Wales & Borders Franchise Consultation

[Philip]

If a big new DMU order was processed and left the 175s surplus to requirements, where exactly could they go? Seems a bit similar to the situation with the surplus 185s in that there aren't any obvious routes they'd be good for, due to their length and the dedicated maintenance depot.

 

[PHILIPE]

If a big new DMU order was processed and left the 175s surplus to requirements, where exactly could they go? Seems a bit similar to the situation with the surplus 185s in that there aren't any obvious routes they'd be good for, due to their length and the dedicated maintenance depot.

Don't think it would happen. Nobody is going to place an order for new stock that would make stock with the age of 175s redundant.

 

[gareth950]

Taken from: https://www.transportxtra.com/publi...bsidy-looming-for-wales-and-borders-franchise

Big cut in subsidy looming for Wales and Borders franchise
RAIL
Rhodri Clark
10 November 2017

"The Welsh Government is budgeting for a large reduction in rail subsidy as soon as the new Wales and Borders franchise begins next year. The news came as incumbent operator Arriva announced its withdrawal from the competition for the new franchise.

The subsidy reduction appears to equate to about a third of the current franchise’s support, although the Government says this depends on the outcome of the on-going procurement process and negotiations with the UK Government.

Welsh transport secretary Ken Skates revealed the expected savings in written evidence to the economy, infrastructure and skills committee of the National Assembly for Wales.

“The revenue budget in 2018/19 includes £31.702m and a further £27.607m in 2019/20 relating to anticipated savings that may be deliverable in the early years of the new contract for Wales and Borders rail services,” said Skates. “This will be heavily predicated on the selection of the preferred bidder and solution, as well as ongoing negotiations with the DfT and UK Government.”

The new franchise is due to take over from Arriva Trains Wales in October. Therefore, the saving of more than £30m for 2018/19 is anticipated to accrue from only half a year’s operations by the new franchise. ATW’s annual subsidy is between £150m and £180m.

When procurement of the new franchise began, Welsh Government officials said they expected subsidy to remain broadly the same but to achieve more through the franchise’s improved efficiency. Asked how the anticipated savings would arise, a Welsh Government spokesman told LTT: “There will be no fare increases or service reductions as a direct result of the lower franchise subsidy in the early periods of the next contract.”

Stuart Cole, emeritus professor of transport at the University of South Wales, said: “The whole cost of running the Wales and Borders franchise is only £300m. It’s difficult to understand where that saving will come from. If the franchise’s total turnover was £1bn, it would be understandable. When you’ve only got £300m or so to play with, trying to get a saving out of that in terms of subsidy is quite difficult, when there’s no real change in the operation until at least 18 months to two years into the franchise.”

Arriva Trains Wales has been generating annual profits of around £20m in recent years.

Arriva declined to explain why it withdrew from bidding for the new 15-year operator and development partner contract.

Three bidding consortia remain: Abellio/AECOM/Carillion; KeolisAmey; and MTR/Arup/BAM Nuttall.

Arriva had been partnered by Atkins and Costain."

Undoubtedly this is Grayling's dirty work yet again, and possibly one of the reasons why Arriva walked away.

 

[Dai Corner]

Undoubtedly this is Grayling's dirty work yet again, and possibly one of the reasons why Arriva walked away.

Skates would say he had less to spend because of the mean Tories in Westminster. Grayling would point out that the Welsh Government will be able to raise taxes if they want to.

Agree about this being one of the possible reasons for Arriva walking away. They probably feel they have as much exposure to the UK TOC market as they want and W&B is the least attractive franchise so why spend time and money bidding for something they don't particularly want?

 

[gareth950]

Another short story on the same website is still talking about the consequences for the Welsh part of Network Rail IF the Valley Lines are devolved from NR to Welsh Govt, with discussions 'still ongoing'.

It's now less than a year until the new franchise starts, the ITT has supposedly been issued to bidders, said bidders are being asked to submit bids by 21st December, and there is still talk of IF the Valley lines infrastructure will be devolved. Surely bidders should know this for definite already? How can bidders possibly develop and propose upgrades for the 'Core Valley lines' if they don't even know, with 6 weeks to go until they are due to submit bids, whether they will be allowed to touch the infrastructure?

I can't help but feel this will be 2003 all over again.

 

[coppercapped]

Big snip
Undoubtedly this is Grayling's dirty work yet again, and possibly one of the reasons why Arriva walked away.

There are other possible reasons why Arriva withdrew.

One is that the opportunity costs of bidding for a small franchise in the UK may be excessive compared to the value added by management in attending to the day job. This was the reason that National Express withdrew from running franchises in the UK while it is happily running some in Germany.

If people here were not so insular they would understand that there are many political and financial pressures being exerted on DBAG - Arriva's holding company - in its home country. The performance and punctuality of the Deutsche Bahn AG has not been satisfactory over the last few years and there are pressures to increase spending on infrastructure in Germany quite apart from the horrendous cost overruns on, for example, Stuttgart 21. One of the criticisms levelled at 'die Bahn' is that it has spent too much money and time in overseas adventures - the call is that it should look after its core business first.

Withdrawing from a UK franchise would enable 'die Bahn' to say to its domestic critics 'look, we listened' without losing too much in terms of turnover as Wales and Borders is a tiny business in comparison with that in its home country.

Two compelling reasons to withdrawn, neither of which has anything to do with Grayling

 

[Rhydgaled]

Mark IVs are unlikely. They would need rewiring to use a DVT compatible with a diesel loco and running a loco around isn't viable for any service through Chester or to Piccadilly or Cardiff. There are two designs to make Mark IIIs compliant and sufficient carriages are in good condition.

How much does it cost to rewire a mark 4 compared to fitting compliant doors and retention toilets to a mark 3? I'd be supprised if rewiring a mark 4 is significantly more expensive than the significant work required on a mark 3, and being younger the mark 4 should have a longer life ahead of it for the ROSCO to get a return on their investment. Of course if the ROSCO can find enough work for the mark 4s that doesn't need them rewiring then the ROSCO would prefer that option, but at the moment it looks like the ROSCO will be fairly desperate to find homes for about half the mark 4 fleet.

I'd just go for new stock (and reformed 175s) in 4-car 23-24m formations (or a FLIRT equivalent, I guess that'd be 6-section plus 2 drive modules). Very little need for UEGs then.

4-car units without UEGs would be fine at first, because you wouldn't need to run them in multiple. But over the 30 year life of the units, who knows what they might end up working?

For me doors at 1/4 and 3/4 per the Class 185 and Aventra would be best ('tis a shame Bombardier no longer have any interest in making DMUs or bi-modes)

I disagree, I don't think W&B should be procuring any new diesel units that don't have doors at the vehicle ends. If the new TOC wants modern DMUs for the outer-suburban routes on the franchise (like the Cardiff-Cheltenham service) they can just lease 185s or the 170s from Anglia. Where there is a genunie shortage of stock at present is long-distance regional express DMUs; if Wales could get more 158s that would be great but it can't so something like an updated blend of the best aspects of 158s and 175s would be great.

Some political postering from Westminster with some alleged dates

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/new-wales-borders-service-replacing-13869698

Oh dear. If the franchise isn't signed until June that will presumably delay the signing of the order for 769s (or equivilent) to replace the Pacers, making meeting the 2020 deadline harder.

 

[gareth950]

Oh dear. If the franchise isn't signed until June that will presumably delay the signing of the order for 769s (or equivilent) to replace the Pacers, making meeting the 2020 deadline harder.

Or more like totally impossible.

 

[Philip]

The door layout is just personal preference. Ultimately I suspect most rail passengers would consider 185s and similar very much as regional express trains. If 185s go to Wales and Borders then I'd have no problem if they shared Manchester to South Wales and North Wales duties with 175s.

 

[Philip]

I'd actually quite like to see something which Bletchleyite suggested about reforming units, but using the 22 185s coming off lease, not the 175s (let's be honest with the 175 track record any kind of major structural or electronic changes are likely to cause chaos for reliability!).

New timetable for Manchester to South Wales; an hourly Manchester to Swansea service calling only at principle stations (ie. not Leominster, Craven Arms, Pyle, Nantwich etc). Nine units required, these being 4-car 185s with a similar refurb standard to that which TPE are applying now. First class section retained but perhaps a little smaller, if possible. Two more 4-car units booked for maintenance at Ardwick making a reformed 185 fleet comprising of 11 x 4-coach (with FC) and 11 x 2-coach units (FC removed but still refurbished). I think that would work well.

As for the 11 remaining 2-coach 185s, let's say if 10 are in service then I guess they'd be suitable for a Liverpool to Llandudno stopping service, perhaps running as 4-coach portion trains as far as Chester, with the other set going to Wrexham or even to Shrewsbury via Crewe and thus incorporating the two current shuttle services.

I don't know how the numbers add up here but ideally it would mean the whole 175 fleet could be concentrated on Manchester to Bangor/Holyhead (hourly and mixture of 3-coach and strengthened), Holyhead to Cardiff (realistically hourly; fast until Chester and then all stops from Chester to Cardiff) and finally some or all of an hourly Cardiff to West Wales stopping service.

 

[gareth950]

With that massive cut in subsidy being reported I don't think there's any point in speculating about any extra services or enhancements, not even in the South Wales 'Metro' area.

 

[Chester1]

Oh dear. If the franchise isn't signed until June that will presumably delay the signing of the order for 769s (or equivilent) to replace the Pacers, making meeting the 2020 deadline harder.

Or more like totally impossible.

Don't forget Northern and GWR pacers start going off lease next year. Most will be off lease by February 2019 therefore W&B could have a very large number of units being upgraded at the same time at the cost of subsituting many 150s with pacers until the end of 2019. Some of the 158 unit upgrades could wait until early 2020 if spare 185s switched to ATW as soon as their lease ends (31/12/2019).

I agree with Phillip that there would be huge advantages of portion working. There is insufficient demand or capacity to serve all viable routes without spliting and joining 2 coach units at Llandundo, Chester and Shrewsbury.

 

[Dai Corner]

With that massive cut in subsidy being reported I don't think there's any point in speculating about any extra services or enhancements, not even in the South Wales 'Metro' area.

Isn't there a billion or so available for the Metro via the Capital Region City Deal?

http://www.iwa.wales/click/2017/03/city-deal-cardiff-capital-region/

The deal comprises funding of £580 million from the Welsh Government aimed at delivering major strategic transport connectivity projects. Obviously, the key transport project is the South Wales Metro, and work will start on this later this year.

The UK Government has provided a further £540m, and the ten local authorities have agreed a commitment to borrow a combined total of £120 million as part of the Wider Investment Fund.

 

[Chester1]

Isn't there a billion or so available for the Metro via the Capital Region City Deal?

http://www.iwa.wales/click/2017/03/city-deal-cardiff-capital-region/

City deal funding won't be allowed to subsidise day to day opperations across the franchise. There might be some very limited ways of getting around the rules but nothing substantial. Introducing anytime and off peak tickets across the franchise would raise revanue but be very unpopular!

 

[gareth950]

City deal funding won't be allowed to subsidise day to day operations across the franchise. There might be some very limited ways of getting around the rules but nothing substantial. Introducing anytime and off peak tickets across the franchise would raise revenue but be very unpopular!

Exactly, there's no point in carrying out any infrastructure improvement works if the subsidy needed isn't there to run day-to-day services.

The franchise already has Anytime/Off Peak tickets doesn't it? The only area that doesn't is the Valley lines that just has a flat Anytime fare all day.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Massive issue generally -about infrastructure etc funding , and OPEX (I.e running trains)

Something that the Dft / WG - Treasury combo needs to review. I do not hold out much hope frankly.

 

[Rhydgaled]

New timetable for Manchester to South Wales; an hourly Manchester to Swansea service calling only at principle stations (ie. not Leominster, Craven Arms, Pyle, Nantwich etc). Nine units required, these being 4-car 185s with a similar refurb standard to that which TPE are applying now. First class section retained but perhaps a little smaller, if possible. Two more 4-car units booked for maintenance at Ardwick making a reformed 185 fleet comprising of 11 x 4-coach (with FC) and 11 x 2-coach units (FC removed but still refurbished). I think that would work well.

The more stops you take out, the more the class 185s become the wrong train for the job. The suburban door layout has two functions; reducing dwell time and increasing space for standees (at the expense of space for seating). TOCs should be avoiding passengers having to stand on long-distance services and with fewer stops dwell times matter less. I agree with you that it would be good if stops from the Manchesters could be transfered to other services, though I think the ideal calling pattern would be Swansea, Neath, Port Talbot Parkway, Bridgend, Cardiff, Newport, Hereford, Leominster, Ludlow, Shrewsbury, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly, give or take an Abergavenny call (I'm undecided on that one). Ludlow and Leominster are listed above because there isn't a local service over that section to give those two a better than hourly service without the Manchesters calling.

As for the 11 remaining 2-coach 185s, let's say if 10 are in service then I guess they'd be suitable for a Liverpool to Llandudno stopping service

Liverpool-Llandudno, calling at all stops west of Chester, would be a good use for the 185s, but single 2-car units are unlikely to be sufficient given that the Halton Curve plan I believe is assuming an hourly service with 4-car 150s. As long as they had a guard in each unit and wouldn't uncouple in service I wouldn't be too unhappy with them using a pair of 2-car units to put 4-car 185s on the run though.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I agree with Phillip that there would be huge advantages of portion working. There is insufficient demand or capacity to serve all viable routes without spliting and joining 2 coach units at Llandundo, Chester and Shrewsbury.

I agree that portion working has huge advantages*, which is one of the reasons why I suggested above that new DMUs for the franchise, if any are ordered, should be 2-car and 3-car units with UEGs rather than 4-car units.

* although, from a passenger's perspective, I firmly beleive that it should only be done with stock that has UEGs

 

[Dai Corner]

City deal funding won't be allowed to subsidise day to day opperations across the franchise. There might be some very limited ways of getting around the rules but nothing substantial. Introducing anytime and off peak tickets across the franchise would raise revanue but be very unpopular!

Although there may be ways of using the funding to reduce ongoing costs. For example, pay up front for a long term supply and maintenance contract instead of leasing new rolling stock and maintaining it in-house ? I don't know.

 

[Rhydgaled]

there's no point in carrying out any infrastructure improvement works if the subsidy needed isn't there to run day-to-day services.

Electric trains are supposed to be cheaper to run than DMUs aren't they, so infrastructure improvements to reduce the ongoing running costs would be very helpful. Similarly, reduced journey times through the faster acceleration of an EMU might attract some additional passengers and therefore revenue. Finally, but less-helpful to the TOC's financial position, electric trains are less polluting so the city deal investment would still be a good deed even if the day-to-day subsidy necessary to increase frequencies above their current level isn't there. Only if the cut in subsidy is such that services will have to be withdrawn does the investment become pointless.

As for the new TOC finding the savings, without knowing the terms of the current Arriva franchise in detail it is hard to say how big a challange that could be. Did the 'no-growth' franchise include any scope for subsidy variation during the term, or has the increase in ridership (and hence, presumably, revenue) increased ATW's profits with the subsidy remaining fixed? If the latter is the case, it is possible that the government are trying to find a new TOC that will run the franchise for a much smaller profit than ATW have been taking, or even one that will run it at a loss for the first few years on the understanding that they will benifit from improvements that will make the operation profitable overall by the end of the franchise contract.

 

[Gareth Marston]

As for the new TOC finding the savings, without knowing the terms of the current Arriva franchise in detail it is hard to say how big a challange that could be. Did the 'no-growth' franchise include any scope for subsidy variation during the term, or has the increase in ridership (and hence, presumably, revenue) increased ATW's profits with the subsidy remaining fixed? If the latter is the case, it is possible that the government are trying to find a new TOC that will run the franchise for a much smaller profit than ATW have been taking, or even one that will run it at a loss for the first few years on the understanding that they will benifit from improvements that will make the operation profitable overall by the end of the franchise contract.

The 2003 agreement was piss poor on many levels Arriva have benefited from it as they have not had to invest anything, not share the profit as it went as you outline and wen there has been add ons negotiated by Welsh Government they've been at advantageous terms for the operator. Some years the pre tax profit has been in excess of 20% of the subsidy received so effectively hasn't been supporting services anyway. The "cut" figures in the article above suggest that they are determined that the new operator does not have a deal where "super profits" are made. Its more likely to be a Management Fee with the Welsh Government claiming its not for profit. Also the "add ons" will be rolled in to the spec and not as expensive, therefore its not really a cut.

 

[Chester1]

Are there large opportunities to reduce opperating costs through signalling upgrades? Closing all the signal boxes in the franchise would probably save a lot of money and make it much cheaper to opperate extra off peak services. Am I correct that the Valleys lines still have signal boxes and token swaping?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Are there large opportunities to reduce opperating costs through signalling upgrades? Closing all the signal boxes in the franchise would probably save a lot of money and make it much cheaper to opperate extra off peak services. Am I correct that the Valleys lines still have signal boxes and token swaping?

I'm not sure NR's costs come into franchise financing, beyond the vehicle track access charges which I don't think are localised.
NR are busy resignalling Connah's Quay to Colwyn Bay, but I doubt any of the lower costs will feed through to the TOC (though they may get technical benefits).
Operating hours might be extended by resignalling into the ROC (eg Sunday mornings).
NR is funded by DfT anyway.
The costs will be relevant if WG takes over NR infrastructure though (eg core valleys).
Generally, resignalling plans have been slowing down for lack of capital and doubts over technology.
The most obvious TOC cost-reduction measure, DOO, has stupidly been ruled out by WG.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don’t see why the Conwy Valley couldn’t switch to one engine in steam unless a rail tour pays the full cost of opening a box. Level crossings could become guard operated.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Massive issue generally -about infrastructure etc funding , and OPEX (I.e running trains)

Something that the Dft / WG - Treasury combo needs to review. I do not hold out much hope frankly.

Agreed there's a lack of will to rock the boat so to speak in Government circles "this is how it's done" and clever impartial civil servants worked it all out so it must be right.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I'm not sure NR's costs come into franchise financing, beyond the vehicle track access charges which I don't think are localised.
NR are busy resignalling Connah's Quay to Colwyn Bay, but I doubt any of the lower costs will feed through to the TOC (though they may get technical benefits).
Operating hours might be extended by resignalling into the ROC (eg Sunday mornings).
NR is funded by DfT anyway.
The costs will be relevant if WG takes over NR infrastructure though (eg core valleys).
Generally, resignalling plans have been slowing down for lack of capital and doubts over technology.
The most obvious TOC cost-reduction measure, DOO, has stupidly been ruled out by WG.

There's absolutely no link between infatstuture costs and TOC ones.its deliberately constructed to make the TOC's look profitable and reduce subsidy whilst all the £ is slushed through NR.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

There's absolutely no link between infatstuture costs and TOC ones.its deliberately constructed to make the TOC's look profitable and reduce subsidy whilst all the £ is slushed through NR.

Pretty good comment that - thought the present situation is such that no-one actually knows how much a particular service group costs to operate. BR had it down to a fine art with line by line operating / maintenance costs , and so on. This "deeply inefficient" outfit to quote a failed bus conductor , could actually replace sleepers on the Cambrian , using recycled (but serviceable) ex GWR chairs and second hand but OK sleepers for £25 a go in the early 1980's. Today it would just be replaced at full cost with brand new 110lb rail and deep ballast. Not saying wrong - but cost control on infrastructure has gone way over.

All of which makes corporate railway so expensive.

 

[Llanigraham]

Don’t see why the Conwy Valley couldn’t switch to one engine in steam unless a rail tour pays the full cost of opening a box. Level crossings could become guard operated.

I don't think there are any Boxes actually on the branch; thought it was controlled by the Box at the Junction, which is needed 24/7, so that won't work.
And altering the operation of the Crossings would cost money.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I don't think there are any Boxes actually on the branch; thought it was controlled by the Box at the Junction, which is needed 24/7, so that won't work.
And altering the operation of the Crossings would cost money.

Manned box at Llanrwst , - one could take out the box and loop ........that would be the minimalist railway , but even retaining with an RETB set up would not , probably, be worthwhile.

 

[Llanigraham]

Manned box at Llanrwst , - one could take out the box and loop ........that would be the minimalist railway , but even retaining with an RETB set up would not , probably, be worthwhile.

Thanks, I'd forgotten about there.