Wales & Borders Franchise Consultation

[Gareth Marston]

The date is already known; just not made public. And it won't be the very last day.

22nd one source 3rd week in May another...

 

[gareth950]

22nd one source 3rd week in May another...

If Skates is going to announce the winner to the Assembly it will have to be on 22nd, 23rd or 24th May as the Assembly is on half term recess the last week of May.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

Can someone please explain this comment to me: Asked about the timescale, transport secretary Ken Skates said: “I can’t answer this because, if I do, it will reveal the technical solution that’s going to be utilised on that particular line.”
What on earth does he mean by 'technical solution'? Is he trying to get trams up to Ebbw Vale as well? Let's just turn the whole of South Wales into a tramway!

Probably Skates wondering if it's possible for trams to do 100 mph

 

[Rhydgaled]

The HOWL is difficult to path due to a variety of constraints:

1) Pathing constraints on the mainline between Swansea & Llanelli
2) Pathing constrains on the mainline between Craven Arms & Shrewsbury
3) Location of passing loops on the HOWL
4) Desire to merge HOWL with Shrewsbury-Crewe services

Getting all of these to work together effectively is next to near impossible. Hence the long wait times at passing locations in the weekday timetable.

I would drop the 4th item from that list, particularly if it would help get a better service over the HOWL given the other three constraints you listed. Really, I think the intermediate stops between Crewe and Shreswbury, and responsibility for serving them, should be transfered to the Northern franchise or the West Midlands franchise.

Going back to the HOWL, I think there should be 7-8 trains each way between Swansea and Shrewsbury, four calling at all stations and the others at Gowerton, Llanelli, Pontarddulais, Ammanford (West), Builth Road, the five passing loops, Craven Arms and Church Stretton. The aim of the limited stop trains would be to offer significantly faster journey times for the stations served. In addition, I would like to see two units (I'm thinking class 156s) stabled overnight at Llandrindod. In the morning, one of these would run a stopping service to Swansea arriving at around 8am and the other a stopping service to Shrewsbury arriving at around 08:15. In the evening, the last trains from Swansea and Shrewsbury (both around 10pm) would be stoppers and terminate at Llandrindod.

I managed to make up a timetable that acheived that which I thought would work with the current infrustructure. However, it was then pointed out to me that I hadn't allowed enough time for token exchange at the passing loops, but presumbly that means a few improvements to sectional running times would make it work, without requiring additional loops.

Can someone please explain this comment to me: Asked about the timescale, transport secretary Ken Skates said: “I can’t answer this because, if I do, it will reveal the technical solution that’s going to be utilised on that particular line.”
What on earth does he mean by 'technical solution'? Is he trying to get trams up to Ebbw Vale as well? Let's just turn the whole of South Wales into a tramway!

Maybe one of the bidders has proposed 3rd rail electrification and the other has proposed resignalling with something like ETCS? Or overhead electrification at 3rd rail voltage (which I think is also the system trams use). If a class 377 can run off both 750V DC 3rd rail and 25kv overhead, is there anything to stop the similar class 379s (which are apparently to be released from the Stansted Express) running off a mixture of 750V DC overhead and 25kv overhead?

 

[transmanche]

If a class 377 can run off both 750V DC 3rd rail and 25kv overhead, is there anything to stop the similar class 379s (which are apparently to be released from the Stansted Express) running off a mixture of 750V DC overhead and 25kv overhead?

Trains that can run off both 1500V DC overhead and 25kV AC overhead have been seriously suggested for the new Tyne & Wear Metro trains, so it would seem do-able. Although the current draw at 750V might be excessive.

 

[HH]

If Skates is going to announce the winner to the Assembly it will have to be on 22nd, 23rd or 24th May as the Assembly is on half term recess the last week of May.

I heard 23rd, but I would certainly think it will be one of the three.

 

[craigybagel]

I would drop the 4th item from that list, particularly if it would help get a better service over the HOWL given the other three constraints you listed. Really, I think the intermediate stops between Crewe and Shreswbury, and responsibility for serving them, should be transfered to the Northern franchise or the West Midlands franchise.

Ah this old chestnut. I've heard it so many times, it's even been strongly rumoured that it'll happen - and yet nobody has ever given me a good reason why it should. I'm the first to criticise Cardiff Bay and some of the decisions they make - but any tiny advantage you'd get from this service being run by a solely English franchise would be nothing compared to the inefficiencies and hassle you'd get if you took it away from its natural home, the Wales and Borders franchise. And that's before you discuss the fact that a large amount of HOWL users like the through service, and now connect at Crewe for London and WCML destinations.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Are those of us with weak bladders now supposed to develop an encyclopaedic knowledge of railway lavatories and their opening times? What happens if a train is stuck between stations or at one without facilities for an extended period?

It's a significant issue for some of us.

No, people with weak bladders are not expected "to develop an encyclopaedic knowledge of railway lavatories and their opening times" and that was not what I suggested. It is not unreasonable to expect people with that problem to learn about public lavatories along a route they use regularly. None of the stations I cited is my local station but I've learned which ones have lavatories. I've also learned which supermarkets and petrol stations have such facilities. I'm at the age when I need to "go" quite frequently, and I don't intend to get caught out.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Ah this old chestnut. I've heard it so many times, it's even been strongly rumoured that it'll happen - and yet nobody has ever given me a good reason why it should.

Of my reasons, perhaps the 'best' is that it would ensure the Wales & Borders Manchester-Cardiff/Swansea service is a fast service every hour, without the extended journey time from calling at Whitchurch and Nantwich every two hours. It would also therorectically allow more-even intervals between trains calling at the later two stations, by having the English TOC operate an hourly service. The need for alternate trains to call at Yorton etc. means that not every station on the route could have a pure-clockface hourly service, but if they chose to provide a clockface hourly service for Whitchurch the interval at Nantwich wouldn't be far off hourly (something like 58-62 minutes) since there is only one of the alternate-hour stops (Wrenbury) between them.

any tiny advantage you'd get from this service being run by a solely English franchise would be nothing compared to the inefficiencies and hassle you'd get if you took it away from its natural home, the Wales and Borders franchise.

If it was done by extending some of the Birmingham-Shrewsbury stoppers through to Crewe that wouldn't be much hassle would it? I don't see why it would be inefficienct either especially once Birmingham-Shrewsbury is twice an hour, which should reduce any long waits at Shrewsbury between trips. And both Northern and the West Midlands franchise serve already Crewe, which might help with staff rosters (not trains admittedly, since I think everything they currently operate into Crewe is an EMU, but I could be wrong there).

 

[Eccles1983]

Why is it that this franchise and the posters seem desperate to cut out stations on the basis that they are in england?

I'd like to see the profit/loss with regards to the lines. It seems that its ok to run services into the citys of england but ignore the towns.

Maybe stopping them running at all into england would be better. Then at least you would see what an absolute sinkhole the franchise is. Or at least stop at the nearest stop near the border.

 

[craigybagel]

Of my reasons, perhaps the 'best' is that it would ensure the Wales & Borders Manchester-Cardiff/Swansea service is a fast service every hour, without the extended journey time from calling at Whitchurch and Nantwich every two hours. It would also therorectically allow more-even intervals between trains calling at the later two stations, by having the English TOC operate an hourly service. The need for alternate trains to call at Yorton etc. means that not every station on the route could have a pure-clockface hourly service, but if they chose to provide a clockface hourly service for Whitchurch the interval at Nantwich wouldn't be far off hourly (something like 58-62 minutes) since there is only one of the alternate-hour stops (Wrenbury) between them.

But all of that is irrelevant to the issue of which TOC runs the service, it could be done just as well by the Wales and Border franchise.

Whilst I appreciate the stops at Nantwich and Whitchurch on roughly every 2nd service on what's meant to be an inter regional express run are a bit annoying to some, there would be uproar if the passengers from those stations lost their direct service - especially as an hourly all stops service would be little improvement in frequency or regular interval frequency over the current mix of local and long distance services they currently enjoy.

If it was done by extending some of the Birmingham-Shrewsbury stoppers through to Crewe that wouldn't be much hassle would it? I don't see why it would be inefficienct either especially once Birmingham-Shrewsbury is twice an hour, which should reduce any long waits at Shrewsbury between trips. And both Northern and the West Midlands franchise serve already Crewe, which might help with staff rosters (not trains admittedly, since I think everything they currently operate into Crewe is an EMU, but I could be wrong there).

It would cost a lot more to staff the service.

For starters, which ever TOC took the service on would require extra staff to run it, whilst the W&B franchise would find itself with too many. Normally when routes change hands you can TUPE staff across - but at ATW it's currently run by staff from 3 guards depots and 4 driver depots. All the crewcrew diagrams covering the route are interworked with other routes - it even has booked work for drivers from Cardiff! - so it's not simply a case of transferring something like 3 drivers and guards from W&B to whichever other franchise you transfer the work to.

Then there's the costs of training. Presumably if the West Midlands franchise were to work the route, you'd want either Crewe, Shrewsbury or both depots to work the line. Logical enough - but neither depot has any staff that sign the route, and in the case of Crewe none of the traincrew there sign any form of diesel traction either.

Tying it into the Birmingham-Shrewsbury service might seem like a good idea, but now you're wasting a 2,3 or even 4 car service on a route that currently runs a less then half full 153 most of the time.

You could argue that it saves on training costs at the W&B franchise as traincrew there won't need to sign that route anymore - except that they will. All 4 depots that sign the route work express services as well as the locals - so unless you did a big reshuffle of work, and/or sacrificed flexibility and knowledge of diversion routes, you're not going to save anything there.

Giving it to Northern gives even more problems. As well the training issues, you can't tie it into an existing Northern service, because even if you tried to use bi-modes and extended the Manchester - Crewe service down to Shrewsbury, you'd be told by Network Rail that it's impossible to path the service across the flat junctions on the WCML at Crewe. Plus, with their nearest depot being at Manchester, do you want to pay to taxi traincrew down to Shrewsbury for a 6am first departure?

Also, at present if there's any issues on the local, the express service picks up the stops. It's the same person in control who's responsible for both services, so it's organised with no hassle. Whilst coordination between TOCs is always possible, it's going to take longer, and W&B would have much less reason to pick up a 15 minute delay on their own service to make the extra stops that West Midlands should have been doing.

Now, I appreciate that most or indeed all of those issues I've raised are fixable, with enough time and money - and much bigger logistical challenges have been dealt with on the railway over the years . But that brings me back to my original question - what good reason have you got for going through all of that? What have you achieved at the end of it, and in what way is it better then the system that exists now?

 

[Suraggu]

Who knows the Wales & Borders franchise could end up with CAF new build products. Perhaps the Mk.5 coaches could make an appearance.

With DRS still tendering for a further 10 diesel electric locomotives (placed in September 2017) and the flexible and cheaper leasing opportunities for new build rolling stock, who knows.

 

[Chester1]

Who knows the Wales & Borders franchise could end up with CAF new build products. Perhaps the Mk.5 coaches could make an appearance.

With DRS still tendering for a further 10 diesel electric locomotives (placed in September 2017) and the flexible and cheaper leasing opportunities for new build rolling stock, who knows.

Possible but unlikely. The TPE Mark Vs have happened because of a mix of a factory without sufficient work, flexibility for if / when Transpennine electrification happens and potential 125mph running. CAFs 195s will be cheaper to run than Mark Vs and 3/4 coach sets would provide adequate capacity. If that isn't enough capacity there is no reason why 5 coach sets couldn't be built. 195s would be the obvious step up from 175s and are suitable for most of the W&B long distance services.

 

[Suraggu]

Possible but unlikely. The TPE Mark Vs have happened because of a mix of a factory without sufficient work, flexibility for if / when Transpennine electrification happens and potential 125mph running. CAFs 195s will be cheaper to run than Mark Vs and 3/4 coach sets would provide adequate capacity. If that isn't enough capacity there is no reason why 5 coach sets couldn't be built. 195s would be the obvious step up from 175s and are suitable for most of the W&B long distance services.

Yes the CAF 195 will be cheaper than the Mk.5 on a like for like basis, but with the production line going to cease after the final TPE delivery discounts can be applied to the order to keep said line running.

 

[6Gman]

But all of that is irrelevant to the issue of which TOC runs the service, it could be done just as well by the Wales and Border franchise.

Whilst I appreciate the stops at Nantwich and Whitchurch on roughly every 2nd service on what's meant to be an inter regional express run are a bit annoying to some, there would be uproar if the passengers from those stations lost their direct service - especially as an hourly all stops service would be little improvement in frequency or regular interval frequency over the current mix of local and long distance services they currently enjoy.



It would cost a lot more to staff the service.

For starters, which ever TOC took the service on would require extra staff to run it, whilst the W&B franchise would find itself with too many. Normally when routes change hands you can TUPE staff across - but at ATW it's currently run by staff from 3 guards depots and 4 driver depots. All the crewcrew diagrams covering the route are interworked with other routes - it even has booked work for drivers from Cardiff! - so it's not simply a case of transferring something like 3 drivers and guards from W&B to whichever other franchise you transfer the work to.

Then there's the costs of training. Presumably if the West Midlands franchise were to work the route, you'd want either Crewe, Shrewsbury or both depots to work the line. Logical enough - but neither depot has any staff that sign the route, and in the case of Crewe none of the traincrew there sign any form of diesel traction either.

Tying it into the Birmingham-Shrewsbury service might seem like a good idea, but now you're wasting a 2,3 or even 4 car service on a route that currently runs a less then half full 153 most of the time.

You could argue that it saves on training costs at the W&B franchise as traincrew there won't need to sign that route anymore - except that they will. All 4 depots that sign the route work express services as well as the locals - so unless you did a big reshuffle of work, and/or sacrificed flexibility and knowledge of diversion routes, you're not going to save anything there.

Giving it to Northern gives even more problems. As well the training issues, you can't tie it into an existing Northern service, because even if you tried to use bi-modes and extended the Manchester - Crewe service down to Shrewsbury, you'd be told by Network Rail that it's impossible to path the service across the flat junctions on the WCML at Crewe. Plus, with their nearest depot being at Manchester, do you want to pay to taxi traincrew down to Shrewsbury for a 6am first departure?

Also, at present if there's any issues on the local, the express service picks up the stops. It's the same person in control who's responsible for both services, so it's organised with no hassle. Whilst coordination between TOCs is always possible, it's going to take longer, and W&B would have much less reason to pick up a 15 minute delay on their own service to make the extra stops that West Midlands should have been doing.

Now, I appreciate that most or indeed all of those issues I've raised are fixable, with enough time and money - and much bigger logistical challenges have been dealt with on the railway over the years . But that brings me back to my original question - what good reason have you got for going through all of that? What have you achieved at the end of it, and in what way is it better then the system that exists now?

This. Thank you for saving me the bother of having to write it!

 

[craigybagel]

Possible but unlikely. The TPE Mark Vs have happened because of a mix of a factory without sufficient work, flexibility for if / when Transpennine electrification happens and potential 125mph running. CAFs 195s will be cheaper to run than Mark Vs and 3/4 coach sets would provide adequate capacity. If that isn't enough capacity there is no reason why 5 coach sets couldn't be built. 195s would be the obvious step up from 175s and are suitable for most of the W&B long distance services.

On a purely logical basis I'd agree with you - but I do wonder if normal logic will apply in this franchise. In other words, will Cardiff Bay deem 195s acceptable, or will they want something more Intercity in style? And do bear in mind, they care enough about that kind of thing to subsidise running a MKIII set on one round trip to Holyhead per day - a set that will need either replacement or a large amount of work doing to be allowed to be used going forwards. For that reason, and because of.......

Yes the CAF 195 will be cheaper than the Mk.5 on a like for like basis, but with the production line going to cease after the final TPE delivery discounts can be applied to the order to keep said line running.

.....this as well, it wouldn't surprise me all that much if MK5s were to feature, including a buffet car or two to replace Gerald. If that were to happen, I'm sure the bidders would also be tempted by the improvements in reliability and fuel economy offered by switching from 67s to 68s. I would also have thought that MK5s would be available sooner then 195s, given there are fewer customers waiting for them? And we all know that between overcrowding and PRM deadlines, the franchise needs new stock asap.

But then I might be biased - I know which future design I'd rather work on

 

[craigybagel]

This. Thank you for saving me the bother of having to write it!

You're very welcome! It's been on my mind for a while - I've been working that route amongst others for several years and the rumours of London Midland / West Midlands taking it over have been a constant reoccurring annoyance. Not just because I like the route and don't especially want my depot to lose the work, but mostly because as I said, nobody has ever come up with a convincing reason as to why it should take place.

 

[Rhydgaled]

But all of that is irrelevant to the issue of which TOC runs the service, it could be done just as well by the Wales and Border franchise.

Fair point, if the Wales & Borders franchise were to take the stops out of the Manchesters and run extra Shrewsbury-Crewe shuttles (calling at Nantwich, Whitchurch and perhaps Wem) there would be little reason to move it to another franchise. It would then only be an issue when Cardiff Bay and Westminster 'squable' over control of the service; for example I seem to recall one of the consultations asking whether management of stations in England should be transfered to English TOCs despite being served mainly (if not exclusively) by the W&B franchise.

Thanks for your explanation of the challenges involved in a transfer by the way; there were some good points there too.

Why is it that this franchise and the posters seem desperate to cut out stations on the basis that they are in england?

I'd like to see the profit/loss with regards to the lines. It seems that its ok to run services into the citys of england but ignore the towns.

Maybe stopping them running at all into england would be better. Then at least you would see what an absolute sinkhole the franchise is. Or at least stop at the nearest stop near the border.

Take a look at the services English TOCs run into Wales. Admittedly XC and GWR services do call at Severn Tunnel Junction, but aside from that most cross-border services are limited stop. Bridgend, Port Talbot and Neath might not be cities, but they are relatively significant population centres. In what way are fast services between Cardiff and Manchester missing out places like Nantwich (if they can be served by alternative local trains) different from Virgin missing out towns on the north Wales coast that are served by ATW?

The TPE Mark Vs have happened because of a mix of a factory without sufficient work, flexibility for if / when Transpennine electrification happens and potential 125mph running. CAFs 195s will be cheaper to run than Mark Vs and 3/4 coach sets would provide adequate capacity. If that isn't enough capacity there is no reason why 5 coach sets couldn't be built.

I thought the mark 5 order for TPE was more about wanting to get new trains into service as quickly as possible; the class 68s were already in existance (or at the very least under construction) and the relatively-simple coaching stock could be built faster than multiple units. Also, I believe five coaches is around about the threshold where LHCS becomes a cheaper option than units. If the new franchise wants fixed-formation trains of 5 or 6 coaches for its Manchester services, then mark 5s could well be the cheaper option. Less than 5 coaches though and I agree that units will likely be more cost-effective.

195s would be the obvious step up from 175s and are suitable for most of the W&B long distance services.

I don't agree with that bit though. In my view a 3-car 195 would be a downgrade compared to a nicely-refurbished 3-car 175 (they do need at least a light refurb; some of the seats have lost what little padding they had). The 175s have good legroom and I doubt you could acheive that with the 195's sububan door layout without reducing the number of seats and/or luggage space compared to a 175.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There is of course the short-HST option as pursued by Scotrail (still to come into service).
Production is on the slow side though, and servicing might be a problem.
I'd have thought the economics of a 2+4 HST would be worse than a 68+4Mk5 though.
195s stand a chance of coupling with 175s, both with Scharfenberg couplers (depends on the TMS).
In fact, much depends on the future of the 175 fleet and Chester depot in the new franchise.
Another factor is that Arriva Traincare at Crewe (LHCS currently) will be outside the franchise.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I have a strong feeling that if the WG do announce the winner next week it will be heavy on nauseous spin and light on real world detail. They will continue to play secret squirrel about the all important detail it will all be about image and proclaiming greatness so getting that detail out and cutting through the BS will be the next phase.

I don't agree with that bit though. In my view a 3-car 195 would be a downgrade compared to a nicely-refurbished 3-car 175 (they do need at least a light refurb; some of the seats have lost what little padding they had). The 175s have good legroom and I doubt you could acheive that with the 195's sububan door layout without reducing the number of seats and/or luggage space compared to a 175.

The 175's are seriously behind the game in terms of provision of power points for a long distance service stock and also the 2 car units are unsuitable for operating into/out of major conurbations on their own.

That is my benchmark for this new franchise- if theirs any serious intention by the Welsh Government other than tokenism and flag waving to address deep seated issues then its capacity into and out of Manchester/Birmingham/Cardiff on long distance services and equal attention paid to all 3.

 

[Dai Corner]

That is my benchmark for this new franchise- if theirs any serious intention by the Welsh Government other than tokenism and flag waving to address deep seated issues then its capacity into and out of Manchester/Birmingham/Cardiff on long distance services and equal attention paid to all 3.

Don't WG want to run services to Bristol and Paddington? The Birmingham and Manchester routes are are a great opportunity to show how they could do the job better than the DfT / First.

 

[squizzler]

Don't WG want to run services to Bristol and Paddington? The Birmingham and Manchester routes are are a great opportunity to show how they could do the job better than the DfT / First.

I heard that WG wanted to take over the Paddington services and I don't think it is the dreadful idea that people in this forum say it is. The reason (which for reasons of national pride will probably not be mentioned by Cardiff) is that it is much more in the interests of a peripheral economy to maintain good connections to the core economy than it is the other way round!

 

[Dai Corner]

I heard that WG wanted to take over the Paddington services and I don't think it is the dreadful idea that people in this forum say it is. The reason (which for reasons of national pride will probably not be mentioned by Cardiff) is that it is much more in the interests of a peripheral economy to maintain good connections to the core economy than it is the other way round!

Though WG have historically been more interested in linking North Wales to Cardiff than to Manchester or Liverpool with which it has stronger economic ties.

 

[Chester1]

On a purely logical basis I'd agree with you - but I do wonder if normal logic will apply in this franchise. In other words, will Cardiff Bay deem 195s acceptable, or will they want something more Intercity in style? And do bear in mind, they care enough about that kind of thing to subsidise running a MKIII set on one round trip to Holyhead per day - a set that will need either replacement or a large amount of work doing to be allowed to be used going forwards. For that reason, and because of.......

.....this as well, it wouldn't surprise me all that much if MK5s were to feature, including a buffet car or two to replace Gerald. If that were to happen, I'm sure the bidders would also be tempted by the improvements in reliability and fuel economy offered by switching from 67s to 68s. I would also have thought that MK5s would be available sooner then 195s, given there are fewer customers waiting for them? And we all know that between overcrowding and PRM deadlines, the franchise needs new stock asap.

But then I might be biased - I know which future design I'd rather work on

I agree that a very small number of Mark V sets could run but they would definitely be running Cardiff-Holyhead for political reasons.

I thought the mark 5 order for TPE was more about wanting to get new trains into service as quickly as possible; the class 68s were already in existance (or at the very least under construction) and the relatively-simple coaching stock could be built faster than multiple units. Also, I believe five coaches is around about the threshold where LHCS becomes a cheaper option than units. If the new franchise wants fixed-formation trains of 5 or 6 coaches for its Manchester services, then mark 5s could well be the cheaper option. Less than 5 coaches though and I agree that units will likely be more cost-effective.

I don't agree with that bit though. In my view a 3-car 195 would be a downgrade compared to a nicely-refurbished 3-car 175 (they do need at least a light refurb; some of the seats have lost what little padding they had). The 175s have good legroom and I doubt you could acheive that with the 195's sububan door layout without reducing the number of seats and/or luggage space compared to a 175.

CAF have already altered the 195 to add unit end gangways for WMR, they could have end doors too. They would probably be a different class number but basically the same.

The 175's are seriously behind the game in terms of provision of power points for a long distance service stock and also the 2 car units are unsuitable for operating into/out of major conurbations on their own.

The alternative to the TPE Mark Vs was additional 802s which would have taken at least another year to arrive, the economics wouldn't normally have made it viable but for the reasons I mentioned it was. I don't think W&B need 5 coach long distance sets, most extra capacity will be provided by extra services such as hourly Holyhead-Cardiff and services on the Halton Curve to Liverpool.

2 coach 175s are best being relegated to South West Wales and the HoW line. I would be surprised if sufficient plugs and USB ports could be installed to meet modern demands and the lack of end gangways to enable easy multiple working is a huge disadvantage.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Don't WG want to run services to Bristol and Paddington? The Birmingham and Manchester routes are are a great opportunity to show how they could do the job better than the DfT / First.

The chances are perhaps not great - as any half baked scheme to introduce brand new rolling stock on hourly Cardiff to Holyhead trains will suck up all the investment in the long distance routes.

 

[squizzler]

Though WG have historically been more interested in linking North Wales to Cardiff than to Manchester or Liverpool with which it has stronger economic ties.

True, but in many ways this proves my point because Gerald is a service concocted in Cardiff which wanted Wales to to be seen as an integrated nation. North Wales, being the more peripheral area of the two, would be more concerned with improving connections to the economically active places in Northwest England.

That is why I feel Cardiff has a right to manage its GWML services. Because Cardiff is more economically dependent on good connectivity to London than London is on good connectivity to Cardiff.

 

[Dai Corner]

True, but in many ways this proves my point because Gerald is a service concocted in Cardiff which wanted Wales to to be seen as an integrated nation. North Wales, being the more peripheral area of the two, would be more concerned with improving connections to the economically active places in Northwest England.

That is why I feel Cardiff has a right to manage its GWML services. Because Cardiff is more economically dependent on good connectivity to London than London is on good connectivity to Cardiff.

It's interesting that the idea only seems to have surfaced after the electrification is well in its way to completion. I wonder whether Cardiff Bay would have been willing to contribute to electrifying the English part of the route which, as you say, benefits South Wales at least as much as the West of England and more than London.

 

[Gareth Marston]

True, but in many ways this proves my point because Gerald is a service concocted in Cardiff which wanted Wales to to be seen as an integrated nation. North Wales, being the more peripheral area of the two, would be more concerned with improving connections to the economically active places in Northwest England.

That is why I feel Cardiff has a right to manage its GWML services. Because Cardiff is more economically dependent on good connectivity to London than London is on good connectivity to Cardiff.

Whereas you can argue its damaging economically to North Wales to have poorer links to North West England because of Cardiff obsession from he Welsh Government the reverse true of connecting Cardiff to London which is done by the Westminster Government!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The current rules are that intercity cross-border services belong to the UK DfT (into Scotland as well as Wales).
WG wants a bigger say on services through the Severn Tunnel, and wants paths to Bristol for W&B services.
I don't think they want to split GWR and "own" the Welsh services.
Their current remit stops at W&B.

 

[gareth950]

Rail improvements on Wales network to 'take some time' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-44109482