TfW want to double services to the Heads of the Valleys so lets say that overall services double and need double the drivers. Using your worked example in the first year it will be 200 drivers on HR salary plus another 200 drivers on LR salaries and using your figures that's a wage of £16 million (200 x 50K + 200 x £30K) 60% more than at present. Even if your rates of saving become apparent it will never come down lower than £12 million (400 x £30K) still 20% higher than the HR salaries.

Another basic error on top of forgetting to include the drivers for the higher frequencies is the fact that no one gets a pay increase for 20 years. Get real mate its like a GCSE Maths paper "can you outline any flaws in the calculations"?

If the best you can come up with is U grade calculations it says it all.

 

[Gareth Marston]

In reality the stats are actually better than you say, money wise, because the current Valley Lines drivers could also work on other services around the Cardiff area. So logic is that when a "mainline" driver retires, a Valley Lines driver replaces them, then a tram driver replaces the Valley Lines driver on the trams.

You failed the question by not noticing the lack of pay increases for 20 years and forgetting the cost of the drivers for the extra services.

 

[gareth950]

Is that essentially all you can argue? That people in Wales definitely, absolutely always know what's better for their rail network than people from elsewhere?

One of the justifications for people to go on fact-finding trips and get consultants in is to get a fresh view of things. People get exposed to how things are done elsewhere, or the people who're responsible for things elsewhere get to suggest changes to how things are done here.

Being from the region and using the current system can blind you to problems. The network as it exists today might serve its existing customers well, but what we want to do is to make it better serve all of the South Wales region. That means appealing to passengers who don't or can't currently use the system. Appealing to these people requires you to think of ways to significantly change the product you're offering. HR electrification alone will not fundamentally change the system, so it won't magically start working for lots of people for whom it doesn't work today.

The 4 lines north of Queen St are not, by any stretch of the imagination, 'all of the South Wales region'. What about passengers on the Ebbw Vale, Maesteg, City line, Penarth, Barry and the Vale of Glamorgan, that are being saddled with 1980s DMUs for the forseeable future?

What TfW's plans are is for a network 'upgrade' north of Queen St, and a network downgrade everywhere else. Whilst journeys to the north of Queen St may be 'improved', journeys to the south of Queen St and west of Cardiff Central will be downgraded and made more difficult thanks to the multitude of interchanges that will be needed to get across Cardiff city centre.

 

[NotATrainspott]

So this Light Rail system you propose that will save money will operate at the current HR frequencies then? Well it must do as you have the same number of drivers. You've been telling us how frequencies can improve and that means more drivers even if they are employed at lower rates. TfW want to double services to the Heads of the Valleys so lets say that overall services double and need double the drivers. Using your worked example in the first year it will be 200 drivers on HR salary plus another 200 drivers on LR salaries and using your figures that's a wage of £16 million (200 x 50K + 200 x £30K) 60% more than at present. Even if your rates of saving become apparent it will never come down lower than £12 million (400 x £30K) still 20% higher than the HR salaries.

Another basic error on top of forgetting to include the drivers for the higher frequencies is the fact that no one gets a pay increase for 20 years. Get real mate its like a GCSE Maths paper "can you outline any flaws in the calculations"?

If the best you can come up with is U grade calculations it says it all.

The frequency of services, and thus the total number of drivers required, is an orthogonal issue. If you want a higher HR frequency, you would have to employ more drivers too. Higher frequency doesn't make the cost savings of LR go away, unless the only reason that frequency was increased was to handle lower LR vehicle capacities. Since the minimum train will be 50m and they will seemingly be doubled up in the peaks, that's not an issue.

The reason there's a push to increase frequency is that increased frequency makes the service more useful for people. Yes, needing more drivers means more wages, but those extra drivers are justified by the extra passengers that higher frequencies bring. Again, if you want to deliver the same frequencies with HR, you also have to increase the number of staff. You know though, if the number of staff needed to run the service increases, then any newly-recruited extra staff will be paid at the lower LR rate from the very beginning. Rather than waiting a few years for the savings to really rack up, they would be present immediately.

I know I've neglected inflation and pay increases. I did this because the sums would otherwise get too complicated, for no good reason. Pay increases do not change the basic notion of what I'm arguing. Newly recruited LR drivers will never, ever get a pay increase putting their pay above the equivalent HR driver. If pay increases make LR drivers more expensive, they'll make HR drivers more expensive too. The effect cancels out completely. I also ignored inflation but it will also not invalidate my point.

The 4 lines north of Queen St are not, by any stretch of the imagination, 'all of the South Wales region'. What about passengers on the Ebbw Vale, Maesteg, City line, Penarth, Barry and the Vale of Glamorgan, that are being saddled with 1980s DMUs for the forseeable future?

What TfW's plans are is for a network 'upgrade' north of Queen St, and a network downgrade everywhere else. Whilst journeys to the north of Queen St may be 'improved', journeys to the south of Queen St and west of Cardiff Central will be downgraded and made more difficult thanks to the multitude of interchanges that will be needed to get across Cardiff city centre.

Straw men abound here. You're criticising me for the idea I'm not proposing.

That a proposal might not directly cover the entire area does not mean it is not in the interests of that area to invest in it. Otherwise, why would we bother doing anything at all? Why should the Welsh Assembly be looking at transport ideas for South Wales when they don't affect North Wales too?

 

[Llanigraham]

Is that essentially all you can argue? That people in Wales definitely, absolutely always know what's better for their rail network than people from elsewhere?

That is something I have never said or implied.

One of the justifications for people to go on fact-finding trips and get consultants in is to get a fresh view of things. People get exposed to how things are done elsewhere, or the people who're responsible for things elsewhere get to suggest changes to how things are done here.

A fact finding trip by you seems to be justified by your comments in this thread. You obviously know nothing about Cardiff and it's environs, socially, geographically or economically so perhaps you should visit. I note I am not the only person to think that.

Being from the region and using the current system can blind you to problems. The network as it exists today might serve its existing customers well, but what we want to do is to make it better serve all of the South Wales region. That means appealing to passengers who don't or can't currently use the system. Appealing to these people requires you to think of ways to significantly change the product you're offering. HR electrification alone will not fundamentally change the system, so it won't magically start working for lots of people for whom it doesn't work today.

Do you know where Powys is?
Funnily enough my comments are based on having lived in Cardiff for some years, then having moved away, visiting friends and relatives and going to events, both by car, train and bus, plus listening to their thoughts and comments. They are also based on my previous jobs and with bodies I have been involved with; I haven't been a signalman for all my life! You might be surprised at the expertise and experience of some those you are disagree with.

 

[gareth950]

Straw men abound here. You're criticising me for the idea I'm not proposing.

That a proposal might not directly cover the entire area does not mean it is not in the interests of that area to invest in it. Otherwise, why would we bother doing anything at all? Why should the Welsh Assembly be looking at transport ideas for South Wales when they don't affect North Wales too?

You're not proposing the idea of a split network and a 'Metro Central' interchange. The people in charge at TfW are. Which is a lot more worrying.

Correctly defining what area the 'South Wales region' covers is hardly a straw man argument. It's a pretty crucial part of the argument. After all, it's called the 'South Wales Metro'. Not the 'Core Valley lines, only lines north of Queen St Metro.' The only funded part of the 'Metro' so far is Core Valley lines electrification / LR conversion. Everything else is being proposed on hope and optimism.

 

[oglord]

Do you know where Powys is?

I don't!

 

[Del1977]

You're not proposing the idea of a split network and a 'Metro Central' interchange. The people in charge at TfW are. Which is a lot more worrying.

Correctly defining what area the 'South Wales region' covers is hardly a straw man argument. It's a pretty crucial part of the argument. After all, it's called the 'South Wales Metro'. Not the 'Core Valley lines, only lines north of Queen St Metro.' The only funded part of the 'Metro' so far is Core Valley lines electrification / LR conversion. Everything else is being proposed on hope and optimism.

As it is a new concept defined by the Assembly, then they'll get to decide its scope. There's no restriction on calling it South Wales Metro if it serves only a portion of lines in South Wales.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The frequency of services, and thus the total number of drivers required, is an orthogonal issue. If you want a higher HR frequency, you would have to employ more drivers too. Higher frequency doesn't make the cost savings of LR go away, unless the only reason that frequency was increased was to handle lower LR vehicle capacities. Since the minimum train will be 50m and they will seemingly be doubled up in the peaks, that's not an issue.

The reason there's a push to increase frequency is that increased frequency makes the service more useful for people. Yes, needing more drivers means more wages, but those extra drivers are justified by the extra passengers that higher frequencies bring. Again, if you want to deliver the same frequencies with HR, you also have to increase the number of staff. You know though, if the number of staff needed to run the service increases, then any newly-recruited extra staff will be paid at the lower LR rate from the very beginning. Rather than waiting a few years for the savings to really rack up, they would be present immediately.

I know I've neglected inflation and pay increases. I did this because the sums would otherwise get too complicated, for no good reason. Pay increases do not change the basic notion of what I'm arguing. Newly recruited LR drivers will never, ever get a pay increase putting their pay above the equivalent HR driver. If pay increases make LR drivers more expensive, they'll make HR drivers more expensive too. The effect cancels out completely. I also ignored inflation but it will also not invalidate my point.

Your post on costs was invalid from the start as you tried to prove a point without taking account of all the factors. Sloppy, inaccurate or deceitful?
You also failed to address how there were any other cost savings associated with Light Rail apart from the highly inaccurate claim of reduced staff costs.

To help remember that currently c40% of ATW's overall costs are Staff. By having 4 tph to the Heads of the Valleys you increase this element substantially. Using your own worked example Staff would go from 40p in every £ to 52p in every £ of costs in a cost base that is 25% higher.

 

[B&I]

.Ah yes, the vox populi. That's always the best way of getting cold, hard data about the success of a transport system.

See what the person using the bus said? "At least if the bus is full the driver won't let anyone on." That's not about buses being a superior mode of transportation. That's about other people being massively inconvenienced in order to slightly convenience that person. If this person were the one blocked from getting on the bus, they would be complaining a lot more.

How often does the rail network go down? Is Metrolink significantly more susceptible to breakdowns than comparable networks? Are the costs of these breakdowns in excess of the costs involved in making them not happen? There's no point using a few breakdowns to justify spending billions of pounds on magical tunnels if the breakdowns aren't that frequent and are really not that costly.

Those pesky passengers, actually wanting a transport system with sufficient capacity to enable them to use it in comfort and safety. Let's just ignore them when their actual views and choices get in the way of our fanatical determination to argue that LR is superior to HR, no matter how badly it is implemented and run.

What better evidence could there be of a system's inadequacy than passengers adopting an alternative mode of transport because they don't like travelling on a mobile Black Hole of Calcutta ?

 

[NotATrainspott]

That is something I have never said or implied.

You definitely are implying it. It is fairly obvious that I'm not from Cardiff. I have, for the record, never been to Wales either. With that information, you are now going to use it as an excuse to ignore any points I make regardless of their merit.

A fact finding trip by you seems to be justified by your comments in this thread. You obviously know nothing about Cardiff and it's environs, socially, geographically or economically so perhaps you should visit. I note I am not the only person to think that

A city region like Cardiff and the Valleys would get light rail wherever it is. What unique features does the region have which make light rail unsuitable? And before you go off about street running again, remember that the definition of light rail includes the T&W Metro and the DLR.

Do you know where Powys is?
Funnily enough my comments are based on having lived in Cardiff for some years, then having moved away, visiting friends and relatives and going to events, both by car, train and bus, plus listening to their thoughts and comments. They are also based on my previous jobs and with bodies I have been involved with; I haven't been a signalman for all my life! You might be surprised at the expertise and experience of some those you are disagree with.

If Henry Ford asked people what people wanted, they would have said a faster horse. Normal people don't normally know what's possible. All they can imagine is a slightly better version of what they've got today - i.e. having a seat when they don't currently get one.

You're not proposing the idea of a split network and a 'Metro Central' interchange. The people in charge at TfW are. Which is a lot more worrying.

If they were so sure about that, why haven't they made it explicit through the franchising process? Again, the most rational explanation for everything is that they are waiting for the bidders to suggest viable options, rather than prescribing them from the start.

Correctly defining what area the 'South Wales region' covers is hardly a straw man argument. It's a pretty crucial part of the argument. After all, it's called the 'South Wales Metro'. Not the 'Core Valley lines, only lines north of Queen St Metro.' The only funded part of the 'Metro' so far is Core Valley lines electrification / LR conversion. Everything else is being proposed on hope and optimism.

Is it not the case that the 'South Wales Metro' branding will cover most of South Wales? The LR metro bit is just one part of it, alongside other HR services and buses.

Your post on costs was invalid from the start as you tried to prove a point without taking account of all the factors. Sloppy, inaccurate or deceitful?
You also failed to address how there were any other cost savings associated with Light Rail apart from the highly inaccurate claim of reduced staff costs.

To help remember that currently c40% of ATW's overall costs are Staff. By having 4 tph to the Heads of the Valleys you increase this element substantially. Using your own worked example Staff would go from 40p in every £ to 52p in every £ of costs in a cost base that is 25% higher.

This is still nonsense. You're saying that the financial case for LR is ruined by the fact that it's then economically viable to run a higher frequency of service! It's the frequency that matters. If you wanted to run exactly the frequencies that run today, but with LR technology, then costs would go down. If you want to increase frequency will still using HR technology, then you're going to have to pay for a lot of HR driver salaries. Frequency is what makes the network useful for passengers and generates the business case. Increasing frequency increases costs, but it also increases benefits. If the benefit of increasing frequency exceeds the cost of increasing frequency, then increasing frequency is a good thing and will happen. LR means you get the same benefit of increased frequency, but at less cost. How is this hard to understand? Is your ideal HR alternative now also about keeping frequencies the same, rather than trying to improve them? How would you justify that to the people of the Valleys? Marginally comfier trains good, more trams bad?

I have already pointed out plenty of areas where LR saves money. You just continue to ignore them, or use them to go off on a major tangent. Remember how I explained that on LR-only lines, you don't need to bother with expensive lifts or enormous ramps to get full accessibility? You just need a little level crossing. If you want to reopen a line, you don't need to spend as much on earthworks and civil engineering because LR vehicles weigh a lot less. You might get away with re-using bridges which would need total replacement, or not needing to stabilise old embankments to the same degree. The 750V DC tram OHLE is a fraction of the cost of 25kV AC OHLE, with massively reduced electrical clearances meaning you can get away without needing to close and rebuild tunnels and bridges. Now, you're just going to complain that "the Welsh Government aren't planning any extensions, so this is all moot". No it isn't, because these extra allowances for LR make it cheaper and easier to maintain the network. And, any LR system will be sticking around for a long time. If you want to have any possibility of extensions in future, LR is your best bet. Sticking for HR means closing doors which don't deserve to be closed.

 

[B&I]

Straw men abound here. You're criticising me for the idea I'm not proposing.

You may not be proposing it, but you have spent several weeks defending every aspect of it. When people previously pointed out the flaws on the basis of the available evidence, your response is to deny that the system implemented will have these negative features, despite the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

Now, confronted for the 418th time with some of the flaws of the system designed, you are saying it is not for you to defend them. So you now seem to admit that your arguments are of no specific relevance to the situation in south Wales, but are instead advocacy of LR simply because it is LR.

 

[PHILIPE]

Opinion on this topic appears to be 100 against 1 who doesn't like what many experienced people tell him. It was against 2 until the other one didn't like answering awkward questions so dropped out of the thread.

 

[gareth950]

If they were so sure about that, why haven't they made it explicit through the franchising process? Again, the most rational explanation for everything is that they are waiting for the bidders to suggest viable options, rather than prescribing them from the start.

Nothing has been made explicit throughout the franchising process!
What we do know are the Mott MacDonald maps that have been released showing a clear HR/LR split in Cardiff city centre.

In the pre-tender documents, TfW specified that the bidders must source rolling stock that is capable of running on-street.

In mid-January, the 'Metro Central Interchange' around Cardiff Central station was announced.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-42689172
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/new-vision-sees-cardiff-central-14157440

The changes to Cardiff Central railway station include:

• Provision for a new Metro (tram) terminal south of the railway station, adjacent to the main southern concourse, to enable easy, covered transition between bus and tram and train and tram.
• Improvements to public realm north and south of the station and between Metro Central and Queen St station to improve access to the Interchange and to encourage walking.

This suggests that any trams from the Valleys will not be sharing the main HR platforms at Cardiff Central, which in turn points to on-street running in Cardiff city centre, which in turn points to a HR / LR network split in Cardiff city centre with no cross-city running to Penarth / Barry/ the Vale of Glamorgan or City line.

Is that still not enough evidence? Whilst nothing has been explicitly confirmed, you don't have to be a transport planning genius to join the dots.

Is it not the case that the 'South Wales Metro' branding will cover most of South Wales? The LR metro bit is just one part of it, alongside other HR services and buses.

Ah yes, passengers will get 1980s trains painted in silver, red and orange livery with a backwards running hare at the front, to convince them that they are part of the 'Metro' to, when they really aren't at all.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I have already pointed out plenty of areas where LR saves money

You mean your made up Staff Savings at post # 1624? https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/south-wales-metro.117763/page-55#post-3350184

Why should anyone take anything you say seriously when you blatantly post things that are instantly disproved in a desperate attempt to prove a point? You have no credibility.

 

[squizzler]

Opinion on this topic appears to be 100 against 1 who doesn't like what many experienced people tell him. It was against 2 until the other one didn't like answering awkward questions so dropped out of the thread.

I have been lurking on here a while and - while I certainly don't pretend to be representative of any sort of silent majority - feel that I can't be alone in thinking @NotATrainspott has argued the case for LR very eloquently. Of course Ian Walmsley from modern railways argued the case for light rail a couple of years ago in an article called "Metroland of my Fathers" and I understand he was a manager in South Wales BR during the the 1980's. So it's hardly the case that anyone with any "experience" or knowledge of South Wales rail would immediately see folly in going with light rail.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Nothing has been made explicit throughout the franchising process!
What we do know are the Mott MacDonald maps that have been released showing a clear HR/LR split in Cardiff city centre.

In the pre-tender documents, TfW specified that the bidders must source rolling stock that is capable of running on-street.

In mid-January, the 'Metro Central Interchange' around Cardiff Central station was announced.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-42689172
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/new-vision-sees-cardiff-central-14157440

The changes to Cardiff Central railway station include:

• Provision for a new Metro (tram) terminal south of the railway station, adjacent to the main southern concourse, to enable easy, covered transition between bus and tram and train and tram.
• Improvements to public realm north and south of the station and between Metro Central and Queen St station to improve access to the Interchange and to encourage walking.

This suggests that any trams from the Valleys will not be sharing the main HR platforms at Cardiff Central, which in turn points to on-street running in Cardiff city centre, which in turn points to a HR / LR network split in Cardiff city centre with no cross-city running to Penarth / Barry/ the Vale of Glamorgan or City line.

Is that still not enough evidence? Whilst nothing has been explicitly confirmed, you don't have to be a transport planning genius to join the dots.

This is the paragraph I found interesting from the WalesOnline report:

While it would also have to figure in the business case from the company chosen by Transport for Wales to build the next phase of the Metro with electrification of the Valley Lines and the running of the next Wales & Borders rail franchise from October, the plans also include provision for a new tram station at the southern site of Cardiff Central for services to Cardiff Bay.

This is a lot less committal than you think it is. Provision means that the plans are designed so that this option is possible. That does not mean they are going to happen. You see, if the plans for Metro Central didn't include provision for street running LR, then it would be an absolute guarantee that it won't happen. However, until the franchising process is completed and the final outcome has been confirmed, it would be very problematic to do that. Either it would ruin the plans made by the bidders, or it would implicitly reveal details of the bids.

For the people drawing up the masterplan for Metro Central there is still value in keeping provision for LR even if the existing rail line is used to begin with. Plans like these will have effects long into the future - it's less likely that these developments will end up being torn down than equivalent masterplans back in the post-war era. Keeping provision means that in the future, it'll be easy for planners to add in additional street running which does need to serve the station.

Remember that the alternative provision is essentially the null case. If the SWM runs via the existing platforms, then it'll just be part of the HR station improvements. Whatever happens, there will be significant access improvements to platforms 6-8, and these improvements would be used by my expected LR through-running services.

You mean your made up Staff Savings at post # 1624? https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/south-wales-metro.117763/page-55#post-3350184

Why should anyone take anything you say seriously when you blatantly post things that are instantly disproved in a desperate attempt to prove a point? You have no credibility.

Goodness sake. What is your problem?

Do you agree that going to a 15 minute service would be a good thing? Most importantly, do you agree that this frequency increase results in an increase in benefits and an increase in ticket revenues, because the service becomes more useful?

Do you appreciate that this 15 minute service would require more drivers to be employed, whether on HR or LR?

Do you understanding that the cost of employing the same number of additional drivers will be lower with LR than with HR?

Do you realise that natural attrition rates exist, and newly-trained replacement LR drivers would cost less than their predecessors?

What you seem to be doing is clinging to the absolute total wage figure and not understanding the balance between it and the total amount of benefit driven by the network. If frequency increases, the benefit increases. Employing more drivers at LR pay is capable of increasing benefit more than the additional cost of their wages. The same is not so easily true of HR.

 

[gareth950]

I have been lurking on here a while and - while I certainly don't pretend to be representative of any sort of silent majority - feel that I can't be alone in thinking @NotATrainspott has argued the case for LR very eloquently. Of course Ian Walmsley from modern railways argued the case for light rail a couple of years ago in an article called "Metroland of my Fathers" and I understand he was a manager in South Wales BR during the the 1980's. So it's hardly the case that anyone with any "experience" or knowledge of South Wales rail would immediately see folly in going with light rail.

That article talked about a tram-train conversion of the entire VL network, inc. the lines to Barry, Penarth, the Vale and western section of the City Line to Radyr. It did not advocate TfW's plans of hiving off the 'Core' VL north of Queen St, upgrading those 4 lines, splitting them off from everything else, and abandoning the rest to DMU operation.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Goodness sake. What is your problem?

You post falsehoods and cod calculations to try and prove a point. i.e you got caught making it up on imagined savings in staff costs @ post #1624.

Why should anyone believe a thing you say when you clearly make things up?

 

[Gareth Marston]

That article talked about a tram-train conversion of the entire VL network, inc. the lines to Barry, Penarth, the Vale and western section of the City Line to Radyr. It did not advocate TfW's plans of hiving off the 'Core' VL north of Queen St, upgrading those 4 lines, splitting them off from everything else, and abandoning the rest to DMU operation.

Inconveniently for some bringing it back to the real world of what TfW are doing not theory.

 

[MarkyT]

That article talked about a tram-train conversion of the entire VL network, inc. the lines to Barry, Penarth, the Vale and western section of the City Line to Radyr. It did not advocate TfW's plans of hiving off the 'Core' VL north of Queen St, upgrading those 4 lines, splitting them off from everything else, and abandoning the rest to DMU operation.

We cannot yet know what the final output will be. Like you I don't like that. For one thing it keeps the absurd mudslinging in this thread going. It's starting to become very repetitive. Nothing I've seen so far actually 'proves' that a complete separation of services is inevitable, with no core Valleys services going past Cardiff Central onto the VoG, nor any VoG trains going to useful destinations in the centre but on the 'wrong network' like Cathays. The environmental maps I see as being corridor studies that do not in themselves define final service patterns, but whose work could be useful for a number of possible solutions. Tram trains are a thing, a big thing in Europe now and if provided as 50m, high platform units that can work in multiple, could be as fast and comfortable as modern heavy rail units when running on segregated rail infrastructure. To many passengers they would be indistinguishable from similar electric HR trains and in any case HR units like Flirts are getting lighter and more tram-like anyway, a kind of convergence. If TfW go LR, I hope they follow Ian Walmsleys advice.

 

[NotATrainspott]

You post falsehoods and cod calculations to try and prove a point. i.e you got caught making it up on imagined savings in staff costs @ post #1624.

Why should anyone believe a thing you say when you clearly make things up?

What was wrong with my calculations?

I wasn't trying to provide an accurate number. I was showing how you can save a huge amount of money even without cutting existing drivers' pay. So long as the average pay for new LR drivers is less than the pay for existing HR drivers, there will be a saving. When you are financing a scheme, you look at a saving like that and use it to justify more upfront capital expenditure. If £42m will be saved over the course of 20 years by doing a certain thing, then if that certain thing costs less than £42m it is a financially better option than not doing it.

Inflation and pay increases do not change this, so long as LR drivers are always paid less than the equivalent HR driver. After 20 years of pay rises and inflation it's quite probable that the LR driver would be paid £50,000 or more, but the last few HR drivers would be earning £80,000, so there would still be a pay differential.

If you want to say how my sums are all wrong, then you need to provide your own and/or a concrete rebuttal. Point out the concrete flaws in my logic. Don't just say "your sums are wrong" - prove it. Go through the numbers yourself and come up with a different answer, detailing each of the steps you made. Show me how LR isn't going to save money, without resorting to the utterly absurd attack that being able to run a higher frequency harms the business case.

 

[Llanigraham]

You definitely are implying it. It is fairly obvious that I'm not from Cardiff. I have, for the record, never been to Wales either. With that information, you are now going to use it as an excuse to ignore any points I make regardless of their merit.

To repeat, I have not implied anything of the sort.
I find it totally amazing that you consider yourself such an expert about Cardiff and South Wales, but now admit you are actually ignorant of anything to do with the area.

A city region like Cardiff and the Valleys would get light rail wherever it is. What unique features does the region have which make light rail unsuitable? And before you go off about street running again, remember that the definition of light rail includes the T&W Metro and the DLR.

Have you read any of the comments others have made about the unsuitability of light rail?

If Henry Ford asked people what people wanted, they would have said a faster horse. Normal people don't normally know what's possible. All they can imagine is a slightly better version of what they've got today - i.e. having a seat when they don't currently get one.

What??
So people who live, work and socialise in an area shouldn't have a view on what transport they want?
I do wonder whether you have actually read what I wrote!

Your responses have NO merit.

 

[Gareth Marston]

What was wrong with my calculations?

I wasn't trying to provide an accurate number. I was showing how you can save a huge amount of money even without cutting existing drivers' pay. So long as the average pay for new LR drivers is less than the pay for existing HR drivers, there will be a saving. When you are financing a scheme, you look at a saving like that and use it to justify more upfront capital expenditure. If £42m will be saved over the course of 20 years by doing a certain thing, then if that certain thing costs less than £42m it is a financially better option than not doing it.

Inflation and pay increases do not change this, so long as LR drivers are always paid less than the equivalent HR driver. After 20 years of pay rises and inflation it's quite probable that the LR driver would be paid £50,000 or more, but the last few HR drivers would be earning £80,000, so there would still be a pay differential.

If you want to say how my sums are all wrong, then you need to provide your own and/or a concrete rebuttal. Point out the concrete flaws in my logic. Don't just say "your sums are wrong" - prove it. Go through the numbers yourself and come up with a different answer, detailing each of the steps you made. Show me how LR isn't going to save money, without resorting to the utterly absurd attack that being able to run a higher frequency harms the business case.

Another pretend denial post NotATrainspott - how utterly boring but we've all come to expect this sort of thing from you. Pretending that you haven't had valid points made against you or have been cuaght out does your arguments no favors- it merely serves to confirm that your argument is weak.

You know this but for the benefit of everyone-

• You told us that LR has reduced operating costs and therefore reduced subsidy.
• We asked you to show us how.
• You told us initially that in theory LR drivers are paid less then HR ones.
• We pointed out that in the real world the Welsh Government has pledged to protect existing jobs. Therefore to begin with the LR drivers will have HR terms and conditions.
  
• You provided an example of how natural wastage and no pay increases for 20 years (post #1624) would eventually lead to cost savings.
  
• We pointed out that the TfW plans and your own previous advocacy of higher frequency service under LR mean the system would need more drivers than now and therefore crucially would have greater staff costs than the exiting system.
• You got yourself in a tither about servce frequency in post #1627 in a response no one understood.
• You've now tried to pretend that valid points were not made.