• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Keolis/Amey to take over Wales and Borders

Status
Not open for further replies.

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
I wouldn't expect any of the new-build stock to be compatible with 170s for multiple working, due to their age. It would be desirable for the new-build types to be compatible with each other, even if only the Flirt and Citylink fleets (that will be used on various Valley Lines and around South-East Wales).

The fact that all the long-distance fleet is being replaced with Civitys means they will be compatible amongst themselves, which is an improvement from the mix of 158s and 175s currently doing that work.

If the 170s are used for West Wales and Heart of Wales services only, then they'll only meet other types of rolling stock between Carmarthen & Swansea / Shrewsbury & Church Stretton: at all other points they'll only be in the company of other 170s.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Gareth Marston

Established Member
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Messages
6,231
Location
Newtown Montgomeryshire
I wouldn't expect any of the new-build stock to be compatible with 170s for multiple working, due to their age. It would be desirable for the new-build types to be compatible with each other, even if only the Flirt and Citylink fleets (that will be used on various Valley Lines and around South-East Wales).

The fact that all the long-distance fleet is being replaced with Civitys means they will be compatible amongst themselves, which is an improvement from the mix of 158s and 175s currently doing that work.

If the 170s are used for West Wales and Heart of Wales services only, then they'll only meet other types of rolling stock between Carmarthen & Swansea / Shrewsbury & Church Stretton: at all other points they'll only be in the company of other 170s.

Civitys will operate west of Swansea.
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
Given ATW have lasted this long with 175s not being compatible with anything else in the franchise, I doubt we'll see anything different with the Civitys. Yes, it is very occasionally an issue - but not enough to go through the massive struggle of making things compatible, especially if it means using outdated technology like that used on 170s.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
Civitys will operate west of Swansea.
Presuming you mean west of Carmarthen: Yes, an oversight on my part, sorry.

The 170s will still largely be playing in their own yard, though, and it'll be no different to the 175s which currently operate to Milford, incompatile with every other coupler they'll see in West Wales.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales

Cardiff123

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2013
Messages
1,318
Interview with head of TfW James Price in New Civil Engineer. Subscribe only if anyone has access.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/interview-james-price-transport-for-wales/10033497.article
This is a great claim by Price:

One hold-up could be the cancellation of electrification work between Cardiff and Swansea, Price explains. Transport secretary Chris Grayling’s decision to scrap the scheme last summer will make it harder to fulfill the promise to get four trains an hour to Ebbw Vale in the Welsh valleys.

So how does cancelling Cardiff - Swansea electrification affect getting 4 trains an hour up to Ebbw Vale? Improvements to Ebbw Vale were never part of GWEP.

Does he realise that the government he works for, ordered the cancellation of the re-doubling up Ebbw Vale whilst NR were mid-project?
Meanwhile overspends on the A465 are allowed to go on exponentially whilst it's claimed WG can't afford to let NR continue the doubling work up to Ebbw Vale as they need to find a 'technical solution' with Keilos Amey who will have no control over the infrastructure up to Ebbw Vale.

“We told the bidders ‘we don’t care how you do it’,” he says.

[As long as you include light rail to keep Ken and the Professor happy.] Hence the 300m on street section in Cardiff Bay.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
Thanks for the link, It seems that that website will let you view one article for free, but if you delete all cookies from newcivilengineer.com they it will forget it's seen you and give you another free article. Faffy, but a workaround.

Or just open an article in an incognito / private window, close that window when you have finished reading, and open the next article in a new incognito / private window. And repeat :)
 

Gareth Marston

Established Member
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Messages
6,231
Location
Newtown Montgomeryshire
This is a great claim by Price:



So how does cancelling Cardiff - Swansea electrification affect getting 4 trains an hour up to Ebbw Vale? Improvements to Ebbw Vale were never part of GWEP.

Does he realise that the government he works for, ordered the cancellation of the re-doubling up Ebbw Vale whilst NR were mid-project?
Meanwhile overspends on the A465 are allowed to go on exponentially whilst it's claimed WG can't afford to let NR continue the doubling work up to Ebbw Vale as they need to find a 'technical solution' with Keilos Amey who will have no control over the infrastructure up to Ebbw Vale.



[As long as you include light rail to keep Ken and the Professor happy.] Hence the 300m on street section in Cardiff Bay.


Its always the "other boys fault" and other things are glossed over if inconvenient - its the Welsh Government way of trying to dodge accepting responsibility for problems - entirely predictable I'm afraid. Price also has his own future to spin for having been effectively demoted to TfW after the Circuit of Wales debacle. he's a great chap sorting out all these problems caused by others don't you know?
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
So how does cancelling Cardiff - Swansea electrification affect getting 4 trains an hour up to Ebbw Vale? Improvements to Ebbw Vale were never part of GWEP.

I guess the issue is that they expect Ebbw Vale services to run beyond Cardiff along the SWML. If the DFT don't wire up Cardiff-Swansea then even if WG/TfW electrify Ebbw Vale, they'll need to use diesel or bi-mode stock to operate beyond Cardiff. 4tph of DMUs, or terminating say 2tph extra at Central probably doesn't fit well with operational realities or legal requirements on sustainability.

But yeah, it does sound a little overblown.
 

Parallel

Established Member
Joined
9 Dec 2013
Messages
3,929
I would run:

1tph Maesteg - Abergavenny (all stops)
1tph Maesteg - Bridgend shuttle
1tph Swansea - Cheltenham Spa (all stops Swansea - Bridgend)
Then 1tph Ebbw Vale to Cardiff and 1tph Ebbw Vale to Newport. If there is ever an extension to Abertillery, then maybe have 1tph Cardiff - Abertillery reversing at Newport platform 4.

But I’m not a railway professional so others may have better ideas.
 
Last edited:

Gareth Marston

Established Member
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Messages
6,231
Location
Newtown Montgomeryshire

berneyarms

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2013
Messages
2,811
Location
Dublin
Does it take 30 people to blow smoke rings at Merseyrail about integrating the Bidston line into the Wirral EMU's because Cardiff won't agree the funding?

Would their brief incorporate developing rural transport (bus) service networks including dial-a-ride?

The National Transport Authority here in Ireland has been developing these kind of services across the country and regional offices are responsible for their development (see www.localink.ie). That in itself would take up a number of staff members.
 

Gareth Marston

Established Member
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Messages
6,231
Location
Newtown Montgomeryshire
Would their brief incorporate developing rural transport (bus) service networks including dial-a-ride?

The National Transport Authority here in Ireland has been developing these kind of services across the country and regional offices are responsible for their development (see www.localink.ie). That in itself would take up a number of staff members.

Unfortunately looking into this further experience in planning road enhancements appears to be a requirement for quite a few of the posts.
 

Cardiff123

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2013
Messages
1,318
Unfortunately looking into this further experience in planning road enhancements appears to be a requirement for quite a few of the posts.
Well they have to make space for all the express buses that will be forming the equally world class and transformative 'North Wales Metro.' :rolleyes:
 

Cardiff123

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2013
Messages
1,318
https://gov.wales/newsroom/transpor...nd-progress-rail-projects-in-wrexham/?lang=en

Funding to develop and progress rail projects in Wrexham
The Welsh Government is providing Transport for Wales with £500,000 investment to develop and progress important rail infrastructure projects in Wrexham, Transport Secretary Ken Skates has announced.

The funding will allow the completion of development work to upgrade the Wrexham North Junction as a priority project.
This will enable improved journey times from Wrexham General station going north, allowing trains to pass through the single line section up to Rossett more quickly, which will also contribute towards enabling increased frequency of services.

The investment is also being used to consider a range of other interventions that can further support increased services. These include improvements to signalling and associated infrastructure as well as level crossings in the area.

 

Cardiff123

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2013
Messages
1,318
Franchise Tender documents released by TfW

It seems under the radar, in the middle of August, the tender documents for the new franchise were released by TfW on their website: http://tfw.gov.wales/projects/wales-and-borders-rail-service - click on the 'Documents' tab.

This story from Rhodri Clark is in today's print edition of the South Wales Echo. It's not available on Wales Online at the moment - they are carrying a fluff spin piece from Sion Barry about the new train order.
(Click on the thumbnail and open in a new browser window for the extra large full size readable image)

Echo TfW story.jpg

Of interest is this section from page 26 of ITSFT Volume 1:
You must ensure that no rolling stock which achieves primary traction by means of diesel engine operates on the Core Valley Lines network post 2025, with the exception of additional diesel train services to deal with Special Events timetables
So heavy rail is not banned from the Merthyr, Aberdare and Treherbert lines indefinitely.
 
Last edited:

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Franchise Tender documents released by TfW
It seems under the radar, in the middle of August, the tender documents for the new franchise were released by TfW on their website: http://tfw.gov.wales/projects/wales-and-borders-rail-service - click on the 'Documents' tab.

The crucial bits about the minimum passenger service improvements are in section 6, Appendix 3A, p13.

Looks like TfW want a Cardiff-Liverpool which is non-stop between Chester and Liverpool, and Llandudno/Wrexham-Liverpool only calling at Runcorn and Liverpool South Parkway after Chester.
The Sunday improvements look a bit pathetic at a 10% increase in train miles over the aggregate network.
The faster journey times specified don't look especially fast.
The DfT conditions for cross-border services is likewise disappointing - generally just the existing level of services.
Nothing is given away about future cross-border services by other franchises (GW, VT, XC).
Interestingly they want 1 minute dwell times at Oxford Road and Piccadilly by 2021!
Draft times are shown for the initial stopping Liverpool-Runcorn-Chester service, dep xx16 arr xx07 and similar on return.
The 50min journey time will be longer than the Merseyrail route (45min).

This is just the ITT of course, maybe the KeolisAmey bid and contract will improve on things like journey time.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
The crucial bits about the minimum passenger service improvements are in section 6, Appendix 3A, p13.

Looks like TfW want a Cardiff-Liverpool which is non-stop between Chester and Liverpool, and Llandudno/Wrexham-Liverpool only calling at Runcorn and Liverpool South Parkway after Chester.
The Sunday improvements look a bit pathetic at a 10% increase in train miles over the aggregate network.

Did you mean page 13 of section 3, Appendix 3a? I read that as stating a minimum service of 1tp2h from Cardiff to Liverpool, calling at Newport, Cwmbrân, Abergavenny, Hereford, Shrewsbury, Wrexham and Chester at least.

That specification (plus those for Liverpool-Wrexham/North Wales) allow each of those to be two-hourly, creating a potential situation where North Wales trains call at South Parkway etc, but Cardiff ones in the alternate hours don't. Given we now know that the Cardiff services will be extensions of Shrewsbury/Wrexham services, and portion work with the North Wales ones, they'll have to stop at Runcorn and South Parkway (unless KA intend to reintroduce slip coaches!)
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
Some other observations:

TfW set goals of not only having 3tph between Chester and the Junction (calling at Colwyn, Rhyl, Prestatyn and Flint minimum), but also of speeding up at least 12tpd running Bangor to Chester in no more than 1hr 5mins.

The current timing for an ATW 175 train from BNG to CTR calling only at LLJ, CWB, RHL, PRT and FLN (the 17:19) is 1hr 8min. Virgin's Voyagers do the same run in 1hr 7min. To get under the 1hr 5 min barrier on current timings you have to drop more stops (viz. 14:25, 16:26 departures), but then they won't count toward the above 3tph target. These seem mutually exclusive to me.
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
I believe the bid went further than the ITT in terms of service numbers at least (once the new rolling stock arrives).
 

Gareth Marston

Established Member
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Messages
6,231
Location
Newtown Montgomeryshire
This caught my eye

For planning purposes, Bidders should assume the following proposed public timetable operating
times and service patterns:
Chester to Liverpool Lime Street: First Train departs 05.17 then hourly at xx.
17 until 22.17
arriving Liverpool Lime St 23.06.
Liverpool Lime Street to Chester: First Train departs 06.16 then hourly at xx.16 until 23.16
arriving Chester 00.07.

Given the current timings of the Holyhead to Birmingham services which are determined by ATW's paths into and out of Birmingham are

arriving Chester xx14 from Holyhead
departing for Shrewsbury xx20

arriving Chester xx20 from Shrewsbury
departing xx25 for Holyhead.

I cant see how your cramming in your extra train south of Chester as the paths almost coincide with existing trains.
 

Cardiff123

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2013
Messages
1,318
Has anyone managed to find the ultra sensitive parts of the tender documents yet, that would've scuppered the entire award process if these documents had been publicly released last autumn?

Also notice that the documents are dated 30th November 2017, which gave the bidders just three weeks to submit their final proposals before the final deadline on 21st December! (Although the introduction to the documents on the webpage states the tender documents were issued to bidders on 28th September)
 
Last edited:

Gareth Marston

Established Member
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Messages
6,231
Location
Newtown Montgomeryshire
Has anyone managed to find the ultra sensitive parts of the tender documents yet, that would've scuppered the entire award process if these documents had been publicly released last autumn?

Also notice that the documents are dated 30th November 2017, which gave the bidders just three weeks to submit their final proposals before the final deadline on 21st December!

Probably some sums / £ in the redacted bits that tfW think are highly sensitive but in reality aren't or more likely the fact that West Wales was not deemed important enough for priority improvements! After all you don't want the "little people" challenging your decisions before their set in stone.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top