Wales & Borders Franchise Consultation

[daikilo]

Well its only the Welsh Government that wants the bonkers idea of core valley lines so it can have a token fiefdom of control over rail services not involving DfT, so there would be no need for Construction partners if it wasn't for WG.

I may not describe it that way but I do not support the suggested conversion to Light Rail. Likewise, I question the benefit of the switch from Network Rail to a local partner unless someone can prove that NR is overcharging.

 

[HH]

And the Arriva management team will be available.
In the revolving door of the railway, TOC MDs often turn up working for what used to be the opposition.
Who knows, there may be some Stagecoach managers coming free soon.

Quite. Plus W&B has a new MD, who has already switched horses a few times (willingly or not); I'm sure he'll be happy to switch again if someone pays him well.

 

[HH]

I may not describe it that way but I do not support the suggested conversion to Light Rail. Likewise, I question the benefit of the switch from Network Rail to a local partner unless someone can prove that NR is overcharging.

I'm guessing here, but light rail is cheaper to run. Obviously there are downsides, some of which have already been mentioned, but if you want something new and want to do it on the cheap...

 

[Envoy]

I may not describe it that way but I do not support the suggested conversion to Light Rail. Likewise, I question the benefit of the switch from Network Rail to a local partner unless someone can prove that NR is overcharging.

Network Rail have kept bumping up the costs of re-building the branch line to Portishead. This has dragged on for years and still nothing has been accomplished.

 

[Robertj21a]

I'm guessing here, but light rail is cheaper to run. Obviously there are downsides, some of which have already been mentioned, but if you want something new and want to do it on the cheap...

True. A modern tramway could run at higher frequencies, with longer term possibilities of street running. Just a shame that some of the distances are quite lengthy.

 

[Chester1]

They are planning to convert the wrong lines to light rail. Tram-trains to Barry, Penarth, Bay, Coryton and Pontypridd (alongside heavy rail tracks using the old four track alignment) would work. Any further is to too far on a light rail unit.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Network Rail have kept bumping up the costs of re-building the branch line to Portishead. This has dragged on for years and still nothing has been accomplished.

Whilst looking to circumvent Network Rail is laudable it does nothing to solve the problem of their inflated costs and lack of project management skills. Its not a solution. The UK needs a solution.

 

[MarkyT]

They are planning to convert the wrong lines to light rail. Tram-trains to Barry, Penarth, Bay, Coryton and Pontypridd (alongside heavy rail tracks using the old four track alignment) would work. Any further is to too far on a light rail unit.

I'd agree if you were talking about a typical low floor street tram, e.g Citadis, but the latest crop of tram-trains from Vosloh/Stadler and CAF are more like small trains trying to be a tram rather than the other way round. Crucially, these have proper bogies under high(ish) floor sections rather than individual wheels arranged in short fixed wheelbase sections as on some of the 100% low floor designs. Proper bogies should mean a better ride on higher speed HR track sections and the CAF Urbos TT design, as recently delivered to Cadiz, quotes a maximum speed of 100kph. The internal dimensions of these units are fairly large, similar to a typical UK train interior and could be fitted out as desired by a customer, i.e they needn't be optimised primarily for central urban standing passengers but could have a more comfy 'outer suburban' feel if desired. It is the higher single line sections of the valleys network where light rail construction techniques and legal status could bring lower costs in providing extra double track and passing loop facilities to increase service frequency. In particular the access arrangements for a second platform in such circumstances could be much easier to provide and more convenient for passengers with 'at grade' crossings allowed under tramway legislation rather than the long ramped or lift-equipped bridges necessary for a heavy rail solution today. Clearly, where heavy rail freights continue to coexist with the light metro, these sections would have to remain legally as heavy rail, but most of the affected area is already double track. The previously 4 track sections south of Pontipridd might be difficult to restore to their original capabilities because standards for modern clearance between adjacent tracks are greater than those provided in the Victorian era, and in many cases a clear 'ten foot' between adjacent line pairs simply doesn't exist. Also since simplification remaining tracks have been slued across the sinuous alignment in places to reduce minimum curvature and optimise the speed profile. Three tracks might be more plausible than four today but that would probably not be able to deliver fully segregated light/heavy networks of sufficient capacity affordably as far as Pontipridd.

 

[MarkyT]

Whilst looking to circumvent Network Rail is laudable it does nothing to solve the problem of their inflated costs and lack of project management skills. Its not a solution. The UK needs a solution.

I agree, but lets not forget NR has delivered and continues to deliver many projects successfully to budget and timescale. It is a small number of very large and high profile multidisciplinary enhancement projects, mostly associated with the dreaded 'e word', that have been so problematic. While we can retrospectively look back with much hindsight and say for instance that NR should never have 'taken on' or 'promised' such and such on the GW project for example, did they really have any choice in the face of DfT demands? And remember that electrification clearance standards flipped part way through the work and overturned many designs already complete, creating much expensive rework after supplier contracts had already been signed, absolutely fatal for cost control. There is not a systemic failure of NR as a whole or even of its project delivery organisation, which grinds on relentlessly with routine renewals largely very successfully. There is a fundemental problem in the industry as a whole at the moment however and it as much political as it is technical or managerial.

 

[ainsworth74]

A gentle reminder that the South Wales 'Metro' already has a thread discussing the pros and cons as well as the politics behind it all which can be found here. The last few posts appear to have started to stray off the wider Wales & Boarder Franchise tender process and moved to specifically discussing the 'Metro'. Please could we therefore continue any discussion about the new 'Metro' on the dedicated thread and stick to the wider issues of the franchise here.

Thanks,
ainsworth74

 

[northwichcat]

I'm not sure if it's already been mentioned but there's rumours that bidders have been talking to Eversholt about using mk4 sets.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I'm not sure if it's already been mentioned but there's rumours that bidders have been talking to Eversholt about using mk4 sets.

One of the two that have dropped out or the two that are left?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm not sure if it's already been mentioned but there's rumours that bidders have been talking to Eversholt about using mk4 sets.

They won't be available before 2020, and some are mooted for the MML.
And who knows what will fall out of the VTEC situation.
VTEC's HSTs are slated for replacement first.

 

[gareth950]

I'm not sure if it's already been mentioned but there's rumours that bidders have been talking to Eversholt about using mk4 sets.

I've read rumours that it's Mk3s + HSTs (2 +4).
Again, all rumour and speculation, which is to be expected.

 

[Envoy]

I have just been watching a programme on BBC 1 Scotland about the state of the railways. I see some similarities with the situation in Wales. I note that the re-built Borders railway has proved so popular that they now realise that they should have done it as dual track - reminds me of the Ebbw Vale Line! Incredibly, on the Borders line, they re-built a road bridge but only left space for a single track. Remind you of anything? Well, it reminds me of the short sightedness of putting the ‘new’ A483 over the Wrexham to Chester line and only allowing space for a single track. The programme briefly shows the Edinburgh tram. If you wish to see this programme:>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09t08b0

 

[northwichcat]

I've read rumours that it's Mk3s + HSTs (2 +4).
Again, all rumour and speculation, which is to be expected.

I'm sure bidders will look at more than one option.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The powers for letting the W&B franchise by the Welsh Government have started their parliamentary process today, after agreement between DfT and WG.
There doesn't seem to be a document to read, just a DfT announcement.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...t-to-be-devolved-following-historic-agreement

The transfer of rail services to the Welsh government has taken a significant step forward with the laying of a draft order in Parliament.

The draft order was laid before Parliament today (28 February 2018) and will, subject to approval from MPs, Lords and the Privy Council, devolve the procurement and management of Wales and Borders franchise train services within Wales. This follows detailed discussions between the Department for Transport and the Welsh Government on how powers will be devolved to Welsh ministers.

The agreement also takes into account the fact that many of the franchise services operate on both sides of the border between England and Wales and includes safeguards to protect all passengers using these routes

The announcement repeats the agreement for Westminster to provide £125m towards upgrading the Valley Lines.

 

[gareth950]

Still nothing on the transfer of the 'Core' Valley lines north of Queen St. Makes you wonder whether an agreement on that will be reached in time.

 

[HH]

I'm sure bidders will look at more than one option.

Nothing to stop you starting with Mk3s and moving on to Mk4s when they become available.

I hear that Vivarail have seen some interest; somehow I doubt that was Abellio, so D Trains might still be in the mix. Then there's the Class 769...

So many trains, so few bidders.

 

[Mordac]

The powers for letting the W&B franchise by the Welsh Government have started their parliamentary process today, after agreement between DfT and WG.
There doesn't seem to be a document to read, just a DfT announcement.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...t-to-be-devolved-following-historic-agreement


The announcement repeats the agreement for Westminster to provide £125m towards upgrading the Valley Lines.

The draft statutory instrument has emerged here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2018/9780111165935/contents

 

[Gareth Marston]

Welsh Government have started drip feeding "good news" spin via the all to willing Sion Berry @ Walesonline following recent criticism raised by Plaid and their own AM's in the Senedd.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/busin...er-passenger-compensation-rules-late-14422438

so no release of the invitation to Tender, No meaningful public debate/consultation and despite the total secrecy supposedly surrounding the process the new franchise will apparently have

Under the next Wales & Borders rail franchise, which is being devolved to the Welsh Government from October this year, if a service is more than 15 minutes late passengers will be entitled to compensation.Under the current franchise, operated by Arriva Trains Wales, passengers are usually only entitled to compensation if services are delayed by more than 30 minutes.

The new technology platform could see passengers reimbursed almost immediately through an electronic transfer to their bank accounts.

And it comes as the Welsh Government's transport body, Transport for Wales, has confirmed that new ticketing technology will be introduced that will allow passengers to book in advance on mobile phones, as well as being able to make contactless payments.

and

And as part of a phased process, the rest of the franchise network is also likely to see an increase in frequency of service and rolling stock capacity - with larger and new disabled access legislation compliant diesel powered trains to start.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Interesting quote from latest modern railways.

"The Welsh government has made a pitch to become the franchising authority for inter-city services between Paddington and Swansea, as well as services between Cardiff, Bristol and Portsmouth."

Then some spieal about providing genuine choice for English passengers. Then they also state another quote from Ken States where "He proposes that, in the longer term, the Welsh government takes responsibility for the intercity west coast and cross country services that cross the border".

Is the man insane, why should the welsh government have control of services that barely touch wales? I can see an arguement for swansea/north wales london possibly, maybe more a shared responsibility. But cardifd Portsmouth? Spends about half hour in wales before several in england. Cross country similar.

 

[Dai Corner]

Cross-border services, by definition, should be the responsibility of the UK Government. They should (and probably do) consult the Welsh Government but handing control of services within England to Wales is ridiculous.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The Carwyn Jones Welsh Labour Administration overriding aim is to gain control of more things from Westminster whether they subsequently know which way is UP even on what they gain control or have any cohernat ideas as to what to do is another matter.

 

[CardiffKid]

Interesting quote from latest modern railways.

"The Welsh government has made a pitch to become the franchising authority for inter-city services between Paddington and Swansea, as well as services between Cardiff, Bristol and Portsmouth."

Then some spieal about providing genuine choice for English passengers. Then they also state another quote from Ken States where "He proposes that, in the longer term, the Welsh government takes responsibility for the intercity west coast and cross country services that cross the border".

I wouldn't want to see the WG take on responsibility for the current Great Western Franchise.

If hypothetically ATW/their replacement wanted to tray and run a few services a day from South Wales into London then I'd genuinely welcome that.

 

[Envoy]

I note that between Birmingham and London that people have a choice of Virgin, Chiltern and London Midland. Now, obviously, Virgin have the fastest services and fortunately for Chiltern, they operate on a completely different line. London Midland operate more or less the same route as Virgin but make more stops. As a result of three operators connecting Birmingham with London, fares can be very low - especially off peak. The same tends to be true on some sections of the East Coast Mainline. So, competition does seem to bring prices down.

I can understand the Welsh Government feeling that train services in/out of Wales are not what they should be. Note the fact that many Class 170 trains operating the direct services (Cross Country) between Cardiff/Newport and Birmingham, Derby & Nottingham are only 2 coaches. No long distance Cross Country trains serve Wales - such as Swansea to York & Newcastle. Also note how the Cardiff to Portsmouth trains have only been 3 coach 158’s. Even when we get to this summer, the replacement will be Class 166/5 trains from the Thames Valley running as 5 coach sets - hardly what you would call a decent long distance train!

I think the WG should invite open access operators to put on a service that goes from Cardiff to Crewe via the Marches and then up the west coast mainline to Edinburgh. Ideally, this should be a bi-mode Class 800 running as 5 coaches. (Fares between Cardiff & Edinburgh are ridiculous. Is Cross Country setting this fare - even though you don’t use XC trains for such a journey)?

 

[Gareth Marston]

I note that between Birmingham and London that people have a choice of Virgin, Chiltern and London Midland. Now, obviously, Virgin have the fastest services and fortunately for Chiltern, they operate on a completely different line. London Midland operate more or less the same route as Virgin but make more stops. As a result of three operators connecting Birmingham with London, fares can be very low - especially off peak. The same tends to be true on some sections of the East Coast Mainline. So, competition does seem to bring prices down.

I can understand the Welsh Government feeling that train services in/out of Wales are not what they should be. Note the fact that many Class 170 trains operating the direct services (Cross Country) between Cardiff/Newport and Birmingham, Derby & Nottingham are only 2 coaches. No long distance Cross Country trains serve Wales - such as Swansea to York & Newcastle. Also note how the Cardiff to Portsmouth trains have only been 3 coach 158’s. Even when we get to this summer, the replacement will be Class 166/5 trains from the Thames Valley running as 5 coach sets - hardly what you would call a decent long distance train!

I think the WG should invite open access operators to put on a service that goes from Cardiff to Crewe via the Marches and then up the west coast mainline to Edinburgh. Ideally, this should be a bi-mode Class 800 running as 5 coaches. (Fares between Cardiff & Edinburgh are ridiculous. Is Cross Country setting this fare - even though you don’t use XC trains for such a journey)?

You can do AP's between Cardiff and Edinburgh for as little as £70.00......

A whole slew of stuff that Welsh Government and Open Access are not the answers to there. Just where are the paths for these trains????

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Nothing to stop any TOC applying for Open Access from Cardiff to Edinburgh.
But there have been no applications, which might tell you something about the market.
WG wants control of the ICWC spec within Wales (eg to extend more trains west of Chester, or even Shrewsbury).
Also wants services to Bristol.
There's no way the DfT will give up control of anything to do with HS2 or the IEP programme, as national investments.
Regional trains to Bristol are something else.

 

[Del1977]

I can see the market / economic reasons for an enhanced Cardiff Central-Bristol Temple Meads stopper.

I think the market to Edinburgh from Cardiff is more limited.

For what it's worth - when I was at university in Durham, there was a direct InterCity CrossCountry service to Swansea from Newcastle, but I never used it, as went via Leeds, and then reversed direction in Gloucester and Bristol Temple Meads. It was quicker to get a Plymouth train (via Doncaster, not Leeds) and then change at Bristol Parkway.

I think the value of direct trains is vastly overstated.

 

[bonzawe]

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/30-year-old-commuter-trains-14481182

Pacer trains, which are already more than 30 years old, are being lined up for modifications so they can keep on running after the deadline for accessibility improvements next year.

And the commuter trains could become even less popular with passengers – because their toilets are likely to be permanently closed to save money.

Pacers were built in the 1980s as a stop-gap solution to a British Rail funding crisis. With only four wheels per coach, instead of the usual eight, they give passengers a bumpier ride and squeal loudly on curved track – including on the heavily used route past the Motorpoint Arena in Cardiff.

They are so unpopular that in 2015, then transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin overruled his civil servants to promise that all Pacers in the north of England would be replaced by 2020.

Wales appeared to be on the same trajectory after the company which owns most of Wales’ Pacers said it would not invest in the modifications which would enable them to continue in passenger service after 31 December, 2019.

However, sources are now indicating that Wales will still need Pacers after that deadline. The next Wales and Borders franchise, starting in October, will introduce new trains but not until after next year, because of the long lead-in time for rolling stock.

Second-hand diesel trains from other franchises are unlikely to allow withdrawal of all Welsh Pacers in the next couple of years, because of delays or cancellations to electrification projects which were previously expected to replace diesel trains with electric ones.

The Persons of Reduced Mobility (PRM) regulations list many features which will be essential after next year, including wheelchair space, audio and visual passenger information and contrasting colours to help visually-impaired people locate grab handles and door buttons. If the train has toilets, at least one toilet must be accessible for wheelchairs, including a “clearway” route to the cubicle.

Retired train engineer Ian Walmsley, who managed the Valley Lines fleet in the 1980s, said that keeping the Pacers running after next year was feasible, provided the toilets were taken out of use.

“There are two principal costs to PRM [compliance] in a Pacer – the toilet and the passenger information system,” he said. “The latter costs about £2,000 per vehicle, so not too much. The toilet is big money as it has to go mid-vehicle, away from the doors. The obvious answer is to lock them all.”

Interesting article on the probability that pacers cannot be withdrawn in time for 2020 and the consequent removal of toilets. At least it will prepare for the trams.