Spend of the line
Wales Business — By Mark Barry on August 16, 2010 7:00 am
Wales has only seen one major upgrade to its railway infrastructure since the opening of the Severn Tunnel in Victorian times
THERE is a growing concern that the Great Western Main Line electrification scheme, announced by the Labour Government in July 2009, will fall victim to the current spending cuts at Whitehall. This would be a major blow to the economies of both South Wales and South West England and is at odds with the current government’s stated policy of delivering a more even spread of economic growth and development throughout the UK.
The cancelling of this £1bn upgrade in connectivity between Swansea-Cardiff-Bristol-London seems not just economically short-sighted but actually indefensible from a policy perspective, especially when one considers recent government statements in relation to major transport schemes elsewhere in the UK. These include approval to spend £18Bn on CrossRail, a commitment to spend up to £18bn on a High Speed Rail line (HS2) from London to Birmingham and approval for up to £1bn metro extensions in Manchester and Newcastle.
This gross geographical imbalance in transport capital investment would further damage the prospects for the Welsh economy. For example, the Greengauge21-sponsored KPMG assessment of the economic impacts of the High Speed Rail link from London to Birmingham and eventually to Scotland, published earlier this year, clearly indicates that the current HSR scheme will have a net negative impact on the economies of Wales and South West England. In addition, recently-published estimates by Oxford Economics clearly show the negative impact on employment in Wales as a result of the “current economic difficulties”. It would appear that Wales will only secure 0.3% growth in employment in the period to 2015 (versus 2.5% in Scotland, 2% in the North East, 8.3% in London, 3.1% in the West Midlands, 2.9% in the North West), and that it will take until 2025 to restore employment levels to those enjoyed at the last peak.
Surely this data must be considered when the UK government is making capital investment decisions for infrastructure schemes that have an economic impact? Recent statements from the UK government (which pretty much ignore Wales and South West England as regards transport capital investment ) would exacerbate what is for Wales already a difficult economic climate. If UK government policy is to encourage a more even spread of economic growth throughout the UK, it would appear difficult to justify a position that sees support for CrossRail and HS2, but not GWML electrification – let alone further upgrades of the GWML, Heathrow access from GWML, and a new dedicated High Speed Line to Bristol and Cardiff.
However, the prognosis is not good. Over the past 25 years in England and Scotland, there have been major upgrades of both the East Coast Main Line (including electrification) and West Coast Main Line, new London Underground lines, numerous urban tram systems, HS1, Crossrail, and major station refurbishments. On the other hand, Wales has no miles of electrified rail, no trams, the oldest and most inappropriate rolling stock on the Valley Lines, and under-capitalised stations.
Furthermore, the now-in-doubt GWML electrification programme would only return Cardiff-London and Bristol-London journey times to those we enjoyed in the 1970s when the HST was introduced. In the same period, most other leading UK cities have seen significant improvements in journey times to London. Wales has suffered a long-term under-investment in its rail infrastructure, a shortfall that is certainly into the billions by now. In fact, since the opening of the Severn Tunnel in the century before last, the only major rail upgrade in Wales was the introduction of the 125 High Speed Train in the 1970s. But none of the track in Wales, even today, enables it to run at 125mph.
This apparent systematic ignoring of Wales’ transport needs is a major issue for its economy. It is a little-known fact that powers over investment and enhancements to the rail infrastructure in Wales are not devolved. Rather, they are the responsibility of the Department for Transport in London, which defines its requirements to Network Rail in a High Level Output Specification for England and Wales as a whole.
When funding and powers over rail infrastructure were devolved to Scotland in 2005, it enabled Transport Scotland, using funds included in its block grant from Westminster, to direct Network Rail, via its own HLOS, to invest in a wide range of schemes totalling £600m a year until 2014. In contrast, Wales has secured at most approximately £1bn from a Network Rail UK total of £34bn until 2014 for rail schemes in Wales, some 3% of the total. Furthermore, the recent investments in Welsh rail infrastructure – such as platform extensions, and the Ebbw Vale and Vale of Glamorgan lines – were funded, in the main, by the Welsh Assembly Government out of its block grant and not by Network Rail. Given rail investment is not devolved, the funding for these schemes has hypothecated spend on devolved matters like health and education. This means, in effect, we in Wales are paying twice for such schemes.
Aside from addressing the long term underfunding of rail infrastructure in Wales, there is clearly a need to develop a more holistic and truly UK-wide rail strategy that seeks to address the needs of all the major population centres in the UK. After all, the Cardiff, Bristol and Swansea City regions have a combined population of up to three million people. If the wider South Wales and South West England region is included, that is over six million – more than Scotland and on an par with the major northern conurbations. In the frenzied discussion and debate over High Speed Rail on a UK north-south axis, the needs of a substantial portion of the UK population have been completely ignored.
While many in Wales and South West England accept that tough decisions have to be made in the current climate, it is rather more difficult to support the cancellation of the £1bn GWML electrification scheme when over £30bn of schemes elsewhere in the UK seem to have been safeguarded. It seems that again, as has been the case for many years, Wales and South West England are suffering significant under investment in their rail network and connectivity when compared to the rest of the UK and that their economies will suffer as a result.
Tags: Rail
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
18 Comments
So transport is supposedly devolved to the Assembly but investment in the rail infrastructure remains in London, in the hands of a Tory-led government that has no warmth towards Wales, is not worried about losing votes here, and is probably smirking at seeing Ieuan Wyn Jones trying to manage the Transport portfolio with one hand tied behind his back. It’s another devolution anomaly that makes me think the sooner we have full independence the better. The current set-up, whereby Wales is treated as a peripheral insignificance, doesn’t do us any good.
How can something be cancelled when it was never commissioned and it had no budget? My understanding is that no decision has yet been taken but that in any case there are technical problems that will delay electrification in getting it past Reading. These will take some years to overcome.
‘What’s the point,at least for now of committing funds to electrifying routes which do not have any electric trains for the time being.’ Not my words but those of the Chief Executive of Network Rail, Ian Coucher in an interview with Rail News in early June. The basic problem is the failure by the UK Coalition to approve new trains for Thameslink agreed by the Labour government . Until this is approved then the existing electric trains now being used on Thameslink cannot be transferred to the first stage of electrification to Reading. Facing huge cutbacks in its budget Network Rail don’t see the point in spending money on a line which as yet has no trains to use it.
There might well be technical problems in the electrification of the GWR but these will be mainly after Bristol with the approach of the Severn Tunnel. For much of its length it is simple tried and tested engineering but it costs money which the new Coalition is not prepared to spend for ideological reasons. It’s prepared to spend money on a new airport for St Helena in the South Atlantic after lobbying by Lord Ashcroft but the only chance of anyone in South Wales seeing a electric train in the foreseeable future will be if they visit the toy department of John Lewis in the run up to Christmas. Here we are in the 21st century at the bottom of the transport league with Albania. At least they had the excuse of Enver Hoxha. In contrast transport links to Britanny at the end of the 20th century were tranformed by the foresight of French politicians who built the autoroutes and the TGV. No money for the GWR but for some reason money can be found for HS2 to the Midlands.
Finally if these technical problems ‘will take some years to overcome’, what was the point of the series of written questions put by Lord German of Hornby Triang to Clem’s grandson and Tory Transport Minister, Lord Attlee on July 28th? If Peter Black is correct then Lord Attlee misled the Lords in his written answers to his fellow Coalition Peer. There was no mention of technical problems because according to the noble Earl Attlee the Network Rail study hadn’t been published is the answer given to one of the written questions. Attlee also stated that no decision had yet been taken until the Comprehensive Spending Review and it would depend on ‘affordability and value for money.’
Whilst there are clearly political forces at play, I’d rather this debate was driven by economic considerations and the facts. As I understand, the investigation of the electrification of the GWML was initiated by NR well before last year’s announcement by the Labour Government. The investigative work and +ve business case for the £1Bn scheme were included in NR’s Electrification Route Utilisation Strategy at the end of 2009.
The line from Paddington to West Drayton was electrified as part of the Heathrow Express programme, this will be extended as far as Maidenhead as part of CrossRail. Until the Welsh Lobby made its case, the original proposal was for the GWML to be electrified as far as Bristol. Clearly discussions took place which, alongside the +ve business case and limited incremental costs, enabled the announcement of the full electrification the GWML all the way to Swansea. Both NR and the DfT have also stated that there are no insurmountable technical or engineering challenges to overcome, not even the Severn Tunnel, to implement the scheme.
So, GWML electrification to Swansea has been costed, approved and is, from a initial planning perspective, already underway. However, the bulk of the expenditure is not due until 2014-2017 . The funding for implementation however, was predicated on NR securing further finance. The DfT have though, indicated that it will not support any additional borrowing by NR – which has led to recent speculation that the scheme will be cancelled or at best deferred. The non-committal statements by a number of ministers would suggest we need to lobby hard to ensure that it is not cancelled in this Autumn’s comprehensive spending review
As regards rolling stock, the cancellation of the Thameslink rolling stock programme does present a challenge in terms of London commuter rolling stock – and Ian Coucher was right to say that without the electric rolling stock it makes electrifying the GWML a little less urgent. Similarly, the long distance intercity trains would have been serviced by new trains from the, also now in doubt, IEP programme. This though, may not be an issue as an alternative to the expensive IEP programme would be to purchase “off the shelf” electric rolling stock.
So, there are clearly a number of interrelated issues with regard to electrification of the GWML. However, the economic case for the scheme is overwhelming and the Welsh and SW English lobby need to work hard to ensure that it does go ahead. Following on from the findings of the Eddington review of transport in 2006, it makes far more sense to address issues of intercity, infill and metro electrification (eg GWML, MML, Valley lines, etc) before embarking on the hugely expensive HSR programme.
Furthermore, given that a dedicated London-Bristol-Cardiff HSR line will, if it ever happens, take until at least 2035 to deliver, there is an alternative that could deliver significant journey time improvements between South Wales and London/Heathrow far sooner. Given, thanks to Brunel, the straight, flat alignment of most of the Great Western Main Line, it may well be possible to upgrade the route to a higher specification than 125mph. In addition to the now in doubt electrification, this upgrade will require some new track (eg 4 track Didcot to Bristol Parkway), ERTMS (European Railway Traffic Management System), some new sections (e.g. perhaps over a Severn Barrage, Heathrow access, etc) and new rolling stock. On top of the quoted £1Bn cost of electrifying the GWML from London to Swansea with additional investment, as suggested by the Bow Group in their January 2010 report, “The Right Track”, a step change in connectivity and performance between Cardiff/Bristol and London/Heathrow could be delivered incrementally before the first HS2 express departs from Euston (or even Old Oak Common) station.
The timescale for this investment is after the UK is predicted to emerge from its current economic difficulties (2017~2025 say). However, to deliver the obvious benefits we need to work hard to make sure, in the first instance, no decisions are made now that would lead to the cancellation or deferment of the GWML electrification programme. I just can’t see how the UK government could justify the ~£20Bn HS2 scheme if, at the same time, it cancelled the £1Bn GWML electrification programme.
Admire your logic Mark but these are political decisions made by politicians whose first aim is to reduce public expenditure and shrink the state by 2015. Even the decision to extend the electrification to Swansea by Labour was a political announcement made in the run up to a General Election for political purposes and cost nothing
. Given the comments about technical difficulties already being made by supporters of the Coalition I would say that the decision in principle has already been made by the DfT in its submissions to the Treasury.Particularly given the rumours that the present UK government will probably add Network Rail’s borrowing to the PSBR. If that is the case then Network Rail will not be allowed to borrow more money in an economic environment where passengers numbers are falling. The decision to increase rail fares by 10% is another indication of the government’s attitude to railways. A return from Maesteg to Cardiff will now be over £15 making it cheaper to take the car. This is a move which is hardly designed to increase demand. Instead it is designed to increase revenue and reduce subsidy particularly where the demand is fairly inelastic.
I’m sure that when the announcement is made at the end of October there will be the usual spin starting from the fact that it is all the fault of the Labour government and we have to avoid the fate of Greece. It will then move on to the technical difficulties of developing the new trains and the problems of an untried technology of hybrids and the need for more reseacrh to ensure value for money. If they are clever they might then set aside a small amount of money for continued development work at a low level and even given the number of marginal seats decide to go ahead with the major improvements needed to Reading station and extend electrification to this point on the line at some date after 2015.
In terms of electrifying the line as far as Swansea I would be amazed if this ever happened in my life time without a considerable injection of capital by the Assembly. There is probably more chance of the Castle class of locos returning to service on the line to Paddington.
Jeff, thanks. I am not blind to the political angle here. In fact I would imagine one of the conversations taking place is along the lines of:
Mr DfT, “So you want full control, powers and funding over rail infrastructure.”
Mr WAG, “Yes please.”
Mr DfT, “ Well OK, but you do know that you will have to pick up the full cost of electrifying the GWML from Bristol Parkway to Swansea.”
Mr WAG, “Oh!”
This eventuality would cost the WAG about ~£300M over perhaps four years in the period 2014~2017. Furthermore, those costs would only be at that level if the work dovetailed the electrification of the GWML from London to Bristol, as the costs per mile are lowest for the largest possible scheme. To re-start from scratch, rebuild the necessary technical and engineering teams etc, would be challenging at best and more likely prohibitively expensive.
However, in a scenario where powers and funding are transferred, I estimate the WAG could expect to receive an additional £200M in its block grant (Scotland secured an additional £380M pa from 2006). In addition to GWML electrification, this would have to cover all rail spending by NR in Wales (stations, Cardiff/Newport improvements and re-signallig, etc) but it would still put WAG in control and provide an opportunity to transform its rail infrastructure over 10-15 years as is the case in Scotland.
From a NR perspective, I would guess their preference would be to electrify the Midland Main Line (MML) and perhaps the GWML only as far as Bristol (which was probably their original intention). This however, is a much bigger issue given the economic impact on South Wales. Your comparison to Albania is real and relevant. If Wales aspires to be a dynamic, diverse and growing economy, then the provision of a suitable and modern transport infrastructure is an essential pre-requisite. What does it say about Wales if, by 2025, you can travel to Manchester from London in just over an hour on a state of the art, electric High Speed Train but the shorter journey from London to Cardiff takes well over two hours in an upgraded diesel train that is nearly 50 years old!
Yes it is political matter. However, I am concerned that political debate in Wales seems to have overlooked this strategically important issue and instead focuses on , in my opinion, more trivial matters.
I was interested to read this article on High Speed Rail which is an area in which I have been actively involved.
Cardiff and Wales recognises if it were left off a future national High Speed Network, then our economy could suffer whilst other cities and regions served by the network would prosper. Conversely, if Wales were to see the same levels of benefit from High Speed Rail as expected in the West Midlands, we would expect a substantial economic uplift with an increase in jobs.
Cardiff Council is concerned about the potentially adverse economic impacts of a partial High Speed Rail network and will continue to press the UK Government for the development of a High Speed Rail line along the Great Western Corridor.
I have written to Philip Hammond, the Secretary of State for Transport, to lobby the case for HSR and to urge for the Government to retain its commitment to electrification of the Great Western Main Line (GWML).
Electrification of the GWML will result in much needed journey time and efficiency improvements on the UK’s busiest rail corridors and it is also an essential precursor to a future Great Western Corridor HSR line. I am concerned that failure to implement this project could jeopardise the economic recovery in South Wales and South West England and be a major obstacle to a future HSR line.
As you know, Cardiff is also playing a leading role in the Great Western Partnership (GWP) which is promoting the economic and environmental benefits of establishing a HSR line west of London. The members of the GWP include Cardiff Council, Bristol City Council, Swindon Borough Council, South East Wales Economic Forum, South West Regional Development Agency, the West of England Partnership, South West Wales Economic Forum and South East Wales Transport Alliance. A letter – co-signed by myself and the Leaders of Bristol and Swindon – has been written to business organisations and local authorities along the M4 corridor to gain support for the Partnership’s work and this will be followed up by steps to seek support from MPs and AMs in early September.
I envisage that a keynote roundtable event will also be held in the early autumn when GWP members and stakeholders will be invited to discuss the way forward for the campaign and its linkages to the wider development agenda for South West England and South Wales.
In sum, the GWP recognises that major cities and their city regions are the drivers of the country’s economic prosperity and the development of a Great Western HSR line would enhance the economic competitiveness of South West England and South Wales and ensure neither region gets left behind other regions on a UK HSR Network.
The GWP is particularly focussing on the benefits HSR will bring to the knowledge-based employment sector and employment growth in general.
The partnership’s goal is to secure the UK Government’s commitment to early investment in a ‘state of the art’ HSR route serving South West England and South Wales as part of a future UK HSR development programme. Such a route could reduce journey times between Cardiff and London to 70 minutes.
Rodney Berman
Leader of Cardiff Council
The original article by Mark Barry is timely and perceptive – as is witnessed by the debate it has generated. This response should not be seen as a rejoinder to the debate but rather as a general note on the importance of infrastructure investment and a lament that in Wales and the UK we are so poor in this department compared with our European partners.
The economic recovery in the UK is likely to be weak and a double dip recession remains a possibility. For the business sector to drive economic growth an essential component is a reliable and efficient transport system but investment in the UK’s transport infrastructure has lagged far behind our European competitors. This has held back economic growth in the more peripheral areas of the UK and particularly in the manufacturing sector.
Of all the areas where evidence of a legacy from the huge increase in public spending during the boom years is disappointingly difficult to find, transport infrastructure is probably up there near the top of the list. When Labour came into power, its objective was to create an integrated transport system which would reduce car mileage and significantly increase rail passenger traffic (by 50%!) by 2010. John Prescott at the time confidently stated “Judge me”. In reality the lack of an integrated transport network became one of Labour’s liabilities at the last election.
What has happened in Wales? Not much is the short answer. In 2006 after years of neglect the Welsh Assembly Government decided to move transport into the economic development portfolio. This was thought to be a good move because it at least highlighted the important link between transport and economic development. But as Mark Barry’s piece clearly demonstrates, Wales unfortunately remains at the bottom of the league table in terms of investment in transport infrastructure compared even with the rest of the UK.
After a decade of underinvestment in transport I was asked recently by the Western Mail to provide a ‘private sector’ response to the Deputy First Minister’s ‘Economic Renewal Programme’ (ERP). The ERP initiative in 2010 followed a ten-year period when public expenditure in Wales had increased by over 100%, from £7 billion to £16 billion. This was a time when money was being thrown at every pet project imaginable, from free bus passes and free prescriptions to a misguided attempt to subsidise middle class students to study in Wales. But it was also a time when there was never enough money to invest in infrastructure (like the M4 relief road).
After highlighting various problems within the Department of Economy and Transport, the Western Mail article concluded: “Finally, every organisation is pleading for WAG to invest in the modern infrastructure and transport networks that Wales needs to create a competitive business environment. There is broad agreement that the scale of capital investment needed to underpin business growth will require partnership with the private sector. Hence WAG’s antipathy to Public Private Partnerships is not only exasperating for Welsh companies but it directly undermines private sector growth.”
An efficient rail service between Swansea and London must be a priority for those businesses in South Wales that are striving to improve business efficiency and competitiveness. It will also be important for international investors thinking of setting up production facilities in Wales in order to access European markets. Another important factor is the debate over global warming and the environment – as we strive to move towards a low-carbon economy, decarbonising our transport system and making greater use of the rail network offers one of the greatest opportunities to reduce our carbon footprint. But to have any chance of making this modal shift happen, reliability and capacity will need to be built into the rail network. In the 21st Century this can only mean electrification.
In the current economic climate the UK government and the Welsh Assembly are coming under enormous pressure to cut transport spending. But after systematically under-investing in infrastructure during the boom years it would be almost criminal not to take advantage of a period when construction resources are readily available to make up the shortfall. Also it provides an opportunity to rebalance the UK economy by investing in infrastructure outside of the congested South East. If funding is the main problem then we must look for innovate funding solutions.
However, in Wales, the very mention of private sector funding invariably causes problems. So, as we head into a period of economic uncertainty and the alarming prospect of five years of economic stagnation, the Welsh economy is likely to be held back even further by WAG’s reluctance to develop and adopt creative solutions to the infrastructure needs of Welsh business. Yes we desperately need electrification of the main rail line to London and to our export markets but we also need an efficient transport system with adequate capacity within Wales. So we can’t just pass the buck to Whitehall – we have to be seen to be doing our bit as well.
Professor Brian Morgan UWIC
Thank you Mark for raising this important issue in a considered way.
Forward thinking countries see the importance of these types of projects for investment.I am advised for example that the India railway ministry has proposed four business models that would allow the private sector to build tracks . They include the full contribution-appointed earning model, the cost-sharing-freight rebate model, the special purpose vehicle (SPV) model and the private line model.
The cost-sharing-freight-rebate model, the railway ministry and private companies would enter into a cost-sharing agreement to construct the proposed track. In this case, the private sector’s contribution cannot be less than 50 percent of a project’s total cost. The construction, operation and maintenance of the new tracks will be taken up by the railway ministry and the private players will be entitled to a freight rebate of between 10 to 20 percent for a period of 10 years.
The second model, called the full contribution-apportioned earning model, will be applicable in cases where the private sector applicant is making a 100 percent contribution towards the project. Under this model, the private sector entity will construct and maintain the line for a period of 25 years from the date of commissioning.
I am further advised that the special purpose vehicle (SPV) model, a holding company will be formed between the railway ministry and the applicant, with the authorities owning a 26 percent stake in the vehicle. Under this model, the SPV shall be granted a concession contract to construct, operate and maintain the line, sharing in the revenues it generates for a period of 30 years.
The private line model, the last of the four business models, would apply in situations in which the private parties want to build a new line on privately acquired non-railway land and link it to the railways network. In this case, the private party would enter into a partnership with the railway authority and claim revenues generated on the line for a period of 30 years, minus operational and maintenance expenses incurred by the railway authority, to be deducted from the gross revenues. Indian Railways, a department of the railway ministry, has at present 110 new rail projects in various stages of development with the balance of funds required for their completion estimated at INR60 billion (€986.8 million, $1.3 billion).
Thanks to all your comments. I think they have helped contribute to an important and timely debate.
Apologises for the lateness of the comment, but Mark has made a direct observation elsewhere suggesting that a ‘yes’ vote in the forthcoming referendum would hasten the electrification of the GWM line, the following comment may have relevance.
The difficulty of electrifying the Paddington main west line is well known. The stretch to Reading is well outside the remit of either Bristol or Cardiff. The stretch of line from Reading to Bristol Parkway is shared by trains to other destinations that would continue to use electric-diesel locomotion, including the Birmingham to the West Country. Among the problems of electrification to Bristol and/or Cardiff is the change to electric-diesel for continuing onward journeys. Electrification is not a Wales only issue.
The line from the Severn Junction to Cardiff is less than 30 miles and is also used and would continue to be used by electric-diesel trains. While there is debate about the viability of electrifying the 40 miles of line onto Swansea, no-one has seriously suggested extending electrification beyond. The majority of traffic Cardiff to Pembrokeshire will continue to be electric-diesel.
Professor Brian Morgan UWIC in his comments draws attention to a core problem, “…the Welsh economy is likely to be held back even further by WAG’s reluctance to develop and adopt creative solutions to the infrastructure needs of Welsh business. Yes we desperately need electrification of the main rail line to London and to our export markets but we also need an efficient transport system with adequate capacity within Wales. So we can’t just pass the buck to Whitehall – we have to be seen to be doing our bit as well.”
As Rodney Berman, Leader of Cardiff Council points out in his comment a joint approach is needed through the Great Western Partnership to bring about the introduction of a High Speed Rail line west of London.
Voting either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is not going to speed or delay the electrification of the main line.
Len
Thanks for this. The point I made that you picked up on, was that there is a structural weakness in the management and funding of Welsh rail infrastructure. Yes we need WAG and LAs to address our current challenges in a coherent and imaginative way – however without full devolution of rail powers and funding and the establishment of a body or bodies (cf Transport Scotland, PTAs) to develop and implement a coherent transport policy for Wales and/or its City Regions, we are left with the current disjointed and underfunded arrangements. As you say a Yes/No vote in next year’s referendum does not directly address this. However this is major economic issue for Wales that needs to be dealt with urgently. My concern is that a “No” vote will weaken the case for change in this regard.
As regards the £1Bn GWML electrification scheme, and to clarify, I don’t think this scheme ( as you suggested above) will be influenced by the outcome of the referendum. NR have completed studies, there is a +ve BCR, planning is underway , it is deliverable and will have a direct and +ve impact on the economic prospects of the entire Severnside region. The concern I have raised, is that it will be cancelled whilst at the same time the UK government approves >£30Bn of rail schemes elsewhere in the UK. The only issues related to governance and funding is that, if Wales secures the same powers and funding over rail as Scotland, WAG may have to contribute to some of the costs of the scheme alongside the DfT.
We know from the Coalition that future Welsh funding arrangements will be influenced if not decided by the referendum vote, so it is reasonable to argue that a “Yes” could have an indirect impact on the future of transport in Wales.
Professor Brian Morgan’s comments are incredibly subjective in saying that “we can’t just pass the buck to Whitehall – we have to be seen to be doing our bit as well.” Only this week our Transport Minister Ieuan Wyn Jones approved more than £100m on transport infrastructure spending in the Port Talbot area, Len’s own patch unless i’m mistaken.
Though not rail related, it is capital investment that goes towards creating the adequate transport network within Wales that Brian Morgan is calling for. It could easily be argued that we already are “doing our bit”, particularly as under One Wales Ieuan Wyn Jones has implemented all manner of rail improvements (i’m sure someone will mention the air link as well!).
The reality is that the powers for Network Rail and the funding of Network Rail are not devolved so the Welsh Ministers have two choices- ignore the situation, or make a case to Westminster.
I know I’d rather the Welsh Ministers were earning their money by making the case for Wales and lobbying hard to address the problems that Mark Barry identifies in this piece.
Len’s defeatist attitude would have them give up the ghost by wringing their hands and effectively saying “it isn’t a Wales-only issue, we’ll just have to wait for it to come around eventually”. The irony is that Len Gibbs has argued elsewhere that devolution should be judged on its economic record, yet he is reluctant to see any preconditions for economic development take place in Wales because he desires that the devolution project should be halted. Another True Wales paradox.
Luke is right to use the Peripheral Distributor Road in Port Talbot as a good example of positive infrastructure spend. If you look at the plans for this project, you’ll see that it opens up brownfield sites in Aberafan and links with the town’s deep water harbour.
As mentioned elsewhere on this site, the harbour could provide a remarkably important foundation stone in any regeneration of the Welsh economy. It is reported that its presence (along with the potential of the Margam seam) is the reason why Corus/Tata Steel continues to invest in the Abbey Works site. And, with a series of projects either announced or slated around the steel works, the potential for feeder business (perhaps on that 200+ hectares of brownfield land) could be considerable.
One factor that may need to be overcome is that Corus Strip Products has said, privately, that the docks are running at maximum capacity. In which case, if other businesses want to make use of the deep water facilities (and let us hope it will be better than the bankrupt biomass idea), space will need to be found, which may necessitate further infrastructure spend.
As I’ve said before, it’s very easy to pick holes in the ERP at this stage. However, if the DFM wanted to pick a project to underline the ERP’s intent and direction, the Peripheral Distributor Road is a good, positive choice.
A couple of things in response…
Firstly, I’d rather this matter did not become politically divisive. I think the evidence I and others have presented as regards rail investment in Wales is pretty compelling. On that basis I think all our politicians, no matter what their colour or referendum preference, should be trying to secure a better deal for Wales as regards transport and especially rail. If anyone thinks the current arrangements are OK I’d be interested to hear their arguments!
Secondly, Cardiff has been crying out for the completion of the last section of its PDR (the Eastern Bay Link) for 15 years. However, given the influence of European ££ and the requirements for match funding it seems unlikely ever to proceed. I would ask that viewers take a look at the WAG forward trunk road programme; perhaps someone could explain why there are no schemes within 20 miles of the economic focal point of our country – ie Cardiff? Or is this a whole new can of worms…..
Mark,
I can’t speak about Cardiff, but I do know that funding the PDR in Port Talbot was made considerably easier by more than 50% coming from Europe. The scheme is budgeted at £107m, with £56.2m coming from the Convergence European Regional Development Fund, and a £50.7m Transport Grant.
I would guess, in such circumstances, that Cardiff’s position outside of the Convergence area could be a factor. Can anyone else help Mark on this?
Mark:
“My concern is that a “No” vote will weaken the case for change in this regard.”
The referendum, whatever the result, will not significantly change the present position. The designated areas of responsibility will not change. WAG already has all the powers it needs to provide integrated transport within Wales. Whether the Westminster Coalition intends or is willing to provide extra funding is uncertain. The problem with the rail network in Wales is that the volume of traffic doesn’t readily justify separate electrification. Electrification largely depends on linking London/Bristol with a spur to Cardiff. Good arguments can be made for electrification but it will only be achieved in conjunction with Bristol and not because of WAG who do not have juristriction over the majority of the route.
Illtyd:
“£100m on transport infrastructure spending in the Port Talbot area”
Something is better than nothing but the proposed link road has already been dubbed in Port Talbot as the road to nowhere. There is no unimpeded east/west route and the western exit goes through dense urban housing. The road serves relatively few of the people living in Port Talbot and the brown site area is relatively small. Tata/Corus operates successfully without the road and a relatively small sum would ungrade the existing road. Despite the size of Tata/Corus the movement of materials is not a problem within the town. Let’s hope that there will be a return on investment dividend that provides new employment in the area.
Len
Thanks, whilst I agree with some of what you say I do challenge some of your assertions.
Yes – clearly one wouldn’t see the WAG electrify the GWML from the Severn Bridge to Swansea unless of course it had already been done from London to the Severn Bridge. As NR have stated, the unit costs for the scheme are lowest for the entire London Swansea route (and not parts of it – eg to Bristol) – and this is the route that is planned for electrification. NR analysis has found a +ve BCR for this scheme as it also has for the Valleys line electrification; as in the main these are self contained they could be electrified on their own. However it is far more likely and again more cost effective, to continue onto valleys electrification once the GWML electrification is completed; such an investment would also have to dovetail a corresponding rolling stock upgrade.
As regard patronage, Cardiff Central is the 10th business station on the UK network outside London and the SE. When added to Queen St, nearly 13M passengers a year pass through these stations – the vast majority on the valleys network which is one of the busiest urban networks in the whole of the UK. With further investment in capacity, rolling stock and line-speed enhancements, this network could play a key role in the economic re-generation of the entire Cardiff City Region. However, as I stated earlier, whilst this may be a laudable objective for WAG, as rail is not devolved such a scheme falls some way down the combined England/Wales list the DfT and NR work from.
Also, with powers and funding over rail held by the DfT in London, I cannot fathom how you can say that the WAG has full powers over integrated transport. As Transport Scotland presented in their evidence to the Welsh Assembly Enterprise and Learning Committee review of rail infrastructure last year, the Scottish Government was only able to develop and implement major public transport and rail schemes in an integrated way once powers and funding over rail were devolved in 2005
Mark