Welsh Government - Rail Matters

[Gaelan]

I'm disappointed that they haven't increased fares to address the revenue shortfall.

The Marches line is apparently profitable and clearly a resilient market given how busy it is despite poor quality trains, delays and cancellations. Introduction of the 197s would be a good reason to charge more.

Bloody hell, the last thing this country needs right now are higher rail fares.

 

[Krokodil]

Well, they could take the same view as the UK Government have with HS2 in the post-Covid world and realise that enhanced capacity is no longer needed.

You what?

The wiring is almost complete and the new electric rolling stock is sitting in Taffs Well. You think that they should stop all work and extend the leases on the 150s for another 20 years or something?

Quite apart from the fact that the UK government's decision to cancel phase 2 of HS2 has been panned as idiotic by almost everyone except the road lobby.

In case you haven't noticed there is a climate crisis and a big part of the solution is providing good, clean public transport. Not applying more Canton gaffer tape to ancient 150s.

 

[Dai Corner]

You what?

The wiring is almost complete and the new electric rolling stock is sitting in Taffs Well. You think that they should stop all work and extend the leases on the 150s for another 20 years or something?

Quite apart from the fact that the UK government's decision to cancel phase 2 of HS2 has been panned as idiotic by almost everyone except the road lobby.

In case you haven't noticed there is a climate crisis and a big part of the solution is providing good, clean public transport. Not applying more Canton gaffer tape to ancient 150s.

I didn't mean that. I'm suggesting that schools, hospitals, social care and lower taxes might benefit the country more than carrying lots of fresh air up and down the valleys.

Bloody hell, the last thing this country needs right now are higher rail fares.

Should the minority who use the trains save money at the expense of the rest?

 

[Krokodil]

I didn't mean that. I'm suggesting that schools, hospitals, social care and lower taxes might benefit the country more than carrying lots of fresh air up and down the valleys.

The Welsh NHS is benefitting to the tune of nearly half a billion. Can you substantiate your claim that metro services in the Valleys will be carrying fresh air about? Obviously current loadings are no guide given the engineering disruption. Is the Lizzie line carting fresh air about or has it brought about a dramatic increase in ridership and a profitable revenue stream?

Should the minority who use the trains save money at the expense of the rest?

Each person who takes a train into Cardiff instead of driving has done a massive favour to those who do drive. It doesn't take much extra traffic for congestion to dramatically spiral. Even those who aren't driving benefit from other people taking public transport, because they still rely upon lorries delivering to Tesco in order to eat. Those lorries couldn't do that if the streets were gridlocked. Pretty much every country in Europe subsidises public transport. Even many American cities do. It's just the UK where profit is the end game, never mind any social benefits.

 

[Diedinium]

God reading this thread is painful, I wonder what exactly the people criticising TfW expect them to do? They can't just magic the new fleet of trains out of their ass, it doesn't matter if it was still privatised or whatever - it would still be the same issue. As others have pointed out, the 'gift' money that TfW is getting is for infrastructure projects that are already in progress, would you honestly rather see TfW just abandon every infrastructure project they're working on and leave them half finished? Or do you want to just see every rail line in Wales withdrawn as they're all just "unprofitable" and are so clearly not worth running. All so that money could just fund what? The NHS having a lack of funding is a larger issue across the country, it's not something the Welsh government will solve by cutting back TfW's capex spending.

This is the same stupid mindset that led to the privatisation of the railways under the conservatives, and the Beeching cuts before it: people went from seeing the railways as a social service, to something that should operate on a profitable basis. We don't build roads and expect them to directly make money. It should be the same with the railways, it's about the benefits that they deliver to the people they serve, who are able to get to education, to work or travel for leisure which I'd argue benefits the economy to more of an extent than the railways need to be subsidised. The past few decades have shown that shoving everyone into cars and buses simply isn't possible nor equitable, not to mention completely unsustainable from an environmental perspective.

Can't believe I'm having to say it on a rail forum: but the railways are necessary and this rapid criticism of TfW who are currently battling problems that were not caused by them (Covid, manufacturer issues) or were the result of their predecessor (Keolis-Amey) is quite pointless.

Hell, I'm an example of TfW trying to fix things: I'm starting as a trainee driver with TfW soon - getting enough staff to actually reliably run their services is another one of the long term problems that they're aiming to solve.

And I wonder what these people in the thread are implying by saying TfW doesn't deserve to be subsidised? That the privatised railway has been working so well, and so obviously needs to be continued? (Maybe do some reading into the increased subsidies since privatisation if you care about that so much, railway subsidies have increased since privatisation). While yes, there certainly are ways that the costs of railway operations can be reduced, you have to get to a point where you decide if it's really worth it. Is it worth not having any on board staff apart from the driver? Is that really a better experience? Is cutting service lengths and frequencies good for the customer? Is closing lines or withdrawing services good for the communities they serve?

We should be aiming to instead attract more customers to the railways: which is only possible through sustained investment like TfW is trying to do with the new train fleet, the infrastructure improvements and service frequency/length/destination enhancements. Cutting things just will only help to continue the death spiral the railways have been forced into over the last few decades because of neo-liberal conservative ideology.

/rant over

Bloody hell, the last thing this country needs right now are higher rail fares.

I'm curious what infinite money tree this guy things everyone has access to to pay even more for rail tickets!

 

[Bevan Price]

The issue for me was the gift of £125m to TfW to make up for loss of revenue (with fewer people travelling).
I would have expected TfW to be challenged to reduce its costs by that much rather than robbing the rest of the WG budget.
TfW have actually said they are reviewing their long-term service plans, but changes won't come in for some time (and dependent on new train introduction).
The DfT cost-reduction actions on its TOCs (reducing rolling stock, cutting ticket offices, changes in work practices etc) are notably absent at TfW.

Perhaps they have seen the consequences of some of the stupid ideas from DfT, and decided to do what they consider to be better policies.

 

[Krokodil]

Can't believe I'm having to say it on a rail forum

I can. I often wonder if people here got lost on their way to Pistonheads.

 

[Diedinium]

Each person who takes a train into Cardiff instead of driving has done a massive favour to those who do drive. It doesn't take much extra traffic for congestion to dramatically spiral. Even those who aren't driving benefit from other people taking public transport, because they still rely upon lorries delivering to Tesco in order to eat. Those lorries couldn't do that if the streets were gridlocked. Pretty much every country in Europe subsidises public transport. Even many American cities do. It's just the UK where profit is the end game, never mind any social benefits.

Someone who gets it, thank god! Driving is not a sustainable alternative to public transport and it's ridiculous to suggest that the "solution" is to withdraw train services entirely just because what, maybe outside of rush hour some trains are underutilised? Most cars are moving more "fresh air" than people, I can count on one hand the number of cars I see each day that are carrying more than one entitled driver.

Cars are a hilariously inefficient mode of transport at mass scale, the fact that there are still people (especially on this forum) who believe the solution is cars baffles me.

 

[HSTEd]

Cars are a hilariously inefficient mode of transport at mass scale, the fact that there are still people (especially on this forum) who believe the solution is cars baffles me.

That depends on what terms your efficiency is measured in.
In terms of getting people where they want to go, when they went to go there, they are rather more efficient than public transport in most of the UK.

Energy efficiency or what not is only one small part of "efficiency".

Pretty soon the climate sustainability of driving will be almost indistinguishable from the railway. Electric cars will be dominant and electricity decarbonisation will be almost total for much of the year.
The railway industry might be able to hide behind the leaf of being "green" now, but that leaf is going to turn brown in short order and noone in the industry seems keen to do what is necessary to secure the railway's position.


I want a prosperous, efficient railway, but I fear that in order to achieve that the railway will have to change in ways that it is fundamentally incapable of doing.

 

[Tom125]

The extra revenue is a clear signal of policy intent from Welsh Goverment- less roads, more bikes, more trains.

The valley lines electrification is was/is much needed investment in an area that saw a stripping back of its railway services. Capping fares there is vital to ensure people can afford to use the train, we have to remember that there are wide pockets of deprivation in the Gwent and Cardiff valleys- you simply could not charge £14 for a return to Cardiff, people couldn’t and wouldn’t pay it- it’s about social mobility for the poor- again a policy choice.

Reintroducing Aberdare in the 1980s- success.

Reintroducing Ebbw Vale in the 00s- success.

I have no doubt the increased frequency to Treherbert, Aberdare, Merthyr, Rhymney will be a success too. We’re just in the miserable transition period.

You cannot attract more usage by cutting services back.

We can assess to see if the Welsh government was right to invest in the valleys in a few years time when usage numbers post upgrade are available. I have no doubts though that it will be a success.

 

[Diedinium]

That depends on what terms your efficiency is measured in.
In terms of getting people where they want to go, when they went to go there, they are rather more efficient than public transport in most of the UK.

Energy efficiency or what not is only one small part of "efficiency".

Pretty soon the climate sustainability of driving will be almost indistinguishable from the railway. Electric cars will be dominant and electricity decarbonisation will be almost total for much of the year.
The railway industry might be able to hide behind the leaf of being "green" now, but that leaf is going to turn brown in short order and noone in the industry seems keen to do what is necessary to secure the railway's position.


I want a prosperous, efficient railway, but I fear that in order to achieve that the railway will have to change in ways that it is fundamentally incapable of doing.

Ok, lets put everyone in London in cars then, if it's so efficient I'm sure it'll work fine and prove the superiority of the car over public transport!

Stupid statements aside, public transport has it's place and needs to have a bigger presence in the future if we are ever to live sustainable lifestyles.

Cars are still a massive source of emissions even with fully electric cars: from the batteries to the tyres to the actual manufacturing process itself - the less cars that are necessary the better. Not to mention the small tiny insignificant issue that cars kill a lot of people each year in the UK. The terrible safety record of cars (both to people in them and outside them) is something that shouldn't be ignored. Would we accept it if a few thousand people were randomly lined up each year and shot in this country? If the number of people that die in car crashes or from being run over by cars was happening on the railway each year there would be outcry and hysteria, people just turn a blind eye to cars and the problems they cause beyond the direct emissions - not to mention the indirect emissions cars create through inefficient land usage.

Anyway, I'm not saying everyone everywhere should be using public transport, but I'm trying to say that we can encourage a lot more than the current 10% of rail passenger modal share (vs cars at almost 70% of modal share) if we actually invest in public transport. Public transport doesn't have anywhere near the same long term sustainability issues that cars do, e.g. trains only need replacing every few decades. Every person in the UK who gives up driving and takes trains/buses/cycles/walks instead is making a much bigger difference than those buying electric cars.

The extra revenue is a clear signal of policy intent from Welsh Goverment- less roads, more bikes, more trains.

The valley lines electrification is was/is much needed investment in an area that saw a stripping back of its railway services. Capping fares there is vital to ensure people can afford to use the train, we have to remember that there are wide pockets of deprivation in the Gwent and Cardiff valleys- you simply could not charge £14 for a return to Cardiff, people couldn’t and wouldn’t pay it- it’s about social mobility for the poor- again a policy choice.

Reintroducing Aberdare in the 1980s- success.

Reintroducing Ebbw Vale in the 00s- success.

I have no doubt the increased frequency to Treherbert, Aberdare, Merthyr, Rhymney will be a success too. We’re just in the miserable transition period.

You cannot attract more usage by cutting services back.

We can assess to see if the Welsh government was right to invest in the valleys in a few years time when usage numbers post upgrade are available. I have no doubts though that it will be a success.

Exactly, almost every rail scheme that has gone ahead has proved itself - there are plenty enough people who actively want to move away from driving if given the choice and means to do so, miserable levels of road traffic are not the "true freedom" that cars promise people, so any option to avoid having to sit in traffic each day is something that attracts enough people (sure not everyone, there are some petrolheads who would sit in their car regardless) to make for better than expected passenger numbers.

Other good recent examples include the Borders railway in Scotland and the Okehampton reopening - both of these greatly exceeded expectations for passenger numbers and have restored vital rail services.

 

[Llanigraham]

God reading this thread is painful, I wonder what exactly the people criticising TfW expect them to do? They can't just magic the new fleet of trains out of their ass, it doesn't matter if it was still privatised or whatever - it would still be the same issue. As others have pointed out, the 'gift' money that TfW is getting is for infrastructure projects that are already in progress, would you honestly rather see TfW just abandon every infrastructure project they're working on and leave them half finished? Or do you want to just see every rail line in Wales withdrawn as they're all just "unprofitable" and are so clearly not worth running. All so that money could just fund what? The NHS having a lack of funding is a larger issue across the country, it's not something the Welsh government will solve by cutting back TfW's capex spending.

This is the same stupid mindset that led to the privatisation of the railways under the conservatives, and the Beeching cuts before it: people went from seeing the railways as a social service, to something that should operate on a profitable basis. We don't build roads and expect them to directly make money. It should be the same with the railways, it's about the benefits that they deliver to the people they serve, who are able to get to education, to work or travel for leisure which I'd argue benefits the economy to more of an extent than the railways need to be subsidised. The past few decades have shown that shoving everyone into cars and buses simply isn't possible nor equitable, not to mention completely unsustainable from an environmental perspective.

Can't believe I'm having to say it on a rail forum: but the railways are necessary and this rapid criticism of TfW who are currently battling problems that were not caused by them (Covid, manufacturer issues) or were the result of their predecessor (Keolis-Amey) is quite pointless.

Hell, I'm an example of TfW trying to fix things: I'm starting as a trainee driver with TfW soon - getting enough staff to actually reliably run their services is another one of the long term problems that they're aiming to solve.

And I wonder what these people in the thread are implying by saying TfW doesn't deserve to be subsidised? That the privatised railway has been working so well, and so obviously needs to be continued? (Maybe do some reading into the increased subsidies since privatisation if you care about that so much, railway subsidies have increased since privatisation). While yes, there certainly are ways that the costs of railway operations can be reduced, you have to get to a point where you decide if it's really worth it. Is it worth not having any on board staff apart from the driver? Is that really a better experience? Is cutting service lengths and frequencies good for the customer? Is closing lines or withdrawing services good for the communities they serve?

We should be aiming to instead attract more customers to the railways: which is only possible through sustained investment like TfW is trying to do with the new train fleet, the infrastructure improvements and service frequency/length/destination enhancements. Cutting things just will only help to continue the death spiral the railways have been forced into over the last few decades because of neo-liberal conservative ideology.

/rant over


I'm curious what infinite money tree this guy things everyone has access to to pay even more for rail tickets!

Well said!!
And good luck in the driving job.

 

[Krokodil]

Energy efficiency or what not is only one small part of "efficiency".

How about the efficient use of space? Rail can carry 45 times the number of passengers compared with a road of the same width. If you hike fares (as a PP has suggested) then you will have gridlock. You cannot indefinitely road-build your way out of congestion, that's why so many American cities are going bankrupt. Each car also needs multiple parking spaces, there are something like four parking spaces for every car. The land take is enormous. Have a look at these two pictures of Denver, Colorado where swathes of the city (in poor neighbourhoods, naturally) were demolished to build massive parking lots.

You cannot attract more usage by cutting services back.

Indeed. John Davies who was BR's Passenger Manager in Cardiff during the 1980s pointed out that if you just focus on costs without attempting to grow income you will cut yourself out of business. He did a lot of work for the Valley lines in his time, managing to boost income until they managed to cover their direct operating costs, a considerable achievement in the Provincial sector. The operating costs of a 398 will be far lower than a 150 (the main advantage of electric traction), with considerably more space available for passengers. Performance will be better too so along with the turn-up-and-go frequencies should see a healthy ridership.

 

[slowroad]

How about the efficient use of space? Rail can carry 45 times the number of passengers compared with a road of the same width. If you hike fares (as a PP has suggested) then you will have gridlock. You cannot indefinitely road-build your way out of congestion, that's why so many American cities are going bankrupt. Each car also needs multiple parking spaces, there are something like four parking spaces for every car. The land take is enormous. Have a look at these two pictures of Denver, Colorado where swathes of the city (in poor neighbourhoods, naturally) were demolished to build massive parking lots.

View attachment 145151View attachment 145150


Indeed. John Davies who was BR's Passenger Manager in Cardiff during the 1980s pointed out that if you just focus on costs without attempting to grow income you will cut yourself out of business. He did a lot of work for the Valley lines in his time, managing to boost income until they managed to cover their direct operating costs, a considerable achievement in the Provincial sector. The operating costs of a 398 will be far lower than a 150 (the main advantage of electric traction), with considerably more space available for passengers. Performance will be better too so along with the turn-up-and-go frequencies should see a healthy ridership.

This discussion is hopelessly unrealistic in the Welsh context. Rail accounts for only a few percent of passenger distance traveled in Wales. Any feasible increase (or decrease) in rail use would have a barely detectable effect on road traffic (with the possible exception of journeys to the centre of Cardiff).

 

[Krokodil]

This discussion is hopelessly unrealistic in the Welsh context. Rail accounts for only a few percent of passenger distance traveled in Wales. Any feasible increase (or decrease) in rail use would have a barely detectable effect on road traffic (with the possible exception of journeys to the centre of Cardiff).

It only takes a few extra cars to exponentially increase congestion.

And it's journeys into central Cardiff we're talking about. The very journeys that a poster is suggesting should be defunded.

 

[ajay1071]

It is hilarious reading some of the doom and gloom mongers comments towards Welsh Governments record investment in the railways in Wales. Yes many people have had to endure cancelled services and bus substitution, as have I but I am a optimist, I can see ahead of the present disruption and look forward to a metro system that will only benefit the citizens of the valleys and our environment. Yes we have all been frustrated that projects have slipped in delivery time targets, but there have been many genuine mitigating circumstances that have been beyond reasonable control and prediction. I think its just a small ask to be a little more patient and understanding of the complexity and challenge in delivering a modern public transport system for the future. Alas we will always have the constant moaners, the type that if they won £999,999.00 they would be disappointed it wasn't a million.

 

[slowroad]

It only takes a few extra cars to exponentially increase congestion.

And it's journeys into central Cardiff we're talking about. The very journeys that a poster is suggesting should be defunded.

If you take only a small number of cars off congested city roads and this reduces congestion it will result in more car journeys that replace the ones “shifted”. And in any case there are lots of heavily subsidised train journeys in Wales that are not into the centre of Cardiff.

 

[markymark2000]

God reading this thread is painful, I wonder what exactly the people criticising TfW expect them to do? They can't just magic the new fleet of trains out of their ass, it doesn't matter if it was still privatised or whatever - it would still be the same issue.

I agree with a few points on your post but this specific bit is something which needs picking up on. With some exceptions, I don't think anyone is asking for them to 'magic a new fleet of trains out of their ass' but there are some very good things that they could have done fleet wise. Firstly would be to have overseen the 175s better in the first place and done the preventative care on them so that the few fires didn't happen, which then meant that the fleet was removed which led to huge amount of disruption. Had that not happened, this whole situation wouldn't have gone on for as long as it has. Secondly, maybe don't get rid of the old fleet of trains before the equivalent number of new trains are actually in service.

You can add to that the shambolic introduction of the MK4 sets which has made the situation worse. I repeat, these have not completed the full MK4 timetable yes (with the 3 Holyhead trips per day and full Manchester diagrams). I mean, we are only 2 years into their introduction, perhaps we should cut them some slack. Shambolic introduction as well as sending them out in a sub standard condition (I won't go too much into it, it's well noted in other threads). All of this and we are only talking about the fleet side of things. Management of the Valleys project has been poor, revenue protection being extremely picky and refusing to be at many locations (The barrier replacement works in Chester and suddenly revenue is on it like flies, they daren't step a foot north of Pontypridd though or sit at Treforrest with all of the uni students who don't pay or get railcard discounted tickets but have no railcard, and they are extremely rarely the Borderlands and get the freeloaders off there (bus drivers on the long term blocks there report huge amounts of fare evasion and they are powerless to do anything even if it means that there aren't enough seats for those with actual tickets).

What we all expect off TFW is better management. A number of situations currently ongoing in Wales wouldn't be anywhere near as bad if there were better management and a number of situations which wouldn't have happened or wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as things are now if the operation was still under the old franchising scheme (By which I mean where companies could make decisions, not the micromanged franchising or management contracts).

 

[Krokodil]

Firstly would be to have overseen the 175s better in the first place

CAF should never have ended up maintaining the 175s. If the 197s had been delivered on time the 175s would have gone at the same time that Alstom handed over the depot.

Secondly, maybe don't get rid of the old fleet of trains before the equivalent number of new trains are actually in service.

When maintaining the 175 fleet, Chester DMU Depot had one free slot per night. So you do have to start withdrawing 175s as you introduce 197s. More 197s have to be in traffic than the number actually available for service because of staff training requirements.

As for the 170s it was the DfT who wouldn't let their leases be extended, they had other plans for them.

revenue protection being extremely picky

RPIs are entitled to a safe working environment. That means that they need welfare facilities and a safe, secure place to retreat to, just as a guard can withdraw to the back cab if a passenger turns nasty.

RPIs certainly do visit Trefforest but there is only a small team and they have many places to cover - I think that the South team have encountered a lot of grief on the Maesteg line recently. The North team now only has two officers left and is otherwise dependent upon TIL contractors. The company is taking revenue protection seriously, if you turn up at Rhyl at 23:00 on a Saturday night you are likely to be asked for a ticket, whereas in the past the night gate would have long been open. Colwyn Bay has also seen extended barrier hours when there are concerts on, and Chester is getting longer hours.

and a number of situations which wouldn't have happened or wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as things are now if the operation was still under the old franchising scheme

I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[3RDGEN]

Good. England must be the only country in Europe reacting to a temporary reduction in demand for public transport by imposing timetable cuts, cutting train lengths (even where overcrowding is common)

ScotRail made significant service cuts to their services and some have still not been reinstated, Glasgow - Edinburgh weekday off peak is one example, they have also cut the HST fleet and stopped the 5 car extension plans. TfW will also also cut their plans as there will not be the money or the rolling stock to provide what was planned when TfW was launched.

 

[Caaardiff]

CAF should never have ended up maintaining the 175s. If the 197s had been delivered on time the 175s would have gone at the same time that Alstom handed over the depot.

Incorrect. There was always going to be a changeover time. CAF needed to get the Depot to start introducing the 197's, but the 175's had nowhere else to be maintained, so CAF had to carry on with it. The management by TFW of how that happened was not overseen well, hence the fire incidents and poor reliability.


There is no doubt that what TFW are trying to do will transform a huge part of the network in Wales. I don't think anyone has any arguments with that. There have been many issues that have cropped out that TFW or the WG couldn't have foreseen. No-one has any arguments with that.
What many people do have issue with is how TFW Management have handled it. Almost burying their heads in the sand while continuing to push the "we're transforming your railway in the next 5 years" narrative", completely ignoring the current issues of the time and doing anything about it.
There's been plenty of opportunity to have reduced the timetable. It would've made the fleet availability better, avoiding short forms, overcrowding and cancellations. It would have freed up some train crew for training which would have had a lessor effect on cancellations due to no available train crew. It would have saved on short notice road transport. It would have meant a more consistent and reliable network which would still encourage people to travel, meaning more revenue for TFW to plough into the increasing costs on projects. It all ties in together.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and on reflection of what Keolis promised in their bid, and what appears to be rose tinted glasses by the WG who allowed the franchise and thought it was possible has been the cause of complete chaos on the Welsh railway. Even James Price has said himself that it should have been a 10 year project, not 4-5. The issue with TFW management is that they appear to act first, think second. They're now too far down the road to go back and it's the travelling public that are having to suffer and await when things will get better.

150's will soon start leaving when their next major exams are due. If that happens before the 398's start service then there will be more chaos due.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There was an extended piece on BBC Wales news tonight on the emergency funding of TfW (the £125m announced last week).
James Price (TfW CEO) said without the bailout they would have closed routes and reduced headcount.
Ministers are saying there will be no blank cheque for rail services going forward, so TfW will have to live within its means from April 2024.

Transport for Wales: No blank cheque for rail services - minister

Wales' rail operator won't receive a "blank cheque" for future funding, economy minister says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Mr Price told the programme the extra money was to plug the gap between actual revenue from ticket sales - which has returned to pre-pandemic levels - and where TfW expected its revenue from ticket sales to be, according to projections set five years ago.
"It's not that we have seen a reduction in passenger numbers, what we haven't seen is the strong growth that was previously predicted through the pandemic period," he said.
"That means that we are roughly £100m short in farebox revenue compared to where we should be. That's a real challenge for us.
"We don't want to be in that position, and we certainly don't want to be taking money from other parts of the public sector, so we are working as fast as we possibly can to try and make up that lost ground."
Asked what would have happened to TfW without the extra funding, Mr Price said: "We would have been in a situation where we would have been closing routes down and actually having to reduce our headcount significantly because that's the only way we could continue operating".
"We wouldn't be trading in a situation where we couldn't balance the books, but it would have been a very, very difficult situation."

 

[Llandudno]

For TfW routes operating wholly within England or cross-border services, presumably the DfT specify service levels and contribute to the cost of providing these services?

But if Mr Price implies that routes will have to be cut if funding is reduced from 2024 onwards, could, for example the Senedd choose to withdraw subsidy to the likes of the Borderlands line and only the section within England operates…

Bit extreme, but perhaps you get my point?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I think the money for TfW is "Westminster" money, provided in the annual block transfer to Cardiff Bay under Barnett rules.
I think that arrangement also applied for the ATW franchise period, and treats all rail services the same, either side of the border.
DfT specifies maximum frequency on English routes (1tph Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham).

Cuts, if they come, I would expect to be made evenly across the network, probably in frequency rather than route.
I would think the expansion plans would go first (eg Liverpool-Cardiff/Llandudno), with more combined/portion working on some lines.
I'd also expect some hard looks at the LHCS services with potentially something like a "TPE Mk5" solution, because of the extra costs over DMUs.
They can't change the new train formula with all the supplier/lease contracts in place (except for the 230s).
And "TfW" covers the WG HQ unit as well as the TOC. The HQ won't be immune from cuts.

These are only the same pressures that DfT TOCs face, but TfW appears to be a couple of years behind in addressing them.

 

[Cambrian359]

Surely someone in government/ tfw must realise that with the amount of bus replacement going on in the south and general poor service elsewhere that once the transformation is complete, revenue (you would hope) will increase significantly .
To go through all the pain and then face cutbacks of services & staff towards the end is no better than what’s just been done with HS2 .

 

[Envoy]

I know of people who have given up using TfW trains between south Wales & northern England/Wales due to the appalling service such as being rammed onto 2 coach 150’s. No doubt it's the same for other routes. They need to crack on and get their new trains into operation. Once for example all trains on The Marches are 5 coaches, they will need to have a publicity campaign to win people back and gain new customers. Same goes for all the other routes.

It has been suggested above that maybe they would remove the Liverpool service but I contend that this will be one of the most popular and that a 2 coach 197 operating from Cardiff will not have enough capacity.

People not in the know about split fares are still using nationalrail.co.uk to find tickets between south Wales and places north of Crewe (& vice versa) and getting ridiculous fares set by Cross Country.
They need to see fares that combine the best of TfW with Avanti north of Crewe or TPE if going via Manchester. These high fares set by Cross Country are inducing people to fly to Scotland from Bristol or drive. Are Cross Country getting a cut of this revenue that should be going to TfW even though people are not even on their trains?

 

[Dr Day]

Surely someone in government/ tfw must realise that with the amount of bus replacement going on in the south and general poor service elsewhere that once the transformation is complete, revenue (you would hope) will increase significantly .

Increase, definitely, but significantly enough to plug the budget gap? Perhaps not, hence the warning shots for next year.

And as a multi-modal organisation (or at least aspiring to be), I would also expect some hard looks at whether some of that subsidy would be better off transferred to supporting buses on suitable corridors. AFAIK, outside the Core Valleys, WG have no obligation regarding infrastructure therefore the usual arguments about 'it still costs money to maintain the infrastructure therefore you might as well run trains over it' don't apply in quite the same way. Politically, can't see it happening, but some stark choices of how to allocate scarce public funding.

 

[The exile]

I didn't mean that. I'm suggesting that schools, hospitals, social care and lower taxes might benefit the country more than carrying lots of fresh air up and down the valleys.


Should the minority who use the trains save money at the expense of the rest?

The majority who don’t may well rely on doctors, nurses, teachers, cleaners etc who do….

 

[Bletchleyite]

And as a multi-modal organisation (or at least aspiring to be), I would also expect some hard looks at whether some of that subsidy would be better off transferred to supporting buses on suitable corridors. AFAIK, outside the Core Valleys, WG have no obligation regarding infrastructure therefore the usual arguments about 'it still costs money to maintain the infrastructure therefore you might as well run trains over it' don't apply in quite the same way. Politically, can't see it happening, but some stark choices of how to allocate scarce public funding.

If that's a veiled "let's cease operations on the Conwy Valley and Heart of Wales", then as they don't have to meet the infrastructure costs then that wouldn't save much, unless they could convince Westminster to give them money saved from complete closure.

More likely they'd have to reduce frequencies on longer routes to free up several units/crews for any significant saving.

 

[Dai Corner]

Increase, definitely, but significantly enough to plug the budget gap? Perhaps not, hence the warning shots for next year.

And as a multi-modal organisation (or at least aspiring to be), I would also expect some hard looks at whether some of that subsidy would be better off transferred to supporting buses on suitable corridors. AFAIK, outside the Core Valleys, WG have no obligation regarding infrastructure therefore the usual arguments about 'it still costs money to maintain the infrastructure therefore you might as well run trains over it' don't apply in quite the same way. Politically, can't see it happening, but some stark choices of how to allocate scarce public funding.

Something I've been saying for some time. Lee Waters was quoted in Modern Railways as saying buses give more 'bang per buck' than trains in environmental benefits.