• 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!

TFW Rail Services to be taken in house by Welsh Government

Status
Not open for further replies.

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,103
I usually take the view that reasonably high government spending on public transport is a good thing, but TfW have frankly been completely irresponsible with money ever since the franchise was transferred to the Welsh Government.

Problem is now the Welsh Government will have to absorb the investments that Keolis Amey were going to make to the franchise which isn't that straightforward.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Djgr

Established Member
Joined
30 Jul 2018
Messages
1,639
The North Wales Metro is something of a misnomer anyway. It's really a plan to improve connectivity between North East Wales and the North West of England who's economies are pretty integrated. It's a sensible ambition but it doesn't do anything much for anywhere west of Afon Conwy
Well, as someone on the English side of this border, I am not sure that this is really true.

It is the case that the Deeside Industrial Estate does draw workers from both countries, with pretty lousy public transport. It is also the case that Chester has suburbs in England and Wales and has always drawn people in from North Wales, especially for its retail offering.

However, the division and border between the two countries appears to be ever growing, as differing COVID regulations and compulsory Welsh language education demonstrate.
 

Y Ddraig Coch

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2013
Messages
1,288
Well, if I wasn't confused with the Keolis & Amey and Welsh Government new situation , I am now. It seem K&A still have a decent size part part to play going forward.

In the context of the unprecedented challenges of Covid-19, Transport for Wales (TfW), Keolis and Amey have today taken the first steps in redefining the partnership initiated in 2018 that will secure the ongoing transformation of the Wales and Borders rail network.
TfW, Keolis and Amey announced that they have reached an agreement which will lead to the implementation of a new financing and operational model, the details of which will be finalised in the coming months. This agreement is welcomed by the Welsh Government and TfW, who now have a sustainable way forward for delivering their ambitious objectives for rail despite the effects of Covid-19, and by Keolis and Amey, who will continue to contribute their internationally-renowned expertise in delivering the transformation for the benefit of passengers in Wales.
Under the new agreement, the operation of day-to-day rail services will become the responsibility of a new publicly owned subsidiary of Transport for Wales.
The agreement also ensures that key projects aiming to transform the passenger experience, including the delivery of brand-new rolling stock and the South Wales Metro, will continue to benefit from the support of KeolisAmey. In addition, AmeyKeolis Infrastructure will continue to deliver the exciting transformation of the Core Valley Lines and maintenance of the CVL infrastructure.
KeolisAmey will also partner with TfW in improving the customer experience significantly through integrated ticketing and on demand transport systems.
Finally, under the new arrangements the significant international expertise of both Keolis and Amey will also be called upon to advise and support across a wider range of mobility areas.
James Price, Chief Executive at Transport for Wales said: “I’m pleased with this agreement, which will allow Transport for Wales to continue to deliver the transformation of the Wales and Borders rail network over what’s an incredibly difficult period for the industry, with a huge reduction in passenger journeys and revenue. KeolisAmey have made a significant contribution to transport in Wales over the past two years and I’ve welcomed their collaborative approach to securing this agreement, which has allowed us to achieve a positive way forward for the Wales and Borders contract .
“We will continue to benefit from the international industry expertise of both Keolis and Amey whilst giving TfW and Welsh Government more control to deliver our key transport objectives, as we look to sustain the good progress of the rail network and ensure it plays a vital role in helping Wales to be well-placed in a post pandemic environment.”
“There is no doubt that there will be difficult decisions in the future as we adapt to the realities of a post-covid era, but this agreement will give us a stable base from which to build back better.”

Kevin Thomas, Chief Executive of KeolisAmey Wales, Operator and Development Partner of Transport for Wales said:
“Our partnership with TfW will always have the passengers and the communities we serve at its heart - finding the right solutions to improve services across Wales and the border areas.
“In light of Covid-19, we recognise the need for Welsh Government to have a sustainable way forward for delivering its ambitious objectives for rail and we are pleased to have agreed and put in place robust principles as we work on the details of a new agreement.
A huge amount has been achieved in the two years since KeolisAmey became operators of the Wales and Borders franchise. Prior to the impact of Covid-19 the network had more trains running more frequently than ever before, with progressive improvements in performance and passenger experience. We have successfully managed the introduction of more modern and reliable trains across the network and delivered the groundwork for the introduction of new trains from 2021/22 - exclusively for Wales and supporting further service frequency improvements across vital commuter routes. An important result of these major achievements has been the creation of sustainable jobs, skills and apprenticeships, in support of the people and economy of Wales.
Keolis and Amey are determined to see improvements delivered, and to play a significant role in the transformation vision, adding value through our international experience and expertise. We also recognise this as an exciting opportunity to demonstrate the additional skills we can bring to wider public transport projects across Wales in the coming years. We’re committed to our partnership with TfW and the next phase of this exciting transformation journey that will improve transport, connect communities and support prosperity.”
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Sounds a bit like a LU public private partnership. We know how well those went.

Just nationalise it properly. If you need Amey to build stuff, contract them to build stuff. You don't need Keolis for anything; SNCF are best kept as far as possible from British public transport.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
It won't be long. Question is who Skates will blame when it all goes wrong now he can't (justifiably) blame KA.
Well, he probably can (to a degree) justifiably blame KeolisAmey for the atrocious spec of the class 197s, although he is not completely blameless since he has refused to do anything about it when warned about it.

Leaving aside the private vs national debate, possibly with hindsight the Welsh government shouldn't have spent all that money on replacing perfectly adequate rolling stock... obviously enough to send the Sprinters and Pacers packing was in order, plus some extra stock for a capacity boost especially on longer distance routes, but there really was no need for full fleet replacement.
I agree completely, although had the spec of the new long-distance trains actually been suitable for long distances then you could have made a case for replacing the 158s. There is no such case now, the 158s are way better than the alternative we are being 'offered'.

The view at the time was obviously that the stock was old, not particularly well looked after and a step change would be great, as you say hindsight really is 20/20 (especially with the cheaply specced 197s).
I can't see any of it changing though, everything is either too far developed, or contractually obliged.

Perhaps this 'reckless' spending may have contributed to the rail services being taken in house.
I did a Google a while ago for ways to escape contractral obligations, one of which was 'frustration of contract'. If the Welsh Government play this cleverly (I fear they won't) perhaps they could leave KeolisAmey Operations Ltd. (KAO) with the obligation to run the class 197s. Obviously, KAO will be unable to run the class 197s after Feburary because they will no longer have the franchise; thus the contract would be frustrated and we could perhaps escape this almighty downgrade applying across the board.

The new train orders will stand as they are contracted with the suppliers, but how they are used is now up to TfW as the franchise commitments will fall away.
Unfortunately I cannot think of sensible uses for all 77 class 197s. The Manchester - Llandudno service comes the closest to being a good fit, but would use at most 14 diagramed units (and then only if every service is a pair of units). You could use one on Crewe-Chester as well, and another on Crewe-Shrewsbury. With their disregard for the view they wouldn't be ideal for the Conwy Valley or Pembrokeshire to Swansea, but at least the journey time on those routes is under 3hrs so the lack of toilets is less of an issue. And how would you get them from Pembrokeshire to the depot in Chester? If you could sort that issue (maybe by basing some in Landore) you could free up the 170s to run Cardiff-Chester (all stops) in leiu of the Cardiff-Liverpool and instead have pepole change onto a Liverpool-Llandudno (which I suppose could use 197s) at Chester. But I'm still nowhere near 70 diagrams for the 197s.
 

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,074
Location
Powys
Sounds a bit like a LU public private partnership. We know how well those went.

Just nationalise it properly. If you need Amey to build stuff, contract them to build stuff. You don't need Keolis for anything; SNCF are best kept as far as possible from British public transport.

My understanding is that Westminster would have a hissyfit if that happened! (again)
 

Tomos y Tanc

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2019
Messages
640
My understanding is that Westminster would have a hissyfit if that happened! (again)

It's not with the competance of the Welsh Government to nationalise the franchise completely. Legally speaking they are actually obliged to readvertise the franchise at some stage. There's not going to be any pressure to do that during the pandemic though and the world and the raliway industry may well have moved on when the time comes.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Unlike the Northern Arriva/OLR transfer, there seems no direct criticism of Keolis Amey as franchisee.
In fact TfW has thanked* KA for their contribution and cooperation on negotiating the new arrangements.
From this I would guess both sides recognise the non-viability of the franchise terms after Covid.
KA (in one guise or another) get to keep maybe 2/3 of the business on an ERMA/concession arrangement, and TfW get to run the show and take the consequences of their decisions going forward.
The unions are already demanding guarantees of jobs and terms and conditions.
They were set to enjoy those guarantees for the 15-year length of the franchise, which will lapse next February.

* See
‘KeolisAmey have made a significant contribution to transport in Wales over the past two years and I’ve welcomed their collaborative approach to securing this agreement, which has allowed us to achieve a positive way forward’, said TfW CEO James Price.
‘We will continue to benefit from the international industry expertise of both Keolis and Amey whilst giving TfW and the Welsh government more control to deliver our key transport objectives.’

....
Welcoming the announcement, the RMT trade union called on the UK government to bring forward legislation which would give the Welsh government powers to permanently retain operations in the public sector.
‘We will also be seeking urgent assurances that railway workers jobs and conditions will be fully protected and the railway will be properly funded’, said General Secretary Mick Cash. ‘RMT is also seeking reassurance that rail infrastructure maintenance will also continue to be provided by the public sector as it was under Network Rail.’

Mick Cash's last point is interesting.
Was KA going to maintain the CVL infrastructure for TfW after the transfer from NR?
If so I would presume that will still lie with the infrastructure contract after the change.
 

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,103
Sounds a bit like a LU public private partnership. We know how well those went.

Just nationalise it properly. If you need Amey to build stuff, contract them to build stuff. You don't need Keolis for anything; SNCF are best kept as far as possible from British public transport.

There would have to be major changes to the terms of devolution for that to happen. I think though the Welsh Government would like to be able to nationalise the railways in Wales.
 

BayPaul

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2019
Messages
1,219
Well, he probably can (to a degree) justifiably blame KeolisAmey for the atrocious spec of the class 197s, although he is not completely blameless since he has refused to do anything about it when warned about it.
I think its not really cooincidence that just over 50% of the new fleet will be built in Wales - I think that the number of 197s ordered is much more related to the need to maintain that statistic than to what was actually appropriate for running the routes, which is presumably more the government's fault than the KeolisAmey's, though I'm sure it won't stop the blame being passed anyway!
 

fairlie

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2010
Messages
104
It does, although only a bit over a month ago the Welsh Government revealed they had long-term aspirations for half-hourly services on the Conwy Valley and an extension to Trawsfynydd (shown on this map) so at this point if they are considering closure they likely intend it to be a temporary one.

The aspirations on that map look very aspirational... I'd be surprised if even half of them happen.
 

Andrew*Debbie

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2017
Messages
315
Location
Llanfairpwllgwyngyll ...
I'd be surprised if even half of them happen.

Amlwch - Llangefni - Llanfairpwll - Bangor Caernarfon must top the list.

Amlwch - Llangefni - Bangor - request stops to Llandudno ...

Both would be of use to us since Llanfairpwll is in walking distance from home.

I'd take anything that increases tph from Llanfairpwll to Bangor and Llandudno Junction. Right now we are at zero. Platforms are too short for Covid operation.
 

Envoy

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2014
Messages
2,453
I agree, Bangor to Caernarfon re-built would be a good idea. However, it won’t be easy as much of the old route has been built upon - mainly for new roads. Another factor to take into account is would they wish to eventually head south to hook up with the Cambrian? That being so, it would not be easy to serve the middle of Caernarfon and also have an alignment going south - especially as they are now building a Caernarfon by-pass that appears to have taken no account of this possibility.

The map > north-wales-main-line-rail-network-map.pdf also shows the possibility of building a loop at Shotton to connect the Borderlands line with the North Coast Mainline. The Cardiff to Holyhead trains could then take this line and cut out Chester. I really do wonder how much time would be saved at the price of cutting out the important destination of Chester? Surely, by serving Chester, it helps to put bums on seats on the Cardiff to Holyhead services? Anyway, perhaps we should get back on topic?
 

Cardiff123

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2013
Messages
1,318
Unlike the Northern Arriva/OLR transfer, there seems no direct criticism of Keolis Amey as franchisee.
In fact TfW has thanked* KA for their contribution and cooperation on negotiating the new arrangements.
From this I would guess both sides recognise the non-viability of the franchise terms after Covid.
KA (in one guise or another) get to keep maybe 2/3 of the business on an ERMA/concession arrangement, and TfW get to run the show and take the consequences of their decisions going forward.
The unions are already demanding guarantees of jobs and terms and conditions.
They were set to enjoy those guarantees for the 15-year length of the franchise, which will lapse next February.

* See

Mick Cash's last point is interesting.
Was KA going to maintain the CVL infrastructure for TfW after the transfer from NR?
If so I would presume that will still lie with the infrastructure contract after the change.
Amey-Keolis Infrastructure Ltd are responsible for the management and maintenance of the CVL until 2033. Welsh Govt now own this asset, nothing to do with NR anymore. So it's up to TfW to find someone to carry out the CVL electrification and upgrades for them, and then ongoing maintenance. This someone is Amey-Keolis.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
There would have to be major changes to the terms of devolution for that to happen. I think though the Welsh Government would like to be able to nationalise the railways in Wales.

That's true, but once again nobody is clear about what "nationalisation" means.

TfW has now got Keolis Amey as a subcontractor, and that contract can be continued or terminated as TfW wants.
If they terminate it, they will need to employ the skills directly and I can't believe the cost will be much different, and TfW will take the risk.
Either way they have public control of the passenger railway within the scope of UK law and the devolution settlement.

The other half of the debate is about control of infrastructure, at present firmly with Network Rail (apart from CVL just transferred to WG).
NR is already a public body, so that is just a debate about the extent of devolution (and funding to go with it).
I doubt TfW wants to be bothered with the responsibility for ORR and RSSB on the wider Welsh network.
TfW are clearly dependent on HMG policy on rail industry structure, and we await the result of "Williams".
I doubt they are going to boot out all private sector involvement in railway operation, but the age of commercial franchises is obviously dead.

The union demands for nationalisation are about who employs the staff and on what terms.
They view nationalisation as a sinecure and permanent job protection.
But they have short memories of BR which cut staff and services regularly, imposed DOO on large chunks of the network, and suffered public-sector pay restraint during every recession.
If anything, privatisation has become the gravy train with guaranteed jobs and benefits in most parts of the railway, tied into franchise renewals and NR's CP cycle.

And finally, the obscure debate about a "level playing field" with the EU will determine what degree of freedom the UK will have to subsidise the economy, including rail.
That is partly why TOCs have to operate as commercial bodies and why service contracts have to be competitively tendered every so often.
Even if we escape from EU rules, HMG may not be inclined to subsidise the railway to its current very high level.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
I think its not really cooincidence that just over 50% of the new fleet will be built in Wales - I think that the number of 197s ordered is much more related to the need to maintain that statistic than to what was actually appropriate for running the routes, which is presumably more the government's fault than the KeolisAmey's, though I'm sure it won't stop the blame being passed anyway!
Tricky one that; the number of 197s is not far short of what would be needed to run all the routes (although the Cambrian would be a little short of units if the replacement of 158s with 197s goes ahead). It is the specification of the 197s that is inappropriate for virtually all the planned routes. There are arguments in favour of a uniform fleet, but in my opinion these do not outway the the wasteful ditching of 175s with plenty of life left in them. The revival of electrification prospects (which perhaps couldn't have been predicted at the time) also makes a large fleet of new diesels a bad idea. Waiting until 2030 to replace the current fleet with new bi-modes and using a small number of 197s to increase capacity/services would make far more sense.

Amlwch - Llangefni - Llanfairpwll - Bangor Caernarfon must top the list.

Amlwch - Llangefni - Bangor - request stops to Llandudno ...
My response to this has been removed by the moderators (fair enough, since it was speculative ideas). I will repost in this topic: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/welsh-government-proposals-map-for-north-wales-metro.209762/
 
Last edited:

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,994
Location
here to eternity
Can I remind posters that this thread is for the discussion of the Welsh governments decision to take TFW rail services in house. If anyone wants to discuss anything else then please start a separate thread noting that anything speculative can be discussed in the Speculative Ideas section.

Thanks
 

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
1,953
It is the specification of the 197s that is inappropriate for virtually all the planned routes.
Nonsense as always. The doors in the wrong place and one accessible toilet per two car set don't make them inappropriate. You should be more concerned at the inability of WG/TFW to run a whelk stall.
 

Speed43125

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
1,131
Location
Dunblane
one accessible toilet
I don't think any 2 car trains have 2 PRM toilets. What people are understandably unhappy about is that there is no second standard toilet. Only 1 toilet on a two car train that is meant to serve as a interregional/long distance train is unprecedented, and in the view of many unacceptable.
Nonsense as always
Please explain how. I think most of us don't have a huge issue with the door location, specifications extend beyond that, and the TfW units are particularly cheaply done out.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I don't think any 2 car trains have 2 PRM toilets. What people are understandably unhappy about is that there is no second standard toilet. Only 1 toilet on a two car train that is meant to serve as a interregional/long distance train is unprecedented, and in the view of many unacceptable.

Only one on a 156, but I agree it's not acceptable, particularly as most stations they will serve don't have toilets either. Should have been one PRM and one small.
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
It does get tiring when the same posters make the same repetitive rants about the supposed faults of a fleet of trains that haven't even been built yet on every single thread about TFW.
 

Caaardiff

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2019
Messages
851
Isn't there only 1 toilet on a 150? Which are often used on South-Manchester services without issues.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
Can I remind posters that this thread is for the discussion of the Welsh governments decision to take TFW rail services in house.

If anyone wants to discuss anything else then please start a separate thread (anything speculative can be discussed in the Speculative Ideas section, while non-speculative discussion of rolling stock can be discussed in the Traction & Rolling stock section)

Thanks
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
But nothing new there, as far as I can see.
WG/TfW are still dependent on the GB-wide solution from Westminster, the scope/timing of which is unknown.
TfW are effectively going to be their own operator of last resort from 20 Feb 2021.
It will be interesting how they organise things.
 

Masterk

Member
Joined
29 Jul 2020
Messages
17
Location
Newport
Just out of interest as a few of you may be currently working for TFW... What do you think will happen to the current recruitment drive right now. I'm sat in the talent pool awaiting a medical so nothing is set in stone as of yet, but with covid doing a number on the industry and the changes which are being discussed in this thread, how concerned should people like myself be about the jobs they are so close to getting withdrawn?
 
Joined
30 Mar 2016
Messages
32
I'm wondering why the Scottish govt hasn't done this with Scotrail. Instead of faffing around with a public sector bid, they could just bring in an operator of last resort and use covid to keep it in place indefinitely.
 

Dragon Breath

Member
Joined
29 Aug 2020
Messages
24
Location
Cardiff
Just out of interest as a few of you may be currently working for TFW... What do you think will happen to the current recruitment drive right now. I'm sat in the talent pool awaiting a medical so nothing is set in stone as of yet, but with covid doing a number on the industry and the changes which are being discussed in this thread, how concerned should people like myself be about the jobs they are so close to getting withdrawn?
Like you, I’m also in the talent pool (since Sept) and I share your concerns. What I’m about to say is speculative.

It seems that by nationalising rail services in Wales, keeping on KeolisAmey to carry on with the infrastructure for the CVL is somewhat positive, in the short term. It has effectively deepened the pockets of TfW by spreading unexpected future Covid related costs across tax payers, meaning they can steam ahead with their plans to build the Taffs Well depot, new trains, etc. Costs which have effectively already been spent I think.

However, the caveat is that whilst the above may seem positive to current employees, TfW may analyse post-Covid usage of train services, which are bound to be affected as businesses adopt the working from home stance. Some businesses may adopt this long-term if more productive.

This might mean they don’t require as many trains per hour on certain services, therefore reducing demand for new drivers.

Positively perhaps, if you are already in a talent pool, that might mean we are in a slightly better spot than people who have not yet been interviewed or assessed, as if they pull the plug on recruitment, they will still need some new drivers, but maybe not the 220-250 they have said they want.

All speculation of course. I’m just hopeful I hear something soon.
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
Just out of interest as a few of you may be currently working for TFW... What do you think will happen to the current recruitment drive right now. I'm sat in the talent pool awaiting a medical so nothing is set in stone as of yet, but with covid doing a number on the industry and the changes which are being discussed in this thread, how concerned should people like myself be about the jobs they are so close to getting withdrawn?
Like you, I’m also in the talent pool (since Sept) and I share your concerns. What I’m about to say is speculative.

It seems that by nationalising rail services in Wales, keeping on KeolisAmey to carry on with the infrastructure for the CVL is somewhat positive, in the short term. It has effectively deepened the pockets of TfW by spreading unexpected future Covid related costs across tax payers, meaning they can steam ahead with their plans to build the Taffs Well depot, new trains, etc. Costs which have effectively already been spent I think.

However, the caveat is that whilst the above may seem positive to current employees, TfW may analyse post-Covid usage of train services, which are bound to be affected as businesses adopt the working from home stance. Some businesses may adopt this long-term if more productive.

This might mean they don’t require as many trains per hour on certain services, therefore reducing demand for new drivers.

Positively perhaps, if you are already in a talent pool, that might mean we are in a slightly better spot than people who have not yet been interviewed or assessed, as if they pull the plug on recruitment, they will still need some new drivers, but maybe not the 220-250 they have said they want.

All speculation of course. I’m just hopeful I hear something soon.

The best answer anyone can give you is that nobody knows for certain, at least nobody who is in a position to comment publicly on this forum.

However, it is worth pointing out that some degree of recruitment is required even (and I personally think this is a very unlikely scenario long term) if service levels stay at the levels they were at the start of the franchise, rather then the massive increase planned. There is always a degree of staff turnover, and there are plenty of drivers retiring or moving to other TOCs who need replacing.
 

Lynette Hill

Member
Joined
9 Jan 2018
Messages
48
Location
Wales
Hi I’m in the conductor talent pool with an estimated start date of jan/feb 2021. I’m awaiting the WG announcement tomorrow (Thursday 29th) which will hopefully make the situation clearer and easier for me to understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top