Political responsibility for railways in devolved nations

[dcsprior]

The "Lydney, England (Transport for Wales Station)" thread made me wonder something:

Transport is a devolved policy area in Scotland and Wales*. Scotrail and TfW primarily exist to serve Scotland and Wales respectively, so political oversight/control of them sits primarily with the devolved governments (and parliaments), but they also serve England - so does the UK DfT also have some oversight/control of them too of them for the English part of the service?

Similarly, Caledonian Sleeper is overseen by the Scottish Government, but most journeys on it will either start or end in England - so is there some oversight/control from the DfT for the English part of the service? What about the same in reverse when it comes to LNER/Avanti/etc?

Finally, what about UK-wide bits of the railway, such as Network Rail, National Rail, etc?


* and possibly NI, but that's not really relevant here, as no services cross the Irish Sea!

 

[mpthomson]

Network Rail in devolved nations remains under Westminster control. ScotRail and TfW operated services are wholly controlled by their respective devolved adminstrations, but obviously where those services run to and frequency etc is discussed/negotiated. In that way those services are no different from any other ToC.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Scotland has its own funding process for infrastructure with a separate 5-year budget for Network Rail, set in parallel to that for England/Wales.
Wales doesn't have the same autonomy for infrastructure, but the money for both ultimately comes from Westminster in the NR Control Period process.
DfT TOCs also work into Scotland/Wales, and ORR oversees them all.

There's an agreement between WG and DfT about frequency of TfW services in England (basically 1tph into Manchester/Liverpool/Birmingham/Cheltenham, and probably eventually Bristol).

Devolution in England also looks to be moving towards greater autonomy for Metro mayors and city regions, similar to that for Scotland/Wales.
This is bound to affect the degree of centralisation/standardisation of GBR's control and operation, and is probably one reason why the GBR legislation has been delayed.

 

[styles]

Devolution in England also looks to be moving towards greater autonomy for Metro mayors and city regions, similar to that for Scotland/Wales.
This is bound to affect the degree of centralisation/standardisation of GBR's control and operation, and is probably one reason why the GBR legislation has been delayed.

Should that really affect things in England?

Mayors and regions (with the exception of the Mayor of London) don't tend to have much authority for the running of rail services, I would imagine mostly because the majority of operations span multiple local authorities, regional authorities, and even combined region authorities. In fact with the exception some TfL services, I'm not sure any passenger operator passes through only one authority area?

Of course these local government bodies and the mayors lobby and campaign for e.g. certain railway stations to be created or services to run, but it's not their authority to actually decide. The closest they get on this front is with regards to planning, but that's already the case, not something which will change with GBR (though the current government has expressed its intentions to simplify planning more generally).

My guess as to why GBR plans are being delayed is just because they've realised it's more complicated than just taking control of the TOCs and there's a lot more decisions and strategy which needs to be made.

 

[RDP]

Mayors and regions (with the exception of the Mayor of London) don't tend to have much authority for the running of rail services, I would imagine mostly because the majority of operations span multiple local authorities, regional authorities, and even combined region authorities. In fact with the exception some TfL services, I'm not sure any passenger operator passes through only one authority area?

There are a few. Some that spring to mind are the various branch lines in Cornwall and the Sheerness branch wholly within the Borough of Swale in Kent.

 

[Bald Rick]

DfT can instruct TfW regarding service provision into England.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

DfT can instruct TfW regarding service provision into England.

Does that extend to vetoing Welsh intentions to run additional services into England (potentially at the expense of DfT-controlled English TOCs) out of interest?

 

[yorkie]

Does that extend to vetoing Welsh intentions to run additional services into England (potentially at the expense of DfT-controlled English TOCs) out of interest?

Do you have an example of this? Or is it hypothetical? If it is hypothetical, what is it you had in mind?

 

[Bald Rick]

Does that extend to vetoing Welsh intentions to run additional services into England (potentially at the expense of DfT-controlled English TOCs) out of interest?

yes.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Do you have an example of this? Or is it hypothetical? If it is hypothetical, what is it you had in mind?

It’s recently been reported that TFW intend to run trains through to Bristol and the Severn Tunnel is a busy stretch of railway, as is Filton Bank and Bristol Temple Meads. Given TFW are specified by the Welsh Gvt I was wondering whether DfT would have a veto over their plans within England if (for example) it jeopardises the plans for Portishead and Henbury services to be accommodated among other things.

https://www.modernrailways.com/arti... Rail plans to start,per day serving the city.

TfW Rail plans to start serving Bristol Temple Meads from 13 September 2026, with nine trains per day serving the city.

Two-car Class 197/0 DMUs will be used on the new service, with one additional ‘197’ made available by the introduction of Stadler Class 398 tram-trains on the Core Valley Lines (CVL) next year.

A TfW Rail spokesperson told Modern Railways the proposal is to extend the existing Milford Haven/Fishguard Harbour trains, which currently terminate at Cardiff Central, through to Bristol Temple Meads. These run every two hours. The spokesperson explained that there will be two additional trains between Carmarthen and Cardiff Central in the morning to fill gaps in that pattern.

The aim is for the new service to: “Offer new strategic semi-fast connectivity – connecting the South West and South Wales and Bristol directly without need to change trains at Cardiff and elsewhere, including for onward connections to Bristol Airport and South West England and vice versa, which are important to stakeholders for business, employment and leisure journeys,” the spokesperson told MR.

TfW believes the new service will provide more capacity and strengthened links between the Cardiff Capital Region and the West of England with a strong focus on higher education, research and technology sectors.

The proposed stopping service between Cardiff Central and Bristol Temple Meads, which would operate two trains per hour, and which were part of the Comprehensive Spending Review announcement earlier this summer, are additional to this proposal. The TfW Rail spokesperson explained to MR that these are designed to provide better links between Cardiff, Newport and Bristol and for local travel purposes.

Class 197/0s continue to enter traffic, with 2x2-car sets still to be released from CAF’s Newport factory. Of the 51x2-car sets on order, Nos 197001-022/024/027/030/033-036/042-051 have all carried passengers. TfW Rail aims to introduce the ETCS-fitted examples onto the Cambrian Route next year, replacing the Class 158s which will be sent off-lease.

 

[LLivery]

Does that extend to vetoing Welsh intentions to run additional services into England (potentially at the expense of DfT-controlled English TOCs) out of interest?

And I believe Wales can't stop DfT TOCs running additional services in Wales (apart from on Core Valleys)

 

[Bald Rick]

And I believe Wales can't stop DfT TOCs running additional services in Wales (apart from on Core Valleys)

Well,apart from the Core Valleys, it’s the DfTs infrastructure.

 

[Krokodil]

And I believe Wales can't stop DfT TOCs running additional services in Wales (apart from on Core Valleys)

Well,apart from the Core Valleys, it’s the DfTs infrastructure.

Surely by law they'd have to consider any Open Access application fairly anyway. They'd have to demonstrate that there is no capacity or whatever, rather than just saying "our railway, no one else can run anything"

 

[Bald Rick]

Surely by law they'd have to consider any Open Access application fairly anyway. They'd have to demonstrate that there is no capacity or whatever, rather than just saying "our railway, no one else can run anything"

It‘s not open access.

There is a difference between 1) funding / specification process, 2) the access rights process and 3) the timetable process.

 

[thedbdiboy]

You also need to remember that at this level you are talking about what are political negotiations. The relationship isn't just a purely commercial one governed by contracts so although the hierarchy of these rights will be spelt out, in reality when there is a conflict it is ultimately hammered out in the corridors of power.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Mayors and regions (with the exception of the Mayor of London) don't tend to have much authority for the running of rail services, I would imagine mostly because the majority of operations span multiple local authorities, regional authorities, and even combined region authorities. In fact with the exception some TfL services, I'm not sure any passenger operator passes through only one authority area?

While it goes slightly outside of Merseyside, Merseyrail are owned/controlled by the local authority and only venture slightly into surrounding areas.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

It’s recently been reported that TFW intend to run trains through to Bristol and the Severn Tunnel is a busy stretch of railway, as is Filton Bank and Bristol Temple Meads. Given TFW are specified by the Welsh Gvt I was wondering whether DfT would have a veto over their plans within England if (for example) it jeopardises the plans for Portishead and Henbury services to be accommodated among other things.

https://www.modernrailways.com/article/tfw-serve-bristol-september-2026#:~:text=TfW Rail plans to start,per day serving the city.

It's all a matter on negotiation really. Obviously, improving services between Bristol and south Wales benefits both regions. The current services connecting Cardiff and Bristol are very poor and infrequent for two adjacent cities of a similar size.

I would assume that detailed talks between the WG TfW, WECA and the MetroWest consortium took place before the DfT was approached.

 

[Bald Rick]

I would assume that detailed talks between the WG TfW, WECA and the MetroWest consortium took place before the DfT was approached.

None of whom are responsible for developing the strategic direction of the railway nor allocating capacity on it!

 

[topydre]

Applications to extend services into England go through the same hoops as any other operator AIUI. For instance, TfW wanted to extend the Birmingham International services to Coventry a while back but this was refused, by the ORR I think.

The document that determines how TfW is allowed to run through/to/from/in England is quite long. It includes lots of detail on, for instance, the maximum number of services TfW are allowed to run on the marches line (something in my head says 3tph each way) and, famously, dwell times at Manchester Oxford Road (set at 1 minute which has led to the procurement of an entire fleet of suburban-layout stock).

3 operators under DfT operate into Wales (Avanti in the North, GWR in the south, Cross-Country from Nottingham to Cardiff). This is what allows Ken Skates to boast on a regular basis that TfW is the best performing TOC in Wales.

 

[Bald Rick]

Applications to extend services into England go through the same hoops as any other operator AIUI.

For the access rights and applying for paths yes.

However TfW have to get permission from DfT.

 

[stj]

It's all a matter on negotiation really. Obviously, improving services between Bristol and south Wales benefits both regions. The current services connecting Cardiff and Bristol are very poor and infrequent for two adjacent cities of a similar size.

I would assume that detailed talks between the WG TfW, WECA and the MetroWest consortium took place before the DfT was approached.

Exactly should have a shuttle like Glasgow/Edinburgh

 

[zwk500]

It's all a matter on negotiation really. Obviously, improving services between Bristol and south Wales benefits both regions. The current services connecting Cardiff and Bristol are very poor and infrequent for two adjacent cities of a similar size.

It's a half-hourly all-day service with most trains being 5 cars long. That's not bad. They should be longer and electric, but that's not the Welsh Government's fault.

Exactly should have a shuttle like Glasgow/Edinburgh

The area between Glasgow and Edinburgh is densely populated, the area between Cardiff and Bristol is a big estuary. The service provision isn't a fair comparison, because the South Wales coast isn't the Scottish Central Belt. There's also 4 double-track lines between Glasgow and Edinburgh, not 1 4-track line.

I would assume that detailed talks between the WG TfW, WECA and the MetroWest consortium took place before the DfT was approached.

Everybody talks to each other all the time, but I think it's a reasonable assumption that TfW/TfW Rail would not have pressed ahead with preparing an ORR application if the DfT were going to veto it from the start.