TFW Rail Services to be taken in house by Welsh Government

craigybagel · 27 Nov 2020

LNW-GW Joint said:
When the 175s arrived, ordered by First Group for FNW (with 180s for FGW), the promise was that all services in North Wales (ie via Chester to Crewe, Birmingham, Holyhead, Manchester and branches) would be operated by the 175s.
That never quite happened, as reliability was very low in the early days, and then the FNW, Central and W&W franchises got carved up into the present setup.
ATW quickly changed the plan so the 175s (including those returned from the FNW/TPE Airport services) worked the Marches route from Manchester to Cardiff, and into West Wales.
That put 2-car 158/150s back in North Wales while most of the 3-car 175s went east/south.
The North Wales service has not got back to a consistent mix since, and is probably worse now than at any time under ATW.

3-car 170s were also used by Central on Birmingham-Chester/Cambrian services (which often ran through to the East Midlands in the other direction).
Again that went down to 2-car 158s, along with the diversion of Birmingham services via Shrewsbury rather than Stafford, with longer journey times.

The main improvement in North Wales services since WG took control has actually been the more frequent West Coast services (6 a day from Holyhead, and hourly from Chester).
There is the new Liverpool direct service of course, thanks to the Liverpool City Region deal.
But overall, I wouldn't say WG control of services has been an unqualified success in North Wales.
You might get a different view from Wrexhamers, who doubled their frequency to hourly from 2004, and gained services to Holyhead and Cardiff (and now Liverpool).

My memory of the First North Western days on the North Wales coast was that pretty much anything could turn up. Lots of 175s, but I also had a 150 all the way from Manchester to Holyhead and various other things besides. Under the timetable change with Arriva it became a pretty stable half and half mixture of 158s on Birmingham's and 175s on Cardiff's.

I'll agree though, the diversion via Wrexham is pretty painful - but would it have been possible to give the Shrewsbury - Chester line the hourly service it desperately needed and have enough rolling stock to keep the Holyhead - Birmingham via Stafford services?

Llandudno said:
Agree for the most part concerning north Wales coast services, there haven’t been many improvements yet since TfW came into being.

The timetable and stopping patterns are all over the place, no attempt at clockface headway
Connections at Chester are erratic, with long waits at certain times and almost deliberate attempts to avoid decent connections
No late eastbound trains from Holyhead/Bangor
Awful Sunday service and only an hourly Saturday evening service along the coast
Lottery if trains run on Conwy Valley line (even when no flooding)
Clapped out 2 car 150s running Holyhead/Llandudno to Chester and beyond

To be balanced they have introduced the following
Small fare reductions on north Wales coast, but still no day returns to Chester from stations west of Prestatyn
All year round Sunday service Llandudno-Blaenau Ffestiniog
Gradual improvement and refurbishment of some stations
New signalling Chester to Llandudno Junction, not sure if it means trains can run closer together though?
Community rail initiatives

Whilst true, there never was going to be any quick fixes under TfW. They have a legacy of a 15 year zero growth franchise to deal with, and that will take time. And that terrible franchise agreement wasn't Cardiff's fault

RailUK Forums

Envoy · 28 Nov 2020

berneyarms said:
A lot of the problems with rolling stock stem from the fact that the UK government awarded a zero-growth franchise to ATW surely?

The Labour Welsh Government were also involved with their Transport Minister - Andrew Davies - signing the Arriva contract. Here is the Arriva press release:>

Arriva trains ltd signs Wales and borders agreement

News from Arriva PLC

news.arriva.co.uk

Andrew Davies, Wales' minister for economic development andtransport, said:

The Welsh Assembly Government has given a high priorityto improving transport infrastructure including road and rail andthe development of improved public transport on buses, communitytransport, trains and air.

Click to expand...

I am looking forward to working with Arriva to improvethe existing service and to develop new passenger services on theVale of Glamorgan and Ebbw Valley lines.

Click to expand...

frodshamfella · 28 Nov 2020

Tom Maddox said:
Yes, all three are TFW operated, with the only other TOC to serve them being Northern.

Certainly at Frodsham, TFw is the most frequent

geoffk · 12 Jan 2021

Cardiff123 said:
The 'South Wales Metro', aka the upgrade and electrification of the Core Valley lines north of Cardiff, is about a lot more than just giving the Valley lines new rolling stock. It's about kick starting an economic regeneration of the south Wales valleys by increasing service frequencies to 4tph to the head of every valley, and atractting employers away from Cardiff to set up in the lower Valleys, with an emphasis on Pontypridd, where TfW have their new HQ.
As sceptical as most people on this forum are about the tram-trains, they can then be used to enable easier extensions to the network in future.
None of that would be achieved by just bunging new DMUs onto the Valley lines, or if a Northern franchise style approach had been taken, keeping PRM'd 150s going indefinitely. And despite CASR, Queen St north junction was still a big constraint, and CASR north of Radyr was never completed.

What surprises me is that the class 398 tram-trains are to be used on three of the longest runs, to Aberdare, Merthyr and Treherbert, currently 55 to 60 minutes from Queen Street, while the short distance routes to Coryton (17 minutes), Penarth (21 minutes, both times from Queen Street) will have class 756 FLIRT units (“proper” trains, some may say, and with toilets which the 398s will not have). The three valley routes mentioned take around twice as long as a Manchester Metrolink journey to Bury, Oldham or Altrincham.

As the tram trains will be required to run on-street along an extension of the Cardiff Bay branch, would it not have made more sense to link this route to Coryton and perhaps a Caerphilly or Pontypridd short working to give the desired service level, and serve the longer valley routes with trains? Running tram-trains to Coryton suggests the possibility of extending the route on-street to a Park and Ride stop by the M4 Junction 32, but perhaps this has been looked at and found not to be feasible.

Dr Day · 12 Jan 2021

geoffk said:
What surprises me is that the class 398 tram-trains are to be used on three of the longest runs, to Aberdare, Merthyr and Treherbert, currently 55 to 60 minutes from Queen Street, while the short distance routes to Coryton (17 minutes), Penarth (21 minutes, both times from Queen Street) will have class 756 FLIRT units (“proper” trains, some may say, and with toilets which the 398s will not have). The three valley routes mentioned take around twice as long as a Manchester Metrolink journey to Bury, Oldham or Altrincham. Indeed the 40-minute run to Wythenshawe is about the longest likely to be made by tram in Manchester as other Metrolink destinations have a heavy rail alternative.

As the tram trains will be required to run on-street along an extension of the Cardiff Bay branch, would it not have made more sense to link this route to Coryton and perhaps a Caerphilly or Pontypridd short working to give the desired service level, and serve the longer valley routes with trains? Running tram-trains to Coryton suggests the possibility of extending the route on-street to a Park and Ride stop by the M4 Junction 32, but perhaps this has been looked at and found to not be feasible.

Probably something to do with compatibility with freight/other heavy rail trains which is needed on the Rhymney line/Vale of Glamorgan routes, but not necessarily on the routes via Pontypridd or between Queen Street and Cardiff Bay.

Cardiff123 · 12 Jan 2021

Deleted

Envoy · 13 Jan 2021

Please note that this forum is about TfW services being taken ‘in house’ by the Welsh Government. For an extensive dedicated forum about the ‘South Wales Metro’ which discusses both the central valleys (north of Cardiff) plus associated services to aid travel in SE Wales as well as construction updates see:> https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/south-wales-metro-updates.117763/page-113

daodao · 13 Jan 2021

geoffk said:
Running tram-trains to Coryton suggests the possibility of extending the route on-street to a Park and Ride stop by the M4 Junction 32, but perhaps this has been looked at and found not to be feasible.

Any possible such extension would be via the existing deep cutting to just below the Asda superstore car park at Coryton, and does not require street running. It has been suggested occasionally over the past 30+ years, and is unlikely to happen.

Tomos y Tanc · 13 Jan 2021

daodao said:
Any possible such extension would be via the existing deep cutting to just below the Asda superstore car park at Coryton, and does not require street running. It has been suggested occasionally over the past 30+ years, and is unlikely to happen.

I'm not sure that an extention to Junction 32 has ever been suggested. There has been talk of extending to Morganstown either to allow passengers to change to or from trains on the Merthyr line or to create a "city circle line". It's unlikely in the near future I'd say. What probably will happen is a short extention to the site of the new Velindre Cancer Hospital, a matter of a few hundred yards along existing trackbed.

Rhydgaled · 13 Jan 2021

geoffk said:
What surprises me is that the class 398 tram-trains are to be used on three of the longest runs, to Aberdare, Merthyr and Treherbert, currently 55 to 60 minutes from Queen Street, while the short distance routes to Coryton (17 minutes), Penarth (21 minutes, both times from Queen Street) will have class 756 FLIRT units (“proper” trains, some may say, and with toilets which the 398s will not have). The three valley routes mentioned take around twice as long as a Manchester Metrolink journey to Bury, Oldham or Altrincham.

As the tram trains will be required to run on-street along an extension of the Cardiff Bay branch, would it not have made more sense to link this route to Coryton and perhaps a Caerphilly or Pontypridd short working to give the desired service level, and serve the longer valley routes with trains? Running tram-trains to Coryton suggests the possibility of extending the route on-street to a Park and Ride stop by the M4 Junction 32, but perhaps this has been looked at and found not to be feasible.

Dr Day said:
Probably something to do with compatibility with freight/other heavy rail trains which is needed on the Rhymney line/Vale of Glamorgan routes, but not necessarily on the routes via Pontypridd or between Queen Street and Cardiff Bay.

Wasn't there a requirement to permit freight across the entire existing ValleyLines network, hence the use of 25kv AC including on the routes via Pontypridd? There was still freight through Aberdare until recently wasn't there? Personally, I think it is more to do with the depot for the tram-trains being where it is. If they didn't run these crazy long trips to Aberdare, Merthyr and Treherbert using the toiletless tram-trains there wouldn't be (m)any tram-train workings past the depot. There would also be far less work for the tram-trains to do at the outset if all they were booked to run was Coryton - Cardiff Bay / Penarth. That would probably have been an unviable micro-fleet, so unless there is a substantial investment in significant new street running sections in central Cardiff it is probably necessary for them to run further out than is (in my view) sensible.

Another possibility is that the FLIRT units might be out of gauge for the routes through Pontypridd; anyone know whether that is the case? There are certainly issues with 158s/153s going up that way.

Tom Quinne · 13 Jan 2021

Dr Day said:
Probably something to do with compatibility with freight/other heavy rail trains which is needed on the Rhymney line/Vale of Glamorgan routes, but not necessarily on the routes via Pontypridd or between Queen Street and Cardiff Bay.

Correct, for the time being (only a year or so I expect) freight still uses the Rhymney Valley to Cwmbargoad.
You really don’t want to be on the TramTrain if a 2000t coal train bumps into it!

I expect once coal is outlawed in Wales, and the opencast at the top of the branch is closed (with the associated jobs lost) the proper heavy rail units will be moved away, and tram trains cascaded across.

Can we also forget extensions to the railway, especially street running - once the £800m has been spent there will be a investment holiday for the remainder of the concession. Talk of new lines is all a pipe dream, I’m sure everyone on here can see the state of the counties finances for decades to come.

Rhydgaled · 13 Jan 2021

Tom Quinne said:
Correct, for the time being (only a year or so I expect) freight still uses the Rhymney Valley to Cwmbargoad.
You really don’t want to be on the TramTrain if a 2000t coal train bumps into it!

I expect once coal is outlawed in Wales, and the opencast at the top of the branch is closed (with the associated jobs lost) the proper heavy rail units will be moved away, and tram trains cascaded across.

Can we also forget extensions to the railway, especially street running - once the £800m has been spent there will be a investment holiday for the remainder of the concession. Talk of new lines is all a pipe dream, I’m sure everyone on here can see the state of the counties finances for decades to come.

You probably don't want to be on a Tram-Train if a FLIRT hits it either, and isn't it still possible (between Cathays and Radyr via Cardiff Central) for a 2000t coal train to hit the tram train anyway? The reason they are tram-trains, not just plain trams, is so they would be allowed to share tracks with freight (and diverted class 800s on the Vale of Glamorgan to the west of Cardiff Central) isn't it?

One rumour I've read is that Caerphilly tunnel is too long for them to want to risk running one of the tram-trains through it; the FLIRTs having a longer battery life.

As for the state of finances; the UK government at least is still able to find billions of pounds to buy more space for more cars, at the expense of the climate. They have also show that, when there is an emergency (COVID) they can magic up money nobody thought existed. If they recognise that climate change is an emergency and find money in a similar way then we might see more street running.

Bletchleyite · 13 Jan 2021

Rhydgaled said:
As for the state of finances; the UK government at least is still able to find billions of pounds to buy more space for more cars, at the expense of the climate. They have also show that, when there is an emergency (COVID) they can magic up money nobody thought existed. If they recognise that climate change is an emergency and find money in a similar way then we might see more street running.

Most of that has been obtained by quantitative easing, i.e. "printing money". The effect of that is to devalue your currency. That's only not happening because literally every country is doing it (so all currencies are devaluing at the same time, so the exchange rate doesn't shift), in normal circumstances it's not anywhere near as viable just to "print" a few billion quid to build some tramways.

Bungle · 13 Jan 2021

Rhydgaled said:
They have also show that, when there is an emergency (COVID) they can magic up money nobody thought existed

This is all money that will need to be paid back by us, our children and probably their children too - the chancellor has basically said as much. It’s not “free” and hasn’t been “magic-ed up”.

BayPaul · 13 Jan 2021

Rhydgaled said:
You probably don't want to be on a Tram-Train if a FLIRT hits it either, and isn't it still possible (between Cathays and Radyr via Cardiff Central) for a 2000t coal train to hit the tram train anyway? The reason they are tram-trains, not just plain trams, is so they would be allowed to share tracks with freight (and diverted class 800s on the Vale of Glamorgan to the west of Cardiff Central) isn't it?

One rumour I've read is that Caerphilly tunnel is too long for them to want to risk running one of the tram-trains through it; the FLIRTs having a longer battery life.

As for the state of finances; the UK government at least is still able to find billions of pounds to buy more space for more cars, at the expense of the climate. They have also show that, when there is an emergency (COVID) they can magic up money nobody thought existed. If they recognise that climate change is an emergency and find money in a similar way then we might see more street running.

They are also spending billions of pounds on new rail infrastructure for that matter.

Tomos y Tanc · 13 Jan 2021

Rhydgaled said:
You probably don't want to be on a Tram-Train if a FLIRT hits it either, and isn't it still possible (between Cathays and Radyr via Cardiff Central) for a 2000t coal train to hit the tram train anyway? The reason they are tram-trains, not just plain trams, is so they would be allowed to share tracks with freight (and diverted class 800s on the Vale of Glamorgan to the west of Cardiff Central) isn't it?

One rumour I've read is that Caerphilly tunnel is too long for them to want to risk running one of the tram-trains through it; the FLIRTs having a longer battery life.

As for the state of finances; the UK government at least is still able to find billions of pounds to buy more space for more cars, at the expense of the climate. They have also show that, when there is an emergency (COVID) they can magic up money nobody thought existed. If they recognise that climate change is an emergency and find money in a similar way then we might see more street running.

Quite. I think anyone who pretends they know what the level of investment will be once the current emergency is over is, at best, naive.

For instance, if the UKG is serious about its "leveling up" agenda in England, there could be large Barnett consequentials heading to Wales, which the WG could, if it so chose, spend on public transport.

Remember this is capital spending we're talking about here at a time of near to negative interest rates. Governments around the world are highly likely to be increasing rather than cutting their capital spending once the pandemic is over. The Biden adiministration, for instance, plans to increase spending on infrastructure by 2 trillion dollars over the next four years. Ruling out the possibilty of the UK doing the same is a very odd thing to do.

It's classic Keynesian economics. You repair the roof, not when the sun is shining, but when there's a roofer who needs work.

Rhydgaled · 13 Jan 2021

BayPaul said:
They are also spending billions of pounds on new rail infrastructure for that matter.

Indeed they are, but the first thing I would cut if I was in charge and short of money (and probably would cut even if I wasn't short of money) would be the road investment strategy.

craigybagel · 13 Jan 2021

Given the tram trains are based on the existing models used in Sheffield (and indeed in other parts of the world) where there are no issues with working with any other train, freight or otherwise, presumably the TfW units will also be able to work anywhere. I would assume the route planning is as much to do as keeping all the electrification in one place (the lines to Barry/Penarth aren't getting wired) and routes that form a logical self contained network (which is what the Taff Valley will be). The numbers probably didn't add up to involve the Rhymney Valley in some way.

I also wouldn't read too much into journey times and lack of toilets. Journey times will surely be greatly improved over now (electric tram trains are going to outperform 35 year old DMUs climbing up the Valleys to an astonishing degree) so legs won't need to be crossed for as long as they are now - and frequencies will be doubled. With a worst case scenario 15 minutes wait at the top of the Valleys and much less South of Pontypridd, you can get off a train to use station toilets and still get to work quicker than today.

Robertj21a · 13 Jan 2021

Can't we get back to the subject?

Tom Quinne · 13 Jan 2021

Rhydgaled said:
You probably don't want to be on a Tram-Train if a FLIRT hits it either, and isn't it still possible (between Cathays and Radyr via Cardiff Central) for a 2000t coal train to hit the tram train anyway? The reason they are tram-trains, not just plain trams, is so they would be allowed to share tracks with freight (and diverted class 800s on the Vale of Glamorgan to the west of Cardiff Central) isn't it?

One rumour I've read is that Caerphilly tunnel is too long for them to want to risk running one of the tram-trains through it; the FLIRTs having a longer battery life.

As for the state of finances; the UK government at least is still able to find billions of pounds to buy more space for more cars, at the expense of the climate. They have also show that, when there is an emergency (COVID) they can magic up money nobody thought existed. If they recognise that climate change is an emergency and find money in a similar way then we might see more street running.

You don’t want to be on a tramTrain if it hits anything, the valleys are well known for incursions of various forms.

Caerphilly tunnel is a weird shape so OHL can’t be strung through it without massive expensive, the main barrier to TramTrain is heavy rail interaction i believe - I assume the risk assessment has been made that the collision risk over the 1/4 mile of interaction at Queen Street is so small it’s a risk worth taking.

TramTrain won’t venture down into Central or on NWR track

Dr Hoo · 14 Jan 2021

Rhydgaled said:
As for the state of finances; the UK government at least is still able to find billions of pounds to buy more space for more cars, at the expense of the climate. They have also show that, when there is an emergency (COVID) they can magic up money nobody thought existed. If they recognise that climate change is an emergency and find money in a similar way then we might see more street running.

In the context of this thread I am not aware of billions of pounds being spent in Wales to provide more space for cars. (I appreciate that Wales has a rather strange set-up of three Trunk Road agencies plus local authorities rather than 'Highways England' regulated by the ORR.) Most of the Welsh agencies' work seems to be about junction improvement for safety, pedestrian crossings and so forth plus worthy things like renewing lighting with more efficient designs rather than capacity.

Can you provide more details, please?

Dai Corner · 14 Jan 2021

Dr Hoo said:
In the context of this thread I am not aware of billions of pounds being spent in Wales to provide more space for cars. (I appreciate that Wales has a rather strange set-up of three Trunk Road agencies plus local authorities rather than 'Highways England' regulated by the ORR.) Most of the Welsh agencies' work seems to be about junction improvement for safety, pedestrian crossings and so forth plus worthy things like renewing lighting with more efficient designs rather than capacity.

Can you provide more details, please?

For a start, there's this

Consortium named for £500m final A465 sections
23/06/2020
Chris Ames

The Welsh Government has confirmed its preferred bidder for the final two sections of the troubled A465 Heads of the Valleys dualling scheme.
Officials said the Future Valleys consortium, comprising FCC, Roadbridge, Meridiam, Alun Griffiths (Contractors) and Atkins, has been appointed as preferred bidder for the improvement work for the A465 Sections 5 and 6 (Dowlais Top to Hirwaun).

Highways Magazine - Consortium named for £500m final A465 sections

The Welsh Government has confirmed its preferred bidder for the final two sections of the troubled A465 Heads of the Valleys dualling scheme.

www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk

That's for widening and dualling 11 miles of road from three lanes to four and because of the way the deal is structured will cost nearly £1bn as it include the contractors borrowing the money, assuming liability for any unexpected problems and maintaining the road once it's finished.

WelshBluebird · 14 Jan 2021

Cardiff123 said:
The 'South Wales Metro', aka the upgrade and electrification of the Core Valley lines north of Cardiff, is about a lot more than just giving the Valley lines new rolling stock. It's about kick starting an economic regeneration of the south Wales valleys by increasing service frequencies to 4tph to the head of every valley, and atractting employers away from Cardiff to set up in the lower Valleys, with an emphasis on Pontypridd, where TfW have their new HQ.
As sceptical as most people on this forum are about the tram-trains, they can then be used to enable easier extensions to the network in future.
None of that would be achieved by just bunging new DMUs onto the Valley lines, or if a Northern franchise style approach had been taken, keeping PRM'd 150s going indefinitely. And despite CASR, Queen St north junction was still a big constraint, and CASR north of Radyr was never completed.

Speaking as someone who grew up and spent 18 years living near the ends of one of the valleys - that frequency increase will be huge assuming it does actually happen and is sustained into the evening too (before COVID - peak frequency was 2tph but it fell to 1tph after early evening).

craigybagel said:
With a worst case scenario 15 minutes wait at the top of the Valleys and much less South of Pontypridd, you can get off a train to use station toilets and still get to work quicker than today.

Not going to help for when those stations are locked out of use (as even pre COVID was very common at the stations that did have facilities like Pontypridd) or when there isn't a next train to get (e.g. last trains or when there's a rugby international on and every trained rammed full meaning if you get off one, you may not be able to get back on the next one - which even with the frequency increases will still happen looking at the length of the new rolling stock). But the toilet debate has been done to death in other threads.

anthony263 · 14 Jan 2021

Tom Quinne said:
You don’t want to be on a tramTrain if it hits anything, the valleys are well known for incursions of various forms.

Caerphilly tunnel is a weird shape so OHL can’t be strung through it without massive expensive, the main barrier to TramTrain is heavy rail interaction i believe - I assume the risk assessment has been made that the collision risk over the 1/4 mile of interaction at Queen Street is so small it’s a risk worth taking.

TramTrain won’t venture down into Central or on NWR track

Tram trains will be running to Cardiff Central as 2tph on both the Aberdare and Merthyr Tydfil lines will loop around Cardiff via Ninians Park and landaf and vice versa

Rhydgaled · 14 Jan 2021

Dr Hoo said:
In the context of this thread I am not aware of billions of pounds being spent in Wales to provide more space for cars. (I appreciate that Wales has a rather strange set-up of three Trunk Road agencies plus local authorities rather than 'Highways England' regulated by the ORR.) Most of the Welsh agencies' work seems to be about junction improvement for safety, pedestrian crossings and so forth plus worthy things like renewing lighting with more efficient designs rather than capacity.

Can you provide more details, please?

Note that I said the UK government was finding billions of pounds to buy more space for more cars. UK Government means Highways England means more space for more cars IN ENGLAND. Google "road investment strategy 2" if you want to know more. The headline figure is £27bn I believe. Since a large part of the Welsh Government's budget comes from the UK Government anyway, the fact that the UK Government still has money to spend on destructive infrustructure is an indication that there is still money about.

That said, as Dai Corner has pointed out, the Welsh Government has been at it too. Maybe not billions as is the case in England but the Heads Of The Valleys Road is chewing up the best part of £1bn. In 2020 two sections* of new 3-lane highway, totalling about 3.5 miles and £60m, for the A40 between Carmarthen and Haverfordwest reached public inquiry stage. Still time to cancel that though. Most of the existing 2-lane road would remain in place for local traffic, meaning you effectively would have 5 lanes worth of capacity although in most cases only the 3 new lanes would be available for through traffic.

* one is thinly veiled as a 'junction improvement' when in reality the plan is to build a new 3-lane highway with a new junction AND make changes to the original junction which trunk road traffic would not use in the event the project is authorised for construction.

bussikuski179 · 14 Jan 2021

berneyarms said:
A lot of the problems with rolling stock stem from the fact that the UK government awarded a zero-growth franchise to ATW surely?

There was no incentive to do anything until the new franchise was awarded.

As for problems in the Borders, you can write to your MP to lobby the DfT. The Wales and Border franchise is answerable to the UK government for services in England.

Re the bustitution due to the Cardiff-Holyhead express services - some North Wales Coast stations lost out too, so it's not just the Borders. Some common sense solutions are needed to that with additional local trains.

Zero-growth franchises are quite ridiculous IMO. It just leads to clapped out stock running far longer than is appropriate since the operator can’t order new stock.

Energy · 14 Jan 2021

berneyarms said:
A lot of the problems with rolling stock stem from the fact that the UK government awarded a zero-growth franchise to ATW surely?

And that this zero growth franchise went on for 15 years instead of say 4 which would be followed by a franchise with growth.

Dr Hoo · 14 Jan 2021

Dai Corner said:
For a start, there's this

Highways Magazine - Consortium named for £500m final A465 sections

The Welsh Government has confirmed its preferred bidder for the final two sections of the troubled A465 Heads of the Valleys dualling scheme.

www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk

That's for widening and dualling 11 miles of road from three lanes to four and because of the way the deal is structured will cost nearly £1bn as it include the contractors borrowing the money, assuming liability for any unexpected problems and maintaining the road once it's finished.

Thanks for this.

I can't personally say that I feel that the latest steps in a dualling project that has been campaigned for since the 1960s and 'in progress' since the 1990s, justified principally by an appalling safety record on the Heads of Valleys Road, is very clear evidence of a suggestion that billions of pounds are being spent in a hurry on 'providing more space for cars'.

Again, in the context of this thread it seems only fair to discuss transport funding arrangements and governance as they apply in Wales.

(I am well aware of the £27bn Highways England plan. This is again very largely directed to maintenance, renewal and safety improvements with hardly any genuinely 'new' roads apart from a new Lower Thames Crossing. Even the famous Stonehenge Tunnel is essentially a local bypass to a very sub-standard section of highway. But this is obviously OT.)

Dai Corner said:
For a start, there's this

Highways Magazine - Consortium named for £500m final A465 sections

The Welsh Government has confirmed its preferred bidder for the final two sections of the troubled A465 Heads of the Valleys dualling scheme.

www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk

That's for widening and dualling 11 miles of road from three lanes to four and because of the way the deal is structured will cost nearly £1bn as it include the contractors borrowing the money, assuming liability for any unexpected problems and maintaining the road once it's finished.

Thanks for this.

I can't personally say that I feel that the latest steps in a dualling project that has been campaigned for since the 1960s and 'in progress' since the 1990s, justified principally by an appalling safety record on the Heads of Valleys Road, is very clear evidence of a suggestion that billions of pounds are being spent in a hurry on 'providing more space for cars'.

Again, in the context of this thread it seems only fair to discuss transport funding arrangements and governance as they apply in Wales.

(I am well aware of the £27bn Highways England plan. This is again very largely directed to maintenance, renewal and safety improvements with hardly any genuinely 'new' roads apart from a new Lower Thames Crossing. Even the famous Stonehenge Tunnel is essentially a local bypass to a very sub-standard section of highway. But this is obviously OT.)

Mag_seven · 15 Jan 2021

A reminder to posters that this thread is for the discussion of TfW rail services being taken in house by the Welsh Government.

If anyone wants to discuss anything else then please feel free to start a new thread.

thanks

TFW Rail Services to be taken in house by Welsh Government

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Consortium named for £500m final A465 sections​

The Welsh Government has confirmed its preferred bidder for the final two sections of the troubled A465 Heads of the Valleys dualling scheme.​

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Consortium named for £500m final A465 sections

The Welsh Government has confirmed its preferred bidder for the final two sections of the troubled A465 Heads of the Valleys dualling scheme.