Wales & Borders Franchise

[gareth950]

when will valley lines electrification happen?

will diesel units become available to oust pacers in the meantime or will they be life extended

This issue has been discussed many times over here:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=131485&highlight=wales:+facing+a+looming+DMU+crisis?
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=117763&highlight=wales:+facing+a+looming+DMU+crisis?

Both of those threads discuss the issue in depth. Work isn't expected to start on electrifying the Valley Lines, whether it be for heavy rail or light rail electrification/conversion before 2019, so a DMU solution is needed. What form that solution will take is unbelievably still to be decided.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't believe for a minute that the Welsh Government has "let the Wales & Borders franchise".
It has not even been specified yet.
We have no word from the DfT to agree full devolution of the franchise to WG, or even of bits of Network Rail.

What we seem to have is a short list of bidders who have put in "expressions of interest" in whatever the WG is offering (which they haven't shared with the rest of us, except in the vaguest terms).
KeolisAmey is the only one which has construction interests (as opposed to running a TOC).
And what does "not for profit" mean when all the bidders are in it for a profit?

 

[Gareth Marston]

I don't believe for a minute that the Welsh Government has "let the Wales & Borders franchise".
It has not even been specified yet.
We have no word from the DfT to agree full devolution of the franchise to WG, or even of bits of Network Rail.

What we seem to have is a short list of bidders who have put in "expressions of interest" in whatever the WG is offering (which they haven't shared with the rest of us, except in the vaguest terms).
KeolisAmey is the only one which has construction interests (as opposed to running a TOC).
And what does "not for profit" mean when all the bidders are in it for a profit?

The WG know full well that they can only offer a Concession like Merseysrail/London Overground. The "not for profit" is garbage to hoodwink the general public. Your right its all secret squirrel stuff - given the stitch up and moving goalposts we had last time in 03 its a total disgrace and undemocratic.

 

[Dai Corner]

'Not for profit' refers to Transport for Wales, a company wholly owned by the Welsh Government. It sounds like it's just a department of the Welsh Civil Service and follows the fashion for having a "Transport for ...." named after your area - London, Greater Manchester for instance.

I'd like to know more about the Valleys infrastructure being handed over to the franchisee (concessionaire?). Surely a Labour Welsh Government aren't in favour of privatisation of publicly owned assets?

 

[gareth950]

I'd like to know more about the Valleys infrastructure being handed over to the franchisee (concessionaire?). Surely a Labour Welsh Government aren't in favour of privatisation of publicly owned assets?

My thoughts exactly. It certainly goes completely against rail policy coming out of Labour in London. No doubt Corbyn supporters will be saying the Welsh Labour party is still being run by 'New Labour Blairites'.
The WG have said though that they are impatient with NR not being able to deliver infrastructure upgrades in Wales on time as promised ( eg. Electrification to Swansea) and so they want to manage it themselves, even if that means handing the work over to a private company.

 

[CardiffKid]

The WG have said though that they are impatient with NR not being able to deliver infrastructure upgrades in Wales on time as promised ( eg. Electrification to Swansea) and so they want to manage it themselves, even if that means handing the work over to a private company.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Dai Corner]

What could possibly go wrong?

As far as I know there aren't many electrification engineers short of work and looking for the next project so the Valleys or Swansea aren't going to get done any quicker whoever oversees the project.

 

[northwichcat]

And what does "not for profit" mean when all the bidders are in it for a profit?

I expect it means a Merseyrail or Manchester Metrolink style arrangement which scares off the likes of First and Stagecoach due to it not being possible to make much money off the arrangement but attracts companies wanting to build up a UK transport portfolio ahead of bidding for bigger projects.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nope. According to the article linked to the only bidders to come forward were
Abellio, KeolisAmey, MTR and Arriva. All ultimately owned by foreign Governments.

At the moment they are just a list of companies who are deemed eligible to submit a bid. It's possible some might back out when they see the proposed terms of the new franchise, as has happened with other rail franchises recently.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The KeolisAmey that runs DLR and Nottingham Tram is some combination of Keolis and Amey.
Keolis is 70% SNCF and 30% CDpQ of Canada.
Amey is the British construction arm of Ferrovial of Spain, who also own and operate Heathrow Airport.
They currently have the lion's share of the GW electrification project, and are based in Oxford.
Depending on how the shareholding stands, KeolisAmey may be majority owned privately rather than by the French government via SNCF.
http://keolisameydocklands.info/

I don't think there is any intention to sell off infrastructure to the winning bidder.
TfW would own any devolved infrastructure and service specifications, with the winner being contractor and franchise/concession operator.
TfW being "not for profit" is the same as TfL or Transport Scotland, it's just a branch of local government.
Everything that moves and is managed by the contractor will, you can be sure, be on profit terms.
"Capping" profits is only the same as "cap and collar" used by DfT for years to claw back franchise super-profits (and contrariwise to fund large losses).

But why the silence from DfT? They currently own all these assets.
If there was a deal on devolved infrastructure and/or franchise they would have confirmed it.
The WG is absolutely not going to tell NR how to complete GW electrification to Swansea, or have any part of the IEP project.

 

[387star]

This issue has been discussed many times over here:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=131485&highlight=wales:+facing+a+looming+DMU+crisis?
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=117763&highlight=wales:+facing+a+looming+DMU+crisis?

Both of those threads discuss the issue in depth. Work isn't expected to start on electrifying the Valley Lines, whether it be for heavy rail or light rail electrification/conversion before 2019, so a DMU solution is needed. What form that solution will take is unbelievably still to be decided.

Thanks sorry it has been a while since I followed these developments

I guess DMUs coming from AGA and Northern (ScotRail/GWR?) will not prove sufficient/will not arrive on time and in Northern's case that assumes Pacers can be extended I guess via the E Pacer concept... but that would presumably prove costly if only as a short term fix till the valleys are juiced

 

[Class 170101]

Stadler may provide the answer with their Bi-mode concept being built for the AGA franchise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

South Wales Metro is never going to be a money maker for the operator if funded by themselves but will be for (South) Wales PLC. Hence its a publicly funded project.

I didn't expect TPE to propose a premium payment to the DfT nor Thameside for that matter so stranger things have happened.

 

[bigbadhenry]

Welsh rail franchise 'to keep cross-border services'


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-37733120

 

[northwichcat]

Welsh rail franchise 'to keep cross-border services'


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-37733120

"But the Welsh Government has now said it has reached an understanding the current franchise map will remain intact."

I thought if the splitting up option didn't go ahead it was supposed to include the new services between Chester and Liverpool via Runcorn, with the intention that they will originate somewhere in North Wales in the future.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

From the BBC piece:

from WG:
Its spokesman added there were also opportunities for operating new routes to Bristol and Liverpool "if train paths can be secured".

The question now is how the WG will be accountable for its services in England.
You'd expect "Transport Wales" to have some Borders representation.

 

[topydre]

Abellio had a stall at the Plaid Cymru conference this weekend. Very friendly, but all their material seemed to be saying how wonderful their other franchises are; they don't appear to have published their gameplan for the Wales and Borders franchise as far as I can see.

 

[swt_passenger]

Abellio had a stall at the Plaid Cymru conference this weekend. Very friendly, but all their material seemed to be saying how wonderful their other franchises are; they don't appear to have published their gameplan for the Wales and Borders franchise as far as I can see.

AIUI shortlisted bidders cannot publish or announce 'their own ideas' for a new franchise before the start of, and during, an ongoing tender process. It is for the sponsor to publish the 'gameplan' in the form of an ITT, following appropriate consultation.

Once the ITT comes out then anything that is optional or significantly different to the ITT requirements would be commercial-in-confidence anyway, or else all bidders would copy each others ideas...

 

[northwichcat]

Abellio had a stall at the Plaid Cymru conference this weekend. Very friendly, but all their material seemed to be saying how wonderful their other franchises are; they don't appear to have published their gameplan for the Wales and Borders franchise as far as I can see.

If they don't know the specification for the next franchise how do they know what to promise? If they said half-hourly Manchester to Shrewsbury but the spec says half-hourly Manchester to Cardiff it would look like they would under deliver but if it says the same frequency as now it would look like they'd go above the minimum by saying half-hourly Manchester to Shrewsbury.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Abellio had a stall at the Plaid Cymru conference this weekend. Very friendly, but all their material seemed to be saying how wonderful their other franchises are; they don't appear to have published their gameplan for the Wales and Borders franchise as far as I can see.

That's because the WG hasn't said what it wants (or is prepared to pay for).
Until there is either an ITT, or a preferred bidder announced (from the 4 bidders), we are unlikely to learn a lot more.

The bidding process involved responding to documents which the WG did not publish.
It was probably skewed to plans for the South Wales Metro.

 

[Gareth Marston]

That's because the WG hasn't said what it wants (or is prepared to pay for).
Until there is either an ITT, or a preferred bidder announced (from the 4 bidders), we are unlikely to learn a lot more.

The bidding process involved responding to documents which the WG did not publish.
It was probably skewed to plans for the South Wales Metro.

Given the huge sum of public money (for Wales) the secret squirrel stuff is appalling - the ITT will be presented as the greatest thing since sliced bread even if two thirds of Wales and the Borders disagree and by then its "too late".

The "nightmare" scenario is a watered down South Wales Metro with an hourly Cardiff to Holyhead service using new stock presented as huge benefit and crumbs form the table for everywhere else.

The saving grace is that the cross border services are to remain and a current DfT template is being used meaning that the lowering of subsidy will be a key element. This is being done elsewhere by revenue growth not cuts so logically the places where the franchise can best increase revenue and reduce subsidy are on Chester to Manchester, Cardiff to Manchester and Shrewsbury to BHM INTL routes. The menu presented to Cardiff Bay by the 4 bidders may well have a main course of improvements in England and the Marches.

 

[47802]

Thanks sorry it has been a while since I followed these developments

I guess DMUs coming from AGA and Northern (ScotRail/GWR?) will not prove sufficient/will not arrive on time and in Northern's case that assumes Pacers can be extended I guess via the E Pacer concept... but that would presumably prove costly if only as a short term fix till the valleys are juiced

Why do you need the E Pacer concept, just do the bare minimum, and as for the Toilet problem, if they end up going for a Light rail solution, then any Light rail solution is likely to be Toilet free vehicles so that's a good enough excuse to just remove the Pacer Toilets or even just Lock them out of use.

 

[topydre]

AIUI shortlisted bidders cannot publish or announce 'their own ideas' for a new franchise before the start of, and during, an ongoing tender process. It is for the sponsor to publish the 'gameplan' in the form of an ITT, following appropriate consultation.

Once the ITT comes out then anything that is optional or significantly different to the ITT requirements would be commercial-in-confidence anyway, or else all bidders would copy each others ideas...

OK, fair play, thanks. It was just an observation, but I understand now (though I still think more transparency from WG would be useful).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I found this nugget about the next Wales & Borders franchise in the parliamentary debate yesterday about improving the railways: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...01/RailInfrastructure(TrainOperatingCompanies

Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr):
From what I can gather, integration is at the heart of what the Secretary of State is endeavouring to achieve.
With that in mind, now that the UK Government are devolving responsibilities for the Welsh franchise to Wales, is it not logical to devolve responsibility for the Welsh network?

Chris Grayling:
I need to correct the hon. Gentleman on that: we are not devolving responsibility for the whole Welsh franchise as he describes; we are doing so in part. I have said to the Welsh Government that I am happy with their taking control of the Welsh valleys lines, with a view to developing the metro system that they hope to put into service, but the Welsh franchise is not purely Welsh; it runs through large parts of England as well.
We cannot have a situation where we, the Government in Westminster, give up control over services in England to the Welsh Government without checks and balances. That is not going to happen

So that rules out devolution of Welsh rail infrastructure (except the Valleys), and confirms that the DfT will still be responsible for the English end of W&B's routes.

 

[gareth950]

I found this nugget about the next Wales & Borders franchise in the parliamentary debate yesterday about improving the railways: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...01/RailInfrastructure(TrainOperatingCompanies



So that rules out devolution of Welsh rail infrastructure (except the Valleys), and confirms that the DfT will still be responsible for the English end of W&B's routes.

How can that be possible when the WG is being devolved the power to award the next W&B franchise and it was confirmed recently that the current W&B network is NOT going to be split up???????? The situation with rail in Wales is enough to make anyone's head hurt.....a lot

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

How can that be possible when the WG is being devolved the power to award the next W&B franchise and it was confirmed recently that the current W&B network is NOT going to be split up???????? The situation with rail in Wales is enough to make anyone's head hurt.....a lot

I'm sure WG will award the new franchise on something like the current map.
But it won't have a free hand in Marcher counties.

 

[northwichcat]

How can that be possible when the WG is being devolved the power to award the next W&B franchise and it was confirmed recently that the current W&B network is NOT going to be split up???????? The situation with rail in Wales is enough to make anyone's head hurt.....a lot

Perhaps the 'Borders' part should form a Rail North style body who have an influence in the franchise award and running?

Although, that idea could start getting very complicated. For instance, Cheshire East has services run by the Northern franchise, the Wales & Borders franchise, the West Midlands franchise and the East Midlands franchise. Would they really want to be part of 4 different rail bodies?

 

[daikilo]

Quote Chris Grayling:
"I need to correct the hon. Gentleman on that: we are not devolving responsibility for the whole Welsh franchise as he describes; we are doing so in part. I have said to the Welsh Government that I am happy with their taking control of the Welsh valleys lines, with a view to developing the metro system that they hope to put into service, but the Welsh franchise is not purely Welsh; it runs through large parts of England as well.
We cannot have a situation where we, the Government in Westminster, give up control over services in England to the Welsh Government without checks and balances. That is not going to happen"

What a poorly thought through answer. He seems to be infering that any part of what he calls the Welsh network (it is the Wales and Borders franchise) where the trains run into England cannot be devolved. Has he not considered the equivalent of a joint venture? What does he envisage for local service on Cardiff to West Wales or Chester to Holyhead? And what of the Heart of Wales line?

 

[northwichcat]

Quote Chris Grayling:
"I need to correct the hon. Gentleman on that: we are not devolving responsibility for the whole Welsh franchise as he describes; we are doing so in part. I have said to the Welsh Government that I am happy with their taking control of the Welsh valleys lines, with a view to developing the metro system that they hope to put into service, but the Welsh franchise is not purely Welsh; it runs through large parts of England as well.
We cannot have a situation where we, the Government in Westminster, give up control over services in England to the Welsh Government without checks and balances. That is not going to happen"

What a poorly thought through answer. He seems to be infering that any part of what he calls the Welsh network (it is the Wales and Borders franchise) where the trains run into England cannot be devolved. Has he not considered the equivalent of a joint venture? What does he envisage for local service on Cardiff to West Wales or Chester to Holyhead? And what of the Heart of Wales line?

To me that suggests something like what is going to be done with the next London Midland franchise. That franchise will have two business units with Centro having control over the local services in the West Midlands but other services like Liverpool to Birmingham will be part of the other business unit.

However, that goes against the logic of the current EMT and GWR franchises where loss making local services are subsided by profitable long distance services.

 

[daikilo]

To me that suggests something like what is going to be done with the next London Midland franchise. That franchise will have two business units with Centro having control over the local services in the West Midlands but other services like Liverpool to Birmingham will be part of the other business unit.

Exactly, if that is what he meant it is what he should have said, so what did he mean?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What a poorly thought through answer. He seems to be infering that any part of what he calls the Welsh network (it is the Wales and Borders franchise) where the trains run into England cannot be devolved. Has he not considered the equivalent of a joint venture? What does he envisage for local service on Cardiff to West Wales or Chester to Holyhead? And what of the Heart of Wales line?

I think all he is saying is that Westminster will have the last say on services in England and across the border.
I'm sure the WG will do all the planning with the franchise winner, as they do now.
The ultimate issue will be how much subsidy to allow the new franchise (either side of the border).
The DfT will get the vote on the English element.

 

[gareth950]

We know the current franchise is NOT going to be split up thanks to this story from 23rd October when Grayling had already been transports secretary for 3 months:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-37733120

Welsh rail franchise 'to keep cross-border services'
By David Deans
BBC News
23rd October 2016

Plans to devolve the Wales and Borders rail franchise will include existing cross-border services, the Welsh Government has said.
The UK government said in 2015 some services that primarily serve England could be given to other firms.
But the Welsh Government has now said it has reached an understanding the current franchise map will remain intact.
Four companies are bidding to run the network.
The UK government agreed in 2014 to devolve the Wales and Borders franchise.
But the 2015 St David's Day command paper - a document which paved the way for the Wales Bill currently passing through parliament - said it was "likely" services primarily for English markets would be put in franchises under the authority of the UK transport secretary.
This prompted concerns services such as Aberystwyth to Birmingham and Milford Haven to Manchester would be split at the border, with passengers potentially having to change trains.
'Sense has surfaced'
The Welsh Government said it had "reached an understanding" with the UK Department for Transport that the current Wales and Borders franchise map "will remain intact".
Its spokesman added there were also opportunities for operating new routes to Bristol and Liverpool "if train paths can be secured".
John Rogers, a committee member of railway campaigning group Rail Future, described the idea of splitting up cross-border services as "completely stupid".
"Common sense has surfaced at last," he said.

So trying to decipher what he said is anyone's guess.