Wales & Borders Franchise Consultation

[CardiffKid]

Theirs no obvious "get of jail card" is there?- wheres my toilet key.....

There's not and it's all the more depressing that this problem has been a long time coming.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Its another inherent problem of the cycle of franchising that needs intervention to resolve. Its no secret that Porterbrook flagged this with Welsh Government several year ago. I'm surprised that the bidders have put up with Welsh Government trying to shovel the responsibility/blame onto them (maybe one didn't??) if indeed they have or has Ken Skates just made that up? Who knows in the wonderful world of transparent Government we have in Wales.

 

[gareth950]

Its another inherent problem of the cycle of franchising that needs intervention to resolve. Its no secret that Porterbrook flagged this with Welsh Government several year ago. I'm surprised that the bidders have put up with Welsh Government trying to shovel the responsibility/blame onto them (maybe one didn't??) if indeed they have or has Ken Skates just made that up? Who knows in the wonderful world of transparent Government we have in Wales.

Welsh Govt were warned 5 years ago by Porterbrook, in 2013, but have had their fingers in their ears ever since.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/three-quarters-ageing-wales-borders-10520645
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-trains-face-51m-upgrade-6212183

 

[CardiffKid]

Interesting question tabled at First Minister's Questions for next week (Tuesday at 13.30)

1. Gareth Bennett
Will the First Minister make a statement on the accessibility of trains for persons of reduced mobility?

 

[gareth950]

Interesting question tabled at First Minister's Questions for next week (Tuesday at 13.30)

1. Gareth Bennett
Will the First Minister make a statement on the accessibility of trains for persons of reduced mobility?

FM: "Yes certainly. We have written into the franchise documents that bidders must come up with innovate solutions to make all trains in Wales compatible with PRM by 2020. These will be world class PRM modified trains, not just normal modified trains. There is currently a top secret procurement process ongoing and so that's a get out of jail card for me to not have to give any details or further comment."

 

[Gareth Marston]

Interesting question tabled at First Minister's Questions for next week (Tuesday at 13.30)

1. Gareth Bennett
Will the First Minister make a statement on the accessibility of trains for persons of reduced mobility?

• Carwyn breaks down and admits failure and asks for forgiveness. 100 to 1 long shot
  
• The Bidders will be responsible be cos we said so in the ITT that nobody's seen. 5 to 1 favorite.
• The dog ate my homework . 20 to 1
• We already have a factory producing new trains. 60 to 1
• Has anyone got Adrian Shooters phone number at Vivarail? 40 to 1
• Its the nasty Tory's fault. 8 to 1.
• We expect cascaded trains from the DfT hydrogen train trial in the Lake district. 30 to 1

 

[JetStream]

And Arriva put up £1 million of the money needed towards the 769s for what, 1 month in service with ATW? Arriva must now be disputing that £1 million with Welsh Govt.

I'd imagine them withdrawing from the process helps the WG out there.

 

[Dai Corner]

• Carwyn breaks down and admits failure and asks for forgiveness. 100 to 1 long shot
  
• The Bidders will be responsible be cos we said so in the ITT that nobody's seen. 5 to 1 favorite.
• The dog ate my homework . 20 to 1
• We already have a factory producing new trains. 60 to 1
• Has anyone got Adrian Shooters phone number at Vivarail? 40 to 1
• Its the nasty Tory's fault. 8 to 1.
• We expect cascaded trains from the DfT hydrogen train trial in the Lake district. 30 to 1

• An elegantly worded answer boiling down to "Not my problem, mate. I won't be here"

 

[HH]

Really from where? I wouldn't put any money on Anglia being able to release their DMU's in 2019, given the usual teething problems with new trains etc. and of course the Flirt trains are somewhat radical from a UK perspective. Its clear from Shooters recent speech on the D230 thread that non of the Welsh bidders are interested in D230's, so I think locking the bogs out on Pacers seems the likely option, until new DMU's and Trams arrive from CAF

We shall see on the 230s. Are you willing to put money where Shooter's mouth is?

 

[HH]

What refurbished stock do you think will arrive before 31st Dec 2019 or are you taking about ATW's existing 150s and 153s?

It's not what I think that matters. Maybe the new TOC will fail to deliver; the plan though, is to deliver refurbished stock in time. And yes, to do that, they will be scraping around...

 

[Rhydgaled]

"By 2020, new trains will be being introduced across the Wales and Borders rail network."

I expect that has come from a politician, in which case 'new' doesn't mean 'brand new'; it is refering to the 769s (and maybe some 230s or cascaded stock) I expect.

I think we can see what the line to take is- its the new operators fault- they've written it in to the ITT attempting to shovel the problem at the bidders. Welsh Government are trying to wash their hands of it in advance though they know full well that the bidders haven't got a cat in hell's chance of of complying due to lead times on rolling stock orders and / or relying on cascades from other areas.

A year ago Porterbrook's Commercial Director claimed that 769s could be produced at a rate of one every two weeks, and I think Vivarail have made similar claims about rapid roll out of their product. If Porterbrook has promised bidders 26x class 769 by 2020 and then fails to deliver that's not the TOC's fault or the Welsh Government's (although the latter should have acted sooner, and going back 15 years the UK Government should not have let a 15yr no-growth franchise that ends so close to the PRM deadline). If a plan to be PRM compliant is in-place but the rolling-stock supplier cannot meet the required delivery dates then we all just have to cross our fingers that the only sensible course of action (a derrogation for the non-PRM stock until the compliant-stock arrives) is permitted.

TBH I couldn't care less who they buy them from provided the fleet is substantially expanded with decent quality DMUs. (There's little case for bi-modes on W&B other than the Valleys given the lack of any proposed electrification).

Diesel trains tend to have a 30 year life don't forget; there's not going to be much electrification for a while, but give it 10 years and hopefully progress will be made. For the time being though, stoppers from Cardiff to Cheltenham and Hereford, plus the ValleyLines, are the only routes on the franchise where electric traction is likely to be useful for a meaningful part of the trip.

Class 195s would fit perfectly and could start construction straight after the Northern ones are done.

I disagree; the class 195 is an outer-suburban design presumably little different (from a passenger's point of view) from Turbostars and 185s, which are likely to be available sooner than a new batch of 195s. CAF's Civity platform could possibly provide a useful train though, since it currently seems to offer all of the following:

• doors at the vehicle ends to provide a regional express / intercity train (class 397 intermediate vehicles)
  
• diesel engines (class 195)
  
• unit-end gangways (West Midlands Rail fleet)

Run Pacers as long as possible then close all the lines north of Radyr for conversion to Light Rail whilst the CAF plant in Newport (procured within the rules of course!) builds the Light Rail stock.

Hopefully a world class bus operator will be on hand to transport folk to work in Cardiff down the non congested A470

Something along those lines, but not to that extreme, might actually help. Don't close the whole valleys network at once, but if they close one or two sections at a time for electrification* they may be able to ease the presure on the fleet a little as a side-effect (the primary aim of the closures being to get the electrification done quicker).

* to heavy rail standards, please

The only cascaded possibility are the Greater Anglia 156/170 fleets.

I believe there are also 170s and 156s due off-lease from ScotRail in December 2018, plus some 185s due off lease before 2020 and a few more in early 2020. Whether the new stock for ScotRail and/or TPE is delayed and this holds back the cascades is another question, but the same applies to the ex-Anglia fleets.

The 769's are needed to let 150's and 158's be prom modified so only a small net gain. 156's ok theory stacks up. However you'll have a lot of drivers to retrain on them and are they capable of being cleared to run anywhere in the valleys? A
So what do you a fleet of 21 156's in the long term?

I only made it 14 class 156s (5 from ScotRail and 5 from Anglia), but as I've posted before I feel that class 156s would be perfect for Swansea-Pembrokeshire services. I wouldn't suggest using 156s in the Valleys; they should be put on the Heart Of Wales, Pembrokeshire and Conwy Valley routes to:

A. replace the class 153s and
B. cascade class 150s to the valleys pending electrification
​

Apart from the Conwy Valley (which operationally might be more-easily run using 175/0s), the class 156s could primarily operate out of a single depot; Swansea Landore, since both Heart Of Wales and Pembrokeshire services go to Swansea.

 

[IanXC]

Further to the discussion about toilets on pacers and them needing to be compliment with PRM regulations in a little over 18 months this is a transcript from questions in the Assembly yesterday (my emphasis on the underlining) :



Adam Price: Cabinet Secretary, this month's edition of Modern Railways magazine, which I know is required reading material for all Assembly Members, reported that future Valleys lines trains will no longer offer toilets on board for passengers. I'd like you to confirm whether or not this is the case. But, before you do that, I'd like to point out that there are two aspects to this question, really.51

In the short-term, it's suggested that, in order to avoid failing accessibility requirements and disability legislation, instead of proactively upgrading the existing Pacer stock to comply with the persons of reduced mobility specifications, the Welsh Government has opted to lock the toilets instead. Now, you've denied that, but I'd like you to set out in detail how you plan to make the Pacer trains compliant with the legislation.52

The second element, looking to the future, is that it's widely believed that light rail trains, which do not normally include toilets, are being considered for some of the Valleys lines as part of the development of the south Wales metro. Can you confirm that it's the bidding companies that will decide whether or not toilets will be provided on board these new trains? As toilets take up significant space, which impacts on revenues, it doesn't take an expert, perhaps, to guess what their recommendations may be.


Ken Skates: Can assure the Member that doors will not be locked on trains to get around regulations that require operators to provide facilities for people of limited mobility. The bidders in the procurement exercise have been challenged with demonstrating how they will ensure that rolling stock complies with the regulations that are coming into force shortly, and it will require them to do that without the locking of any doors whatsoever.

Equally, as part of the procurement exercise, we undertook a number of consultations with passengers and the wider public to ascertain exactly what it was that people prioritised when they were considering whether or not to use railways. Public transport and the quality of rolling stock were amongst the most important and significant factors in determining whether to use the train or their own private car. And so, as a consequence, this has become one of the primary areas of concern during the procurement process. We've required the bidders to demonstrate how they will ensure that there are toilet facilities on board trains.



Now, either Ken Skates is lying, doesn't have a clue what he's talking about or something quite magical is about to happen either with the existing rolling stock or new rolling stock appearing out of seemingly thin air.

Did anyone else notice the way the answer very definitely, specifically refers to 'locking the doors'. I could imagine the 'do least' PRM works involving removing the toilets altogether, and inserting some additional seats and/or wheelchair seating area.

I believe there are also 170s and 156s due off-lease from ScotRail in December 2018, plus some 185s due off lease before 2020 and a few more in early 2020. Whether the new stock for ScotRail and/or TPE is delayed and this holds back the cascades is another question, but the same applies to the ex-Anglia fleets.

I only made it 14 class 156s (5 from ScotRail and 5 from Anglia), but as I've posted before I feel that class 156s would be perfect for Swansea-Pembrokeshire services. I wouldn't suggest using 156s in the Valleys; they should be put on the Heart Of Wales, Pembrokeshire and Conwy Valley routes to:

A. replace the class 153s and
B. cascade class 150s to the valleys pending electrification
​

Apart from the Conwy Valley (which operationally might be more-easily run using 175/0s), the class 156s could primarily operate out of a single depot; Swansea Landore, since both Heart Of Wales and Pembrokeshire services go to Swansea.

The ScotRail off-lease stock is:

10 Class 156 (of which 5 are going to Northern)
8 Class 158 (all going to Northern)
21 Class 170 (of which 16 are going to Northern)

I have a suspicion the remaining 5 170s are something to do with a previous agreement they would go to Southern? Remember Northern also have an obligation to secure a fleet equivalent to 36 vehicles of 170s - arguably there are 3 options for this, 170s, 185s or more 195s.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Did anyone else notice the way the answer very definitely, specifically refers to 'locking the doors'. I could imagine the 'do least' PRM works involving removing the toilets altogether, and inserting some additional seats and/or wheelchair seating area.

What would be the cost of removing toilets compared to just locking them though? I think it is fairly safe to assume that the secret ITT ordered removal of Pacers as soon as possible. Thus, the Pacers will be gone if not by 2020 then probably by the end of that year. Nobody is going to want to spend more than is necessary to keep Pacers running when they aren't going to be kept for very long. Also, the second part of the statement said that the operator would be required to have toilets on trains; although that does of course leave some 'wiggle room' for trams or other 'light rail vehicles'. The only ratitional explanation for the Welsh Government's apparent belief that all trains will retain toilets and will be PRM compliant by 2020 is that they are relying on some cascades and/or a fleet of 769s, 230s or other 'innovative' modification of otherwise redundant rolling stock. Unless of course they really are planning to close over half the ValleyLines network at once for upgrade work.

The ScotRail off-lease stock is:

10 Class 156 (of which 5 are going to Northern)
8 Class 158 (all going to Northern)
21 Class 170 (of which 16 are going to Northern)

I have a suspicion the remaining 5 170s are something to do with a previous agreement they would go to Southern? Remember Northern also have an obligation to secure a fleet equivalent to 36 vehicles of 170s - arguably there are 3 options for this, 170s, 185s or more 195s.

As I thought; 5 class 156s available (I wasn't counting the stock already secured by Northern) which, with the 9 from Anglia, would make a fleet of 14 for Wales & Borders. I suppose if Northern took on all the 170s coming off-lease from Anglia, plus the extra 5 from ScotRail (a total of 47 vehicles compared to the requirement for 36 vehicles), then Northern could perhaps spare five 156s from their fleet, making 19 for Wales & Borders.

The only issue I can forsee with Wales & Borders taking the 156s is that I don't know what EMT could do about their 153s not being compliant for 2020 without the option of additional 156s to replace the 153s. They could take on some 170s or 185s I suppose (depending on what Northern take for their 36 extra vehicles). But if EMT take the 156s, that leaves Pembrokeshire and the Heart Of Wales stuck with inappropriate class 150s. That's only going to be 'transformational' (in a good way) for disabled pepole who need the PRM upgrades that will happen to the 150s. It would however also be 'transformational' (in a bad way) for Milford Haven services if, as I would think sensible if 156s were available, the current Manchesters every 2 hours are replacing by an hourly service alternating between trains to Swansea (156s please) and trains to Cardiff (via the Swansea District Line, using 158s or more-likely 175s).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Did anyone else notice the way the answer very definitely, specifically refers to 'locking the doors'. I could imagine the 'do least' PRM works involving removing the toilets altogether, and inserting some additional seats and/or wheelchair seating area.

Any wheelchair area on a Pacer has to go at the outer end, because in the middle where the bog is there are doors on only one side and the corridor connection is probably too narrow (and even if it isn't would be too awkward) for a wheelchair to pass through. So all you could do with it would be seats or standing. And that assumes that the floor isn't so corroded you'd end up with problems with say 6 people crammed in that space rather than the normal maximum of one (or at a push one plus a very small child).

So there's little point taking the bogs out.

Realistically, if they are going to only last another year at most, a derogation would make most sense, perhaps on the condition of providing something like a wheelchair accessible polybog at each station that doesn't already have toilets. And the EU won't object to that, as applying PRM TSI to existing stock is a UK decision, they are not mandated to apply it to anything other than new (or possibly heavy refurbs).

 

[northwichcat]

Any wheelchair area on a Pacer has to go at the outer end, because in the middle where the bog is there are doors on only one side and the corridor connection is probably too narrow (and even if it isn't would be too awkward) for a wheelchair to pass through. So all you could do with it would be seats or standing. And that assumes that the floor isn't so corroded you'd end up with problems with say 6 people crammed in that space rather than the normal maximum of one (or at a push one plus a very small child).

So there's little point taking the bogs out.

Realistically, if they are going to only last another year at most, a derogation would make most sense, perhaps on the condition of providing something like a wheelchair accessible polybog at each station that doesn't already have toilets. And the EU won't object to that, as applying PRM TSI to existing stock is a UK decision, they are not mandated to apply it to anything other than new (or possibly heavy refurbs).

Just considering the wheelchair issue the double step means the Pacers need an extended ramp to be able to load/off-load wheelchair passengers and with platforms not being consistent that can cause issues at some stations.

However, there's other issues with Pacers - door controls, lack of CIS, grab handle provision etc. Some are easier to solve than others.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just considering the wheelchair issue the double step means the Pacers need an extended ramp to be able to load/off-load wheelchair passengers and with platforms not being consistent that can cause issues at some stations.

However, there's other issues with Pacers - door controls, lack of CIS, grab handle provision etc. Some are easier to solve than others.

All of them are easier to solve than bogs. Even the ramp issue is no killer; Pacers have carried and used ramps since the 1990s. And the double step and door handrails can actually be useful for some - the outer step is rather lower than a lot of stock, and the short vehicles mean it isn't normally a big step from the platform either. They were certainly far easier to board at Burscough Bridge than 150s in the days of low platforms after the wooden steps disappeared once they destaffed it (and before the platforms were raised to their present height) - the step up to a Class 150 was well over a foot and the handrails awkwardly placed.

 

[CardiffKid]

Interesting question tabled at First Minister's Questions for next week (Tuesday at 13.30)

1. Gareth Bennett
Will the First Minister make a statement on the accessibility of trains for persons of reduced mobility?

I'll post the full transcript shortly...

Points from the First Minister included.

"Toilet doors will not be locked"
"Plans are in place to deal with the pacers"
"Some lines that are HR will be converted into LR"

When specifically asked if all trains will have toilets, the FM didn't say yes or no, mentioned if there were trains the operator would need to provide on platform toilets, he also referenced Manchester as having no toilets on their 'metro'

 

[PHILIPE]

I'll post the full transcript shortly...

Points from the First Minister included.

"Toilet doors will not be locked"
"Plans are in place to deal with the pacers"
"Some lines that are HR will be converted into LR"

When specifically asked if all trains will have toilets, the FM didn't say yes or no, mentioned if there were trains the operator would need to provide on platform toilets, he also referenced Manchester as having no toilets on their 'metro'

At stations where there are toilets, they are closed at times when the station is unstaffed and there are many of these

 

[Gareth Marston]

I'll post the full transcript shortly...

Points from the First Minister included.

"Toilet doors will not be locked"
"Plans are in place to deal with the pacers"
"Some lines that are HR will be converted into LR"

When specifically asked if all trains will have toilets, the FM didn't say yes or no, mentioned if there were trains the operator would need to provide on platform toilets, he also referenced Manchester as having no toilets on their 'metro'

The entire Manchester Metro network is only half the route miles that "core valley lines" are. Someone needs to tell his advisors there not comparing apples with apples.

 

[PHILIPE]

I think that behind the scenes Messrs Jones and Skates are running around like the proverbial blue xxx fly.

 

[CardiffKid]

The question, supplementaries and answers are at the top of this:

http://record.assembly.wales/Plenary/4981

 

[Rhydgaled]

The entire Manchester Metro network is only half the route miles that "core valley lines" are. Someone needs to tell his advisors there not comparing apples with apples.

Which is is furthest outpost of the Metrolink network from Manchester Picc. station? And ditto for the Valleys is Bridgend (via Barry), Merthyr, Treherbert, Aberdare or Rhymney furthest (in route miles) from Cardiff Central?

 

[Gareth Marston]

Which is is furthest outpost of the Metrolink network from Manchester Picc. station? And ditto for the Valleys is Bridgend (via Barry), Merthyr, Treherbert, Aberdare or Rhymney furthest (in route miles) from Cardiff Central?

The various arms are 9 to 14 miles in length from central Manchester in contrast the Heads of the Valleys are 20 to 24 miles from downtown Cardiff.

 

[PHILIPE]

The question, supplementaries and answers are at the top of this:

http://record.assembly.wales/Plenary/4981

Notice that Mark Berry seems to be the best thing since sliced bread so far as the Welsh Government are concerned.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The question, supplementaries and answers are at the top of this:

http://record.assembly.wales/Plenary/4981

Dig down and Professor Barry has been appointed to conduct a strategic review of public transport across all of Wales. He's described as. " a Rail heavyweight"

 

[PR1Berske]

The various arms are 9 to 14 miles in length from central Manchester in contrast the Heads of the Valleys are 20 to 24 miles from downtown Cardiff.

Extensions to Metrolink are, on this forum and elsewhere, perhaps rightly questioned for being "too far" because of the lack of toilets. Proposals for linking Wallgate and/or Leigh to the network are recent examples of this. A 20-ish mile journey without an available toilet would be pushing things to the limit of acceptability let alone comfort. It would be the height of ignorance, if I can use that word over naivety, to propose a Metrolink style conversion over such a longer distance.

 

[Chester1]

Extensions to Metrolink are, on this forum and elsewhere, perhaps rightly questioned for being "too far" because of the lack of toilets. Proposals for linking Wallgate and/or Leigh to the network are recent examples of this. A 20-ish mile journey without an available toilet would be pushing things to the limit of acceptability let alone comfort. It would be the height of ignorance, if I can use that word over naivety, to propose a Metrolink style conversion over such a longer distance.

It is not just being proposed but based on what has been trickled into the public domain, light rail conversion will soon be announced. Metrolink to Leigh was ruled out on grounds of cost and lack of spare city centre capacity. The Guided Busway has been relatively successful despite it being 40-55 ninutes on a bus without a toilet. Glossop has been seriously considered for tram trains but the proposals have gone quiet because of the Sheffield tram train debacle. I would agree the Valleys Lines are too far to convert heavy rail though. Electrification to Pontypridd and 769s (later battery trains) to the 3 terminal stations would have been a good start.

 

[gareth950]

Dig down and Professor Barry has been appointed to conduct a strategic review of public transport across all of Wales. He's described as. " a Rail heavyweight"

Remind me how long he has been working in the rail industry for? Describing him as a "rail heavyweight" surely implies he started his long and distinguished rail career under BR?

What's even more frightening is the fact when Skates made that comment he was being serious.

 

[transmanche]

A 20-ish mile journey without an available toilet would be pushing things to the limit of acceptability let alone comfort.

Surely it's the time taken for the average journey, rather than the distance, that's the issue?

• A 313 takes about 75 minutes for a Moorgate-Letchworth journey (about 36 miles), without any on-board toilets.
• A 455 takes about 70 minutes for a Waterloo-Guildford journey (about 31 miles), without any on-board toilets.
  
• A 378 takes about 60 minutes for a Richmond-Stratford journey (about 17 miles), without any on-board toilets.
• I understand that 313s can also be used on Brighton-Portsmouth journeys (about 45 miles) taking over 80 minutes.

Although it's unlikely that many people make end-to-end journeys on these services.

However, on light rail, a T&W Metro train takes about 65 minutes for a Newcastle Airport-South Hylton journey (about 23 miles), without any on-board toilets.

What will be the (estimated) journey times for the South Wales Metro?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Merseyrail to Chester as another example of a longish one? (And Merseyrail has toilets in the main stations but not all of the local ones, though some do).