House of Commons Welsh Affairs Committee

Cross-border Road and Rail Connectivity

Written evidence

Only those submissions written specifically for the Committee and accepted by the Committee as evidence are included.

Ordered by The House of Commons to be published 15 May 2012, 12 June 2012, 3 July, 5 July, 11 September, 30 October, 8 November 2012, and 12 February 2013

1

List of written evidence

Page 1 John Harrold 2 2 Institute of Civil Engineers 6 3 South East Wales Economic Forum 10 4 Welsh Government 13; 164 5 Nick Smith MP 19 6 First Great Western 21 7 Network Rail 28 8 Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport 33 9 Rail Freight Group 42 10 Railfuture Group 47 11 Severn Tunnel Action Group 54 12 TAITH 62 13 British Ports Association 70 14 Bristol Airport Limited 74 15 ASLEF 78 16 South East Wales Transport Alliance 82 17 Ian Lucas MP 89 18 Flintshire County Council 91 19 Monmouth County Council 93 20 Professor Stuart Cole 100 21 Department for Transport 115; 161 22 Freight Transport Association 121 23 Passenger Focus 125 24 Arriva Trains Wales 132 25 Rail4Wales 135; 149 26 M&G Barry Consulting Ltd 152 27 Greengauge 21 155 28 Llandudno Hospitality Association 160

1

Written evidence from John Harrold (TIW 01)

I read about your request for ideas for cross country rail ,and road links in the South Wales Argus on 3rd March 2012.

I will set out my ideas as follows,

1. Credentials.

2.Roads.

3.Railways

4. Conclusions.

1. Credentials

A. I left school in 1955 and worked on London Transport Railways for almost 25 years, starting in the signal box and then in the booking offices.

B. My last job before retirement was as a lorry driver based in Bristol and then in Cardiff.

C. I wrote the transport section of the Christian Party Wales manifesto for the last general elections in 2010. Some of the ideas that I will put forward are from that manifesto.

2. Roads

Here I shall start with North Wales and then go on to the central part, and finally the southern end of the country.

2A. North Wales

At present the entry points to North Wales are the A55 coast road which has had a big improvement over the past few years and looks a very good road now.

2B. A5 trunk road. This road is very good as far as the end of the Chirk bypass, then it is a single carriage road.

2C. The A494 from the M56 to Ruthin looks a very twisty road according to my map. I do not think that I have driven along this road ever.

2D. The A458 Shrewsbury to Welshpool road is very similar to the other Central Wales roads as it is only a single lane road, I.e. one lane each way.

2E Central Wales

2

The main road into Central Wales is the A44 which goes right across the area to the West Wales coast. This road is in a great need of improvement from what I know of it, as it is so curvy and bendy and for any traveler this takes a long time to get from the east end from Leominster to the West Coast.

2F. The A488 and A489 are just an ordinary A roads from Knighton to Penybont, and from Craven Arms to Newtown .

2G. A 438 Hereford to Brecon road. On most of this road the travelling is very good, even though it is not a dual carriageway.

2H. South Wales

I know these roads better as I live in South Wales and used them in my last job quite regularly.

2J. I will start with the A40.

The entrance to South Wales via this route starts in Gloucester and ends in South West Wales in Fishguard.

This is good dual carriageway road as far as Abergavenny and then it is a typical Welsh country road.

2K. The M50 is the main link from the Midlands of England to South Wales and joins the A40 at Ross on Wye.

2L. A49. This road starts in Ross on Wye and goes westwards via Hereford into Central Wales. Not a bad road, but needs up grading to a dual road.

2M. A48 starts in Gloucester and follows the River Severn down to Chepstow and then heads west to meet the A40 in West Wales. Again this is a good road in parts and needs widening to dual carriageway standards.

2N. The Motorways M4 and M48. These are the two best roads into Wales at present but there is a need for a Motorway bypass around Newport because of the congestion at peak times or when there is an accident.

3.Railways

At present there are only seven rail links into Wales from England and they are as follows:

A. The Severn Tunnel.

B. Gloucester to Cardiff via Chepstow.

C. Hereford to Abergavenny.

D. Chester to Wrexham.

3

E. Craven Arms to Swansea.

F. Shrewsbury to West Wales Coast.

G. Chester to Rhyl and Holyhead.

I shall take each of these lines in turn.

A. The Severn Tunnel

This is the main line from London to the capital and other cities of South Wales, where there are other connections to towns and cities in Wales and on the English borders.

B. Gloucester to Cardiff via Chepstow

This line connects directly to the South, Central and West Midlands as well as the north of England.

C. Chester to Wrexham

This is a single track line which if doubled would enhance the train services between these two places and beyond.

D. Hereford to Abergavenny

This line also connects to South Wales as well as the North, and across into Central England and London.

E. Craven Arms to Swansea

This line has only four trains a day. The main problem is that it is single track, and if it was doubled it could run a better service between Swansea and Manchester etc. At present the better service to Manchester from Swansea is via Newport. Which is a longer way round.

F. Chester to Rhyl and Holyhead

This is part of the North coast rail link from Lancashire and the north and, from what I know of it, is well used.

4. Conclusions

In this section I will show you what is possibly needed to improve the road and rail links between Wales and England.

Better roads, where there are single track roads. i.e. one lane each way, widen them and where possible put a dual carriage way in. In the centre and North of Wales you have the problem of mountains which will be a bit of a problem to overcome.

But we do need better road connections between the two countries.

4

Going on to the railways, there used to be other railway links into Wales, but they were cut by successive governments and railway companies for various reasons, but where possible I would like to see some of them reopened to take cars off the roads.

All single rail lines should be doubled so that a better service could be provided between the north of Wales and South West Wales.

One other thing that I did propose in our manifesto was to have a new road built from North to South Wales to save us travelling via the A49 in England up to Shrewsbury to get back to North Wales as this is one of the quickest routes, and the other is the MA40, M50, M5, M6 and M54 to Shrewsbury.

Or the only other route is the A470 which after Brecon is a country road, via Llyswen to the North. Which when you get passed this village and go on to Llandrindod Wells, takes nearly an hour to do the 27 miles to Newtown from Llandrindod Wells.

I hope that these ideas will be of use to you.

4 March 2012

5

Written Evidence from the Institute of Civil Engineers Wales Cymru (TIW 02)

There is a clear link between the infrastructure of Wales and its economic growth

. Cross-border links are vitally important

. Investment in infrastructure must continue in order to boost economy

. Cross-border links are poor, apart from south Wales to London

. Route M4 needs improvements around Newport

. Rail links between Swansea and London need electrification

. Severn Tunnel problems must be addressed

. Rail and road cross-border links in central Wales are poor

. Wales suffers from poor rail rolling stock and infrequent services

. High Speed (HS) links to Wales must be instigated

. Better co-ordination between all parties to improve road and rail services is required.

1. Overview

1.1 Infrastructure in Wales requires attention to ensure that it is fit for purpose to guarantee the economic growth of the Welsh Nation.

1.2 Cross-border links are vital to ensure the connectivity of Wales with the rest of the UK and beyond.

1.3 There is a clear link between the infrastructure of Wales and the economy of Wales.

1.4 The Welsh Transport Network is deteriorating in both condition and service provision. Whilst the motorways and trunk roads are in good condition, the vast majority of the networks, including cross-border links, are in poor condition.

1.5 Cross-border rail links are poor and are in need of upgrade.

2. The extent to which cross-border public road and rail services are currently provided for and accessed by the Welsh population.

6

2.1 Highway

In general terms the cross-border links fall into three categories: south Wales, north Wales and mid Wales.

2.1.1

a South Wales

(i) Route M4 currently serves the south Wales corridor and is in need of major improvements. Tolls on the two bridges do provide a disincentive to movement into Wales and the Severn bridges suffer from closures under adverse weather conditions. The high toll costs to freight are a particular problem.

The cancellation of the upgrade to route M4 in the Newport/Cardiff area means that severe delays will continue in the foreseeable future. (ii) Whilst local upgrading works will provide some relief, these benefits, however small, will themselves not be realised for many years. The particular problems of the Bryn Glas tunnels need to be addressed as these are a critical point of the infrastructure as witnessed during the recent fires and subsequent closures of the M4.

(iii) Upgrading of Route M4 beyond the current end into Route A48 needs consideration.

(iv) It is accepted that the current financial climate provides a severe constraint on major improvements to Route M4 in south Wales, but innovative solutions to finance must be explored.

b. North Wales

Route A55 currently well serves the links east to west across the Welsh/English border but local improvements must continue to be programmed to ensure that this vital link is maintained.

c. Mid Wales

Mid Wales suffers from poor cross border links as does north to south Wales. Journey time is unreliable and routes are tortuous.

7

3.1 Rail

The east to west rail network is in need of major improvements. Journey times between Cardiff and London are longer in 2012 than ten years ago. The proposed 3.1.1 electrification of the rail line between Cardiff and London is welcomed but should extend to Swansea. The curtailment at Cardiff disenfranchises all communities west of Cardiff. Services into Cardiff (and hence east) are poor at best, with slow services and limited rolling stock with out of date equipment. No services currently provide an internet facility which is poor and less than half have power supplies. The route further west of Swansea is in worse condition.

3.1.2 The Severn Tunnel is worthy of separate consideration and is part of the critical infrastructure. The options to build a replacement or bridge possibly in conjunction with a barrage which would itself bring additional benefits i.e. sustainable energy, flood protection and amenity benefits.

3.1.3 North Wales

Cross-border rail services in north Wales are poor and limited by services into Chester, Crewe etc. These routes suffer from poor rolling stock, limited facilities, infrequent services and tortuous routes.

3.1.4 Central Wales

Cross-border services in central Wales are very poor and in general linked to the north to south rail links.

3.1.5 Valley Lines

Across the Welsh valleys Lines remain poor and prioritisation of the proposals to electrify these links should be prioritised.

4. Arrangements currently in place to co-ordinate cross-border road and rail transport service provision.

4.1 The rail services are currently split between the private sector, central Government and the Welsh Government. A more coordinated approach is required to improve the service provision to the travelling public.

4.2 The creation of a Wales unit as a specific entity for the rail network is supported.

4.3 The current arrangement in place to coordinate road movements across the border are satisfactory although the existence of twenty three highway authorities in Wales

8

plus the trunk road agencies means that there can be many differing standards and priorities across borders including Wales to England borders.

5. Potential impact on Wales of the plans for HS2 rail service between London, the Midlands and north of England.

5.1 There is a possibility that more travellers from London to Ireland would bypass travelling through Wales as a result of shorter journey times to Birmingham; choosing Liverpool rather than Holyhead.

5.2 Improvements to the cross-border links between Wales’ rail stations and HS2 should be instigated to avoid a lack of economic growth in Wales.

A high speed rail link between all capitals of the UK should be prioritised in 5.3 accordance with current UK policies. An HS3 should link Wales to the high speed rail system. There should be a direct high speed link into Cardiff.

6. Funding of cross-border infrastructure

6.1 The funding should be from UK resources.

7. Progress on improving coordination between the Welsh Government and Department for Transport on cross-boundary issues and matters of strategic importance.

7.1. More transparency on this issue is required together with real progress.

13 March 2012

9

Written Evidence from South East Wales Economic Forum (TIW 03)

1. The South East Wales Economic Forum (SEWEF) is a unique partnership in South East Wales bringing together the region’s ten local authorities, the Welsh Government (WG), the private sector, universities, further education and the third sector to address regional economic matters. Geographically SEWEF encompasses Cardiff and reaches from the local authority areas of Bridgend County Borough Council in the west to Monmouthshire County Council and the English/Welsh border in the east, and north to the Heads of the Valleys local authority areas.

2. SEWEF welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this important debate.

3. Although this response naturally focuses on South Wales, we feel that many of the comments regarding road corridors in particular will be just as relevant to North Wales.

4. Summary of main points: • The main road and rail routes through South East Wales are crucial to the continued economic development of the whole of Wales • The importance of upgrading and maintaining peripheral arteries into the main South East Wales transport routes should not be overlooked • HS2 is likely to have a negative impact on the economy of South East Wales if the region’s own networks are not improved significantly • If the WG is to play a prominent part in funding future strategic transport infrastructure projects, its potential for developing borrowing powers will have to be reassessed

The extent to which cross-border public road and rail services are currently provided for and accessed by the Welsh population

5. Given that South Wales is effectively the major economic driver for the whole of Wales, the region’s main road and rail corridors to London – the M4 and the Great Western Main Line (GWML) – are crucial to the continued economic development of the country. However, as the Committee will no doubt be aware as a consequence of this and other inquiries it has undertaken, their fragile nature as a result of age and relative lack of investment (particularly, for example, the Severn and Brynglas tunnels) is a major concern.

6. It is universally accepted that good transport links enhance a region's economic capabilities. There is a clear correlation in European terms of prosperity in the extremities of the European Union lagging significantly behind the core (one need only to look at maps showing current Convergence areas to see this borne out); in this context, effective, well managed, adequately funded key strategic transport corridors are even more important.

7. Clearly it is crucial not to consider the main South Wales transport corridors in isolation; the 'peripheral' arteries linking into the M4 & GWML are of huge significance also. There are clear opportunities for the effective use of limited funds for such activity as well thought-out slip roads that make a positive difference to traffic flows and journey times. Such relatively mundane projects can obviously complement a much larger strategic project like the Valleys

10

Metro that is gaining support across the region, the ultimate aim being to create a genuinely integrated regional transport system acting as a catalyst for long term, even transformational, economic growth.

8. A recently commissioned report by the Great Western Partnership (GWP) into how to maximise the use of the GWML has noted that businesses along the mainline value reliable transport networks above almost anything else.

9. In addition to seeking the views of the people of Wales we would hope that the Committee will be actively seeking the views of Irish stakeholders, as well as those continental stakeholders who use the routes under scrutiny to access Irish markets.

10. SEWEF, in a recent response to the National Assembly for Wales Enterprise and Business Committee’s inquiry into international connectivity through Welsh ports and airports has called for much better local transport links into Cardiff Airport, recognising the importance to the region of having a well-connected, properly functioning airport able to play a role in attracting significantly more business.

The arrangements currently in place to co-ordinate cross-border road and rail transport service provision.

11. Through playing a key role in the GWP – a partnership originally consisting of local authorities across the breadth of the GWML from Swansea to Slough that has grown to incorporate key players from the business and transport communities – SEWEF has significant insight into stakeholders' concerns and priorities regarding the future development of this major transport artery. By way of example, SEWEF is aware of the UK Government’s consultation on devolved levels of decision making in England which could have a significant impact on cross-border rail routes to/from Wales.

The potential impact on Wales of the plans for a High Speed 2 (HS2) Rail Service between London, the Midlands and North of England.

12. While recognising the amount of future investment planned for the GWML, it could be argued that this is merely a result of catching up on previously lower levels of investment, and that the investment the line has now attracted is the least that is needed. This state of affairs is probably emphasized by the size of the proposed HS2 investment, judged by many to be the largest infrastructure project in the UK for more than a generation.

13. GWP’s research emphasises the negative impact on South Wales if HS2 isn’t effectively managed and connections aren’t executed properly, although of course it will bring benefits to North Wales.

The funding of cross-border transport infrastructure and the progress made on improving co-ordination between the Welsh Government and Department for Transport on cross-boundary issues and matters of strategic importance.

11

14. The current divisions of devolved and non-devolved administrative responsibilities – and by extension associated funding mechanisms – are not fully conducive to effective delivery of transport policy.

15. With specific regard to the Severn bridges, the Committee may be interested to know that SEWEF has developed and discussed an options paper (which has drawn on the Committee’s inquiry) outlining alternative approaches for the most effective way of managing the structures once they come into public ownership.

16. SEWEF supports the approach taken by the WG on developing a Wales Infrastructure Investment Plan (WIIP), which necessarily addresses major transport infrastructure schemes, and has responded to an initial consultation, and will continue to contribute to the ongoing debate.

17. The WIIP process has highlighted the importance of the debate on WG borrowing powers. The current situation is likely to be untenable in the context of funding large strategic transport infrastructure projects, since the expectation for such projects to be wholly financed privately is unrealistic.

18. SEWEF acknowledges the cross-party political lobbying for some schemes that can only improve the transport system in South Wales – for example the lobbying for electrification of both the GWML to Swansea and of the Valleys rail network.

19. Concluding remarks: Cross border road and rail connectivity is clearly a vitally important subject in its own right, but one that also needs to be considered alongside several other recent/ongoing consultations and calls for evidence, many of which are either referred to above, or listed below: • The Climate Change Commission for Wales investigation into climate change & transport • The WG’s Towards a Welsh Planning Act consultation • The UK Department for Transport’s Great Western franchise consultation • The WG’s M4 corridor enhancement measures consultation • The WG’s City Regions task and finish group.

3 April 2012

12

Written Evidence from the Welsh Government (TIW 04)

Purpose of Paper 1. This paper sets out some general background to the working relationships that Welsh Government has with partners in both Wales and England in order to deliver strategic outcomes for Wales. It also provides some specific information on cross border routes and interventions.

Working Relationships 2. The Welsh Government works closely with partners across Wales to deliver appropriate transport links and connectivity for people travelling into and within Wales. In doing this the Welsh Government also works closely with partners in England to deliver shared objectives. These partners include the Department for Transport, the Wales Office, Network Rail, Local Authorities in England, as well as transport providers such as rail, bus and coach operating companies. 3. The Welsh Government set out its vision for the transport system in Wales in the Welsh Transport Strategy, published in May 2008. Subsequently the National Transport Plan set out our delivery plan up to 2015. In December 2011 Welsh Government prioritised the interventions in this Plan to bring forward investment that will make the transport system in Wales work better to help tackle poverty, increase well-being and assist economic growth. 4. Our focus is on improving mobility and connectivity so that people are able to access the things they need, such as jobs, health care, education, child care, friends and family. With regards to roads infrastructure, we are focusing on solutions that address the pinch-points on our rural and urban networks that hinder the efficient flow of people and goods, and where congestion makes the network inefficient. We will work with delivery partners in both England and Wales to make the road network more efficient, addressing the problems that people face every day. 5. The Welsh Government wants to see a modern and more effective rail system in Wales. Our vision is to make rail more accessible, so that more of our communities have the choice of accessing a high-quality yet affordable rail system. As part of this the Welsh Government have led on the development of the outline business case for the continuation of electrification of the Great Western Main Line to Swansea, as well as the outline business case for electrification of the whole of the Valley Lines network with Department for Transport officials. Such advancements in the rail network will require close working with delivery partners in Wales and England. 6. To improve access to employment and training opportunities and accessibility of services for many of our communities, Welsh Government are working closely with stakeholders in Wales and England to ensure the connectivity and coherence of our bus and coach system, including with other forms of transport. Bus services provide

13

the first point of connectivity for many people and it is essential that we work with our partners in England as well as Wales to ensure that appropriate links are made. 7. The Welsh Government is closely engaged in negotiations with other UK Administrations, led by the Department for Transport, on the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) framework. The TEN-T framework designates rail and road routes and ports and airports that are particularly important for international connectivity. This dialogue has been productive for all involved and resulted in positive change for Wales, such as Milford Haven being recognised as a core port.

Roads 8. The Prioritisation of the National Transport Plan is in line with the Welsh Government’s commitment to ensure existing transport funding is used effectively and the level of resources enhanced. Welsh Government recognises the importance to improve the capacity and reliability of the main east-west strategic Trans European road and rail corridors in Wales. 9. Welsh Government Officials maintain strong relations with the Department of Transport and Highways Agency and regularly discuss potential cross border issues. Local Authorities that have borders with England also maintain close working relationships with their counterparts in England to ensure issues are addressed as appropriate. 10. Relationships in the past have at times been challenging, especially where different stakeholders have competing or diverging priorities. Historically, the priorities and objectives for some routes considered of primary importance for Wales, were not shared by stakeholders in England, resulting in delays in taking forward interventions. Below are a number of route and project specific examples where Welsh Government is working with Partners in England. 11. A458 Wollaston to Buttington Cross - We are currently working in close cooperation with the Highways Agency and Department for Transport on this route which is the proposed improvement scheme to bypass a number of constraints on this section of the network, proposals are being led by the Welsh Government as the majority of the works are in Wales. Welsh Government have identified delivery for this scheme beyond 2015, however, it is not included in the Highways Agency’s Targeted Programme of Improvements – now known as the Major Projects Programme. We will continue to work with and discuss proposals with stakeholders in England, any successful resolution will require agreement from both sides of the border. 12. Wrexham, Chester and Deeside Triangle – The Welsh Government has carried out two WelTAG transport studies in parallel – North East Wales Area Based Transport Study (NEWABTS) and A55/A494 WelTAG Planning and Stage 1 Study. There are parts of the road network in England that impact on transport connections in North

14

Wales so liaison has taken place with partner authorities in England to discuss these issues. Formal consultation is currently scheduled for 2012/13. 13. M4 Strategic Corridor – The M4 corridor is a Trans-European Network and therefore of strategic importance to Wales and England. We engage in regular discussions with the Department for Transport and Highways Agency on routine issues, such as maintenance and improvements, as well as more strategic issues such as the future of the Severn Crossings. Following the Chancellors Autumn statement referring to improvements to the M4 in South Wales, Welsh Government officials have met with their UK Government counterparts on a number of occasions to discuss options for financing major strategic enhancements to the M4. It is too soon to say what the outcome of the discussion will be. 14. EasyWay – The Welsh Government is an active participant in the ‘EasyWay’ Euro- Regional project. The UK and Republic of Ireland are represented by the ‘Streetwise’ group. Some of the project’s aims are to facilitate and increase coordination of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). This requires Welsh Government to work closely alongside the Highways Agency and Department for Transport, both in deployment of ITS but also in information sharing, shared studies and reviewing benefits of certain network management regimes, 15. Network Policy – The Welsh Government also sit on the ‘5 Nations’ group which includes the Highways Agency, Transport Scotland, Roads Services of Northern Ireland (NRA). This (and a number of sub-groups e.g. Road Lighting) are examples of close partnering with other nations, especially the Highways Agency. In practical terms, the Welsh Government’s Traffic Management Centres have extremely good working relationships with the neighbouring Highways Agency regions, this is an ongoing and fruitful relationship. The relationship includes everything from visits, sharing of information/best practice – through to managing incidents that impact on different areas as they happen. 16. Network Operations – The Welsh Government is a participant and contributor to cross border information exchange (known as DATEX-2) – this is where information on network conditions and incidents are shared across borders in an automated, uniform way. This improves network management and the ability of road operators to disseminate timely and accurate information.

Bus and Coach Services 17. Welsh Government is committed to improving local and long distance bus/coach services within Wales. The prioritisation of the National Transport Plan has meant that we are focusing on improving the support we offer to bus service operators so that our public transport system better meets the needs of users and future users. This means working with local authorities, community transport and the bus industry partners in Wales and England.

15

18. Bus operators provide the vast majority of bus services commercially with local authorities subsidising socially necessary bus services. Local authorities along the Welsh border have reciprocal arrangements with their English counterparts for the funding of local cross-border services. Below are a number of examples where Welsh Government is working with partners in England. 19. Traffic Commissioner – Responsibility for the Traffic Commissioners is a matter for the UK Government and is not devolved to the Welsh Government. However, working with the UK Government, Welsh Government has agreed to put in place an office for the Traffic Commissioner in Cardiff. This new office is expected to be open for business early in the 2012/13 financial year. These arrangements will allow the Traffic Commissioner to improve partnerships with the industry and other stakeholders and will help our plans for improved bus compliance and taking forward Statutory Bus Quality Partnerships and Quality Contract schemes in Wales. 20. Coach Services – The Welsh Government still funds concessionary travel on coach services within Wales and so passengers can enjoy discounts on the Greyhound Service between Cardiff and Swansea as well as Arriva’s coach services in North Wales. There is no similar arrangement in England, however commercial cross border services do operate. In November 2011, National Express introduced a new concessionary travel scheme for elderly and disabled people that provides a 33% discount on the price of the full adult fare for most journeys across the UK. Eligible people need to purchase a £10 National Express Coach Card to qualify for the discount. This is a commercial product without any UK or Welsh Government subsidy. 21. Concessionary Fares – The concessionary fares scheme in Wales enjoys more generous entitlements than elsewhere in the UK as it allows those holding a card to benefit from free travel for people over the age of 60 and disabled people to travel for free at all times. Under our free concessionary bus travel scheme, local authorities have discretion to put in place reciprocal arrangements with other local authorities in England to allow access to essential services such as health care. For example, such arrangements exist between Wrexham and Chester as well as between Monmouth and Gloucestershire. 22. The British and Irish Council, as well as other cross government discussions, have focused on concessionary fares and proposals for a single reciprocal system. Whilst all would aspire to a single system, there are issues in terms of consistency of offer and payment arrangements. These have yet to be resolved and it is unlikely that such an agreement will be reached. However an ongoing dialogue with the Department for Transport and other devolved administrations continues.

Rail

16

23. As a Government we are increasingly influencing the future of rail in Wales, and we are working to secure more direct involvement in the planning and delivery of a modern rail network. We will use all levers at our disposal to increase our influence over the rail network and services in Wales. 24. Cross Border rail Franchises – The current cross border priorities for the Welsh Government are the forthcoming refranchising of west Coast Mainline and Great Western services by the UK Government. The Welsh Government has submitted formal consultation responses to the Department for Transport with our aspirations for service improvements. 25. High Speed 2 – The new high speed rail link between London and the West Midlands will be delivered by 2026. There are currently no plan for high speed rail in Wales. In 2010 Welsh Government commissioned a report, prior to the HS2 announcement, this report stated that Wales would be economically disadvantaged if HS2 excluded Wales. A more recent report, “Regional and Local Economic Impacts of rail Investments” endorsed this view. Connections to the High Speed Rail network will be crucial. We will continue to discuss this further with the UK Government. 26. Electrification – The electrification of the Great Western Main Line to Swansea, alongside the electrification of the Valley Lines networks are the two key Welsh Government priorities for the forthcoming railway Control Period 5. Welsh Government has led on the development of these business cases with the support of the Department for Transport, and the results are very positive. The business case for the electrification of the Great Western Main Line between Swansea and Cardiff is also strong when considered in parallel with the case for the Valley Lines network. We have submitted these business cases to the Department for Transport for inclusion in the decision making process for the HLOS, and discussions with the UK Government are ongoing. There is strong cross party support in the Senedd for these projects. 27. Cross-Border Rail – The Welsh Government jointly convenes the Arriva Trains Wales (ATW) Cross-Border forum with the Department for Transport. The forum meets twice each year. It has representatives from each of the Welsh and English local authorities that are served by ATW, as well as passenger focus. 28. In addition, the Welsh Government works closely with the six Community Rail Partnerships that operate in Wales, four of which are cross-border – Borderlands, Cambrian, heart of Wales Line and Chester-Shrewsbury. 29. Merseytravel and the TAITH transport consortium have led on the study for the electrification of the Borderlands line and a current study looking at potential improvements under diesel operations. The Welsh Government has contributed to both studies. The Welsh Government has engaged with Merseytravel and TAITH to consider progress and potential linkage with our National Transport Plan

17

commitments to address transport issues in the Wrexham, Chester, Deeside triangle. These discussions are ongoing and a further meeting will be held in the near future. 30. Capacity Issues and Pinch Points – Welsh Government’s key priorities are the redoubling of the single line section between Wrexham and Saltney Junction, to improve capacity and journey times, and a commitment to introduce additional daytime services on the Cambrian Mainline between Aberystwyth and Shrewsbury. 31. Welsh Government has made a contribution to improve the infrastructure on the Cambrian Mainline between Aberystwyth and Shrewsbury to improve performance and capacity; and the extension of ATW services to Manchester Airport and Birmingham International. In addition, the Welsh Government made a contribution to a Network Rail feasibility study into doubling the line between Swindon and Kemble, a now committed scheme funded by the UK Government. 32. Welsh Government also provide funding for improved cross border rail services, for example, carriages for Cambrian Mainline services from Aberystwyth to Birmingham and on the Borderlands services between Wrexham and Bidston. 33. We continue to work closely with all our delivery partners in England and Wales to ensure that cross-border services and issues and appropriately raised and are addressed in a collaborative way.

2 April 2012

18

Written evidence from Nick Smith, MP for Blaenau Gwent (TIW 05)

Cross Border Road and Rail Connectivity

1. I wish in my short contribution to press the case for the electrification of all the Valleys lines, not just the ‘core Valleys lines’ and to emphasise the importance of good rail links from Blaenau Gwent to areas of potential employment for my constituents in Cardiff, Newport and Bristol.

2. Blaenau Gwent is one of the most deprived county boroughs in the UK. We have 25% worklessness, 30% youth unemployment, the lowest number of businesses per head of population in Wales and those in work earn some of the lowest average earnings in the UK.

3. Since it was reopened in 2008 passenger usage on the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff line has gone through the carriage roof. It has far exceeded predictions rising from 534,528 in its first year to over 676,000 in 2011. To date over 2 and a half million passenger journeys have been recorded. What is now required urgently, due to high demand, is an increase in the frequency of the service from every hour to every half hour.

4. Because it is a new line, the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff line has not in the past been seen as part of the core Valleys network. Yet, if the wider Valleys network is to be electrified, and I very much hope it will, then electrification of all the lines would bring the best value for money.

5. If the EV to Cardiff line is operating different rolling stock on a non-electrified line it will be inefficient, unreliable and inflexible. Trains on the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff line are scheduled for renewal in 2018 so this would dovetail nicely with the timetable for electrification.

6. Ebbw Vale in Blaenau Gwent has been designated as an Enterprise Zone. To maximise the benefits of an Enterprise Zone, we need a 21st century transport infrastructure, especially as Bristol and the West Midlands also have EZ status. In addition many of my constituents need to access jobs in South East Wales and the West of England. They want a regular and reliable service to Cardiff, Newport and Bristol, which gives them value for money.

7. As pointed out above there are high levels of youth unemployment in Blaenau Gwent. With high fuels costs and prohibitive insurance premiums, road travel is not an option for many young people. Again to access jobs, education and training they need an efficient rail service to major city centres.

19

8. I note that the South East Wales Transport Alliance, SEWTA, in its response to the Great Western Franchise Replacement consultation has recommended an additional hourly service from Ebbw Vale to Newport – Bristol Parkway and additional capacity on South Wales to Bristol peak services. I support these proposals.

20

Written evidence from First Great Western (TIW 06)

Inquiry into Cross border road and rail connectivity

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The present Greater Western franchise expires in April 2013. At the time it was let (2006) there were no plans for a significant level of enhancement to rail infrastructure, other than Crossrail, for the next decade.

Over the last four years this has changed dramatically with a number of announcements for a significant programme of investment: This includes

• The electrification of the mainline from London to Cardiff Expansion of capacity and capability at Reading Station • Doubling of a section of the North Cotswold line • Doubling the line between Swindon and Kemble on the South Cotswold line • The introduction of brand new InterCity Express Programme trains • A new European Rail Traffic Management signalling system

Network Rail has also sought to localise accountability and authority through devolution; creating a separate route for Wales.

The Great Western Rail Utilisation Strategy predicted growth in passenger journeys between 2008 and 2019 to be at least 32%. This has proved to be an underestimate. In some areas growth in demand at peak time is already at 41%.

First Great Western (FGW) has invested in services to deal with this extra demand, and now operates 145 vehicles on a franchise commitment of 100. This includes extra vehicles for regional services secured through the Department for Transport (DfT), High Level Output Specification (HLOS). This has been used to strengthen services from South Wales to Bristol, Taunton and the South Coast.

The DfT will be publishing HLOS objectives for 2014-2019 in July 2012. Further opportunities for improvements in capacity, reduced journey times and reliability could be possible through

• Extensions in electrification • Cascades of rolling stock • Line speed improvements on the Gloucester – Severn Tunnel Junction route • Direct rail access to Heathrow from the West

1. Introduction

21

1.1 FirstGroup is a UK based international transport group with bus and rail operations spanning the UK and North America.

1.2 In the UK we are the largest rail operator. We operate the First Great Western, First ScotRail, First Capital Connect and the First TransPennine Express franchises and, one of the UK’s open access train companies, First Hull Trains. We carry more than 250 million passengers every year.

2. First Great Western – Background

2.1 The Greater Western Franchise operates mainline services from South Wales, the West of England, Hereford and the Cotswolds to London, commuter services in the Thames Valley and North Downs areas, regional services from the South Coast to South Wales and local services across the west of England. This last category includes cross border services.

2.2 FGW operates mainline services from South Wales to London Paddington. On weekdays FGW provides hourly services from Swansea and half-hourly services from Cardiff to London. Hourly services between Swansea and London are provided on weekends. We also operate an hourly service between Cardiff and Portsmouth Harbour and the hourly Cardiff to Taunton service.

2.3 The present Greater Western Franchise will expire in April 2013. At the time the franchise was let in 2006 the assumption for both rail industry and government was that there would not be a significant level of enhancement to the rail infrastructure over the coming decade, other than a provision relating to the Crossrail scheme in the London area, which at that time was not funded.

3. Current investment in rail services serving Wales

3.1 Over the last four years a number of announcements have been made regarding a significant programme of investment into the infrastructure across the Great Western franchise area. This includes • the electrification of the mainline from London to Cardiff via Bristol Parkway and to Bristol Temple Meads via Chippenham and Bath; • confirmation of Crossrail to Maidenhead • expansion of capacity and capability through Reading Station redevelopment; • redoubling of a significant section of the North Cotswold line; • reinstatement of double line between Swindon and Kemble on the South Cotswold route • the introduction of the Intercity Express Programme (IEP) as a replacement for part of the High Speed Train (HST) fleet. and • the new European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) signalling system.

3.2 A number of these infrastructure schemes were either proposed as part of the regulatory settlement on funding of Network Rail for the period between April 2009 and March 2014

22

(Control Period 4 or CP4), or have been the subject of separate subsequent Government announcement. One such scheme is the re-doubling of the single-line between Swindon and Kemble on the South Cotswolds route, which is not only a key route in its own right, but provides the main diversionary route for services between London and South Wales when the Severn Tunnel is closed for routine maintenance work or otherwise.

3.3 Most of these investment interventions are reflected in the Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS), which was published in February 2010, following consultation to which FGW fully contributed. The RUS is intended to provide an industry guide for planning the development and enhancement of the rail network and train services in the light of forecast demand and likely market requirements.

A separate RUS for Wales was published in 2008 (although this covers elements of cross- border route in both North and South Wales; up to Gloucester and Pilning in the case of the Great Western Main Line).

3.4 The GW RUS considers services across the West of England but also focuses on key services that operate in Wales, namely the Cardiff – Portsmouth services and related South Wales to Bristol and London flows. The objective of planning under the RUS is to provide a 30 year forward view, although it is recognised that the detailed forecasts are valid for around 10 years, to 2019 or the end of CP5.

3.5 The GW RUS concluded that there will be growth in demand of at least 32% between 2008 and 2019, with some areas, seeing even higher levels than this. An example of this is 41% growth in demand forecast for peak services in Bristol. A RUS for London & the South East was published in 2011 acknowledged rapid increases in passenger volume on services on the Thames Valley commuter corridor placing additional demand on the rail network into Paddington.

3.6 FGW has worked closely with the Department for Transport during CP4 to provide additional rolling stock capacity into the franchise as part of the High Level Output Statement (HLOS) capacity metrics, which set industry overall output objectives for the current Control Period. The announcement of GW electrification and the IEP programme superceded the pre-existing working assumptions on how growth in passenger demand would be addressed on commuter services both to/from London and on the Cardiff – Bristol corridor. Ahead of any opportunities offered by electrification, the GW RUS assumed that under HLOS 12 additional diesel vehicles would be provided for strengthening services into Bristol (and so including services from and to South Wales).

3.7 FGW is committed to enhancing the capacity it provides over the routes which have shown the biggest increases in passenger demand. As a consequence we have enlarged our fleet size to the extent that FGW is now operating 145 diesel vehicles on services in the West compared to 100 vehicles originally specified in 2006. Trains lengthened under this initiative have included regional services from Cardiff to the South Coast and local services between Cardiff and Taunton.

4. Current and future planning processes for rail

23

4.1 The Department for Transport is expected to publish its HLOS objectives for England and Wales for CP5 (April 2014 to March 2019) by the end of July 2012, at the same time as the Statement of Funds Available is also made known. Following input from FGW and other train operators, Network Rail published in September 2011 the Initial Industry Plan which is intended to inform and guide the Department in the formulation of the HLOS metrics and specific CP5 outputs.

4.2 The Initial Industry Plan has identified a number of candidate schemes to increase capacity and capability during CP5 and to build upon those schemes announced and started in CP4. Key amongst these is a package of enhancements in the Greater Bristol area to increase capacity and capability. This will facilitate the development of a higher frequency service from Bristol to London, and faster services from South Wales to London following electrification, without generating constraints upon the development of the other local and regional services in the Bristol area which operate from and to Cardiff. Capacity increases by way of train lengthening for peak services will also be considered.

4.3 It is intended that an Industry Strategic Business Plan will be published at the end of 2012 following the assessment of the HLOS specification and the detailed assessment and confirmation of those specific outputs and outcomes that the DfT would wish to purchase for England and Wales. FGW will continue to participate fully in the development and finalisation of this plan.

4.4 Network Rail has also commenced discussion within the industry for the next stage of industry planning, which would seek to address those issues which need to be considered in the medium term and so inform decision making for CP6, commencing in 2019. This so called Long Term Planning Process would seek to provide a more rounded assessment of demand for rail services and possible outcomes to address market needs, taking into account the recent Rail Value for Money study led by Sir Roy McNulty.

4.5 Network Rail has also sought to localise authority and accountability through its Devolution, with Wales being created as the tenth route on the Network. FGW continues to work closely with both Western and Wales routes to consider opportunities for enhancements in the network through innovation in existing maintenance and renewal activity.

4.6 Finally, the Department has recently published a consultation paper on Rail Decentralisation with a view to seeking opinion on how decision making on the operation of passenger rail services in England can be devolved to a more local level. This paper considers five options for devolution but notes that not all passenger services lend themselves readily to more local control, and that diseconomies can be introduced with potentially conflicting objectives from geographically adjacent authorities, particularly with local services operated on a potentially marginal basis.

4.7 Unlike Scotland, where the boundary interfaces of the rail network are limited to one location each on two cross-border routes, and with similarly discrete passenger services, the

24

interfaces on the rail network on the border between England and Wales are not as simple. This underpins the fact that the Department is not seeking decentralisation for cross border services in Wales beyond those already established.

5. Opportunities arising from planned investment in rail services serving Wales

5.1 There are numerous beneficial implications from the Great Western modernisation programme for the services that FGW currently operates. Electrification offers immediate environmental benefits in addition to improvements in reliability and performance, while the improved acceleration capability of electric rolling stock would assist with reductions in journey times. The combination of this scheme and the introduction of new high-speed trains through IEP offer opportunities for faster train services both within and between Wales and England. In its statement announcing the scheme, the Department for Transport stated that journey times to South Wales from London could be improved by as much as 19 minutes.

5.2 Following the completion of the Thameslink programme and the provision of a fleet of new trains for that route, it is expected that there will be a cascade of the electric trains, previously used on Thameslink, across the UK rail network. It is envisaged that this rolling stock may well be used on a number of services in the Thames Valley, enabling the cascade of diesel stock from that part of the FGW operation to Wales and the West. This stock is more reliable and has more capacity than that currently operated by FGW in these areas.

5.3 Since the announcement of the electrification programme for Great Western, the Government has reinforced its support for the modernisation of the rail system by further announcements for electrification, primarily in the North of England. It is likely that the current proposed programme of electrification schemes may be succeeded by additional projects, as the electrification of the rail network reaches a critical mass, making the business justification for additional electrification schemes easier to make.

5.4 A programme of further rail electrification for Wales might include the “Valley Lines” commuter network and the mainline west of Cardiff to Swansea.

Other routes that may come up for possible consideration for electrification include Bristol to Birmingham via Cheltenham (and Gloucester) as part of a wider initiative to electrify services between Bristol, Birmingham and the north.

5.5 If this was proposed, then there would be a case for considering electrification of the routes from Severn Tunnel Junction to Gloucester and the South Cotswold route from Swindon to Standish Junction (south of Gloucester). This would enhance connectivity between South Wales and the Midlands and also provide additional diversionary capability for London to South Wales services when the Severn Tunnel needs to be closed for maintenance equivalent to what is currently in place.

5.6 Network Rail is presently assessing whether the business case for linespeed improvements on the Gloucester to Severn Tunnel Junction route could attract funding from one of the

25

sources presently available in CP4. Such enhancements would improve journey times for services to/from South Wales on this corridor.

5.7 FGW regularly discusses cross-border connectivity with stakeholders in South Wales, including MPs, Welsh Government, AMs, local authority groupings like SWWITCH and SEWTA and business organisations such as BayTrans and Cardiff and Co.

6. New Lines/HS2

6.1 Over the last 12 months plans for a high speed line from London to the north have been developed to the extent that the Government now intends to seek the necessary planning consents and authority to construct a line – “HS2” - from London to the North via the West Midlands, with the first stage as far as Birmingham and the West Coast Mainline opening in 2026. It is intended that there will be an interchange between HS2 and the GW Mainline (and Crossrail services to Heathrow) provided at Old Oak Common two miles outside Paddington.

6.2 The case for high speed rail is based on faster connectivity between London and the key centres of population centres, together with benefit of capacity released on the classic rail network for improved local or interurban services and freight. Creation of a brand new dedicated high speed passenger line is regarded as a more cost efficient solution in the long term than discrete interventions on existing routes.

6.4 Proponents of high speed rail in the UK have suggested that HS2 could be the genesis of a wider domestic high speed rail network. However, it is clear from the outline proposals first published by the last Government in 2009-10 and more recent announcement by the current administration that any opportunity for a new high-speed rail network extending along the Great Western corridor is decades away.

6.5 Given the potential for improvement in journey times offered by electrification on the Great Western route as soon as 2016, this should be the immediate focus of infrastructure improvement.

6.6 However, the potential for journey time savings between London and Birmingham (and beyond) on HS2 does underline the importance for the competitiveness of South Wales of introducing route electrification and other infrastructure improvements described above as quickly as possible.

6.7 The Government has recently asked the rail industry to consider the possibilities for construction of a connection from the GW Mainline to Heathrow Airport to provide direct rail access from the west. Network Rail is presently carrying out studies on this proposal, which are at an early stage.

7. Conclusion

26

7.1 FGW is the most significant operator of services on the mainline between South Wales and England, and we continue to seek to provide an excellent and improving train service ensuring that we put our customers first. We believe that the forthcoming investment in the Great Western rail network will provide significant benefits to the rail passenger and the taxpayer and an essential piece of economic infrastructure needed to promote growth in South Wales.

7.2 We will remain a committed partner of the Department for Transport, the Welsh Government and Network in developing, securing and delivering schemes that ultimately provide improvements to our rail services whilst representing value for money. As such, FirstGroup was pleased to pre-qualify for the new Greater Western franchise competition and looks forward to submitting its bid in due course.

April 2012

27

Written evidence from Network Rail (TIW 07)

INQUIRY: CROSS-BORDER ROAD AND RAIL CONNECTIVITY

Summary

• Network Rail owns and operates the rail infrastructure across Great Britain. • Investing in rail is one of the most effective ways to help grow Britain’s economy. • The newly launched Wales Route is responsible for the rail infrastructure in Wales and the borders area. • Network Rail is delivering a number of projects to improve cross border rail services. • Network Rail regularly engages with the Welsh Government and is also an attendee of the Cross Border Rail Forum.

Introduction 1. Network Rail runs, maintains and develops Britain’s rail tracks, signalling, and other rail infrastructure including bridges, tunnels, level crossings and viaducts.

2. Network Rail sees its purpose as to generate outstanding value for taxpayers and rail users by continually improving the railway; and our role as to develop, maintain and operate the rail infrastructure in partnership with our customers, suppliers and other stakeholders.

3. When Network Rail was formed in 2002 the railway was facing a number of challenges. There were major safety concerns and punctuality levels were falling well short of what passengers expect, with a Public Performance Measure (PPM) of below 80%. Today the railway is safer whilst performance is at record levels with PPM above 91%.

4. This success is mirrored by demand. Today more people travel by rail than at any point since the 1920s - when the rail network was around twice its current size.

5. Every year 1.3 billion journeys are made on Britain’s railway and 100 million tonnes of freight is transported by rail between ports, factories and shops.

6. Demand is still increasing. Over the next 30 years passenger demand for rail across Britain will double and freight demand is expected to go up by 140%. In Wales demand is set to rise by an estimated 31% in the decade from 2009 to 2019.

7. Network Rail’s vision is to improve the rail network by providing faster, more frequent and more reliable journeys between Britain’s towns and cities.

8. Rail investment helps to stimulate private sector growth by linking towns and cities and is one of the most effective ways to help grow Britain’s economy.

28

9. In more rural areas the railway performs a vital lifeline helping reduce isolation and strengthen communities by bringing vital health and education services closer and expanding other opportunities such as trips to leisure centres and shops.

Network Rail in Wales

10. The railway infrastructure in Wales and the borders area is managed by Network Rail’s Wales route.

11. The Wales route was launched in November 2011 and its creation was aligned with Network Rail’s drive to increase its responsiveness and accountability by devolving to a more local level.

12. The new Wales business unit oversees the management and operation of the railway in south Wales, mid Wales, north Wales and the Marches – broadly reflecting the Wales and Borders franchise area - from a headquarters in Cardiff.

13. Devolution and the creation of the new Wales route places the company closer to our customers and other stakeholders in Wales. As well as being more responsive to local needs and demands, devolution will also allow us to deliver a railway that is more cost efficient and better value for money for the taxpayer.

14. The Wales route is led by the route managing director who has responsibility for safety, operations, maintenance and asset management. This is a major step forward and offers opportunities to deliver tailored improvements and drive efficiencies on the route as previously these functions were managed from a number of different locations including Swindon, Birmingham and Manchester.

Improving Cross Border Rail Links

15. Network Rail is working with a number of different stakeholders to improve cross border links between Wales and England.

16. A number of projects have been delivered to date leading to improved passenger services by increasing capacity, improving connectivity, reducing journey times and improving reliability. For example:

 West Coast Main Line Upgrade – completed in December 2008 the project delivered reduced journey times between North Wales and London as well as providing additional direct services.  Newport Area Signalling Renewal – the re-signalling project delivered performance benefits as well as improving the track layout in the Severn Tunnel Junction area.

29

 Newport Station Re-development – the refurbished station opened in time for the 2010 Ryder Cup. The new station is almost twice the size of the original station and will cater for the expected growth in passenger numbers.

Passengers at the station now have improved accessibility, with step free access from both terminals onto all platforms. The station also benefits from increased and improved parking facilities.

 Cambrian Line – a new signalling system, the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), as well as a Welsh Government funded enhancement project provides the opportunity to offer additional passenger services on the Cambrian Line.

17. Network Rail is also in the planning and delivery stage for a number of other projects that will deliver significant benefits for passengers:

 Electrification of the Great Western Main Line – the project to electrify the Great Western Main Line from Cardiff to London Paddington was confirmed by the Secretary of State for Transport on March 1st 2011.

The electrification project along with a re-modelling of the timetable will help to deliver journey time improvements to London from both Cardiff and Swansea. The new rolling stock will also offer more seats per carriage compared to the existing rolling stock.

 Reading Station Area Redevelopment – the major redevelopment of the railway in the Reading area will deliver extra capacity and improved performance benefiting all South Wales to London services.

 Swindon to Kemble – a Department for Transport funded scheme to re-double the Severn Tunnel diversionary route between Swindon and Kemble. The project will result in greater operational flexibility for South Wales services at times when the Severn Tunnel is closed.

 North - South Wales Journey Improvements – a Welsh Government funded project to improve journey times and frequency on the key North – South Wales route. The project will help meet growing North-South Wales passenger demand whilst also improving connectivity with Chester and Shrewsbury.

 Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton Linespeed Improvements – to be completed by 2015 and benefits all services between Aberystwyth and Shrewsbury to and from Wolverhampton and Birmingham.

30

 Hereford Station Signalling Improvements – this project improves signalling capacity and capability in and around the Hereford Area and will benefit all Arriva Trains Wales services between Newport and Shrewsbury and London Midland services from Hereford to Worcester and Birmingham.

Control Period 5 Preparation

18. Funding for the Operation, Maintenance, Renewals and Enhancement of the railway is made over periods of five years termed Control Periods.

19. The present Control Period (CP4) finishes on 31st March 2014. Ahead of the next Control Period, Network Rail, alongside the Association of Train Operating Companies, the Rail Freight Operators’ Association and the Railway Industries Association, published the Initial Industry Plan (IIP) in September 2011.

20. The publication of the IIP marked the first major step in the process that will inform decisions to be made by governments (DfT for England and Wales; Transport Scotland for Scotland) and the Office of Rail Regulation affecting the railways in Control Period 5.

21. This document defines the projects that Network Rail suggests that governments consider for funding through the High Level Output Specification (HLOS) which will be published during the summer of 2012.

22. Network Rail, train operators and industry suppliers believe continued investment in rail would deliver major benefits for the country and they set out options for investment which if adopted in full would:

 Stimulate economic growth by better linking Britain’s’ cities.

 Maintain high levels of reliability and safety, focussing on areas in particular need of improvement.

 Better meet passengers’ needs in key areas such as journey information, comfort and accessibility to drive continued improvement in customer satisfaction.

 Reduce the industry’s carbon emissions per passenger kilometre.

23. In July 2012 the UK Government will publish the High Level Output Statement (HLOS) for CP5. This will confirm the outputs for England and Wales that the UK Government wishes to buy from the railway which is linked by the Government to a Statement of

31

Funds Available (SoFA). The SoFA confirms how much funding will be available to deliver the outputs defined within the HLOS.

24. Following the HLOS Network Rail will develop the Strategic Business Plan (SBP) setting out how the outputs required within the HLOS can be delivered for the funding available within the SoFA.

25. During 2013 the SBP is finalised and confirmed with Government and the ORR in advance of the commencement of CP5 in April 2014.

26. The Welsh Government is part of the ongoing discussions with the UK Government around the HLOS settlement and is consulted by UK Government and the ORR during the development and finalisation of the SBP.

Stakeholder Relations

27. Network Rail has a formal meeting schedule in situ with the Welsh Government. We regularly meet with both the minister responsible for transport (Minister for Local Government and Communities) and senior officials in the Integrated Transport department.

28. There are also numerous regular client meetings to discuss individual projects with Welsh Government officials. Additionally we have engaged closely with the Welsh Government over their aspirations for Valley Lines electrification and electrification of the main line from Cardiff to Swansea.

29. Network Rail attends and reports to the bi-annual Cross Border Rail Forum, which brings together the English border local authorities, Department for Transport, Welsh Government and Arriva Trains Wales.

30. Additionally Network Rail regularly meets with representatives of local authorities on both sides of the border as well as the Welsh transport consortia to discuss specific rail projects as well as wider issues and aspirations around rail services.

Wales Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS)

31. The Wales RUS, published in November 2008, sets out the strategic vision for the future of the rail network in Wales, and was developed following a now well-established process, including extensive stakeholder involvement.

32. The Wales RUS closely aligns the Welsh Government’s National Transport Plan and the Wales Spatial Plan.

32

33. The cross border elements of the Wales RUS are further supplemented by the Great Western, Northern and Merseyside RUSs which provide a strategic viewpoint of the interfaces and cross border issues that effect, South, Mid and North Wales.

April 2012

33

Written Evidence from the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (UK) Cymru Wales (TIW 08)

Executive Summary • Overall, the cross-border provision of rail services has improved since the last Welsh Affairs Committee enquiry, particularly in mid- and south Wales. • We support the electrification of the Great Western Main Line and Valley Lines, but contend that it should be extended to Swansea, to the benefit of both local and intercity services. • It appears that there will be no net benefit to Wales from the High Speed 2 investment, considering both transport service provision and regional competitiveness, and a long term strategy for further lines is needed. • Freight volumes from Wales have particularly declined which, combined with the Severn Bridge toll, impacts negatively on the logistics industry in Wales. • There is a need for cross-border coordination on roads policy to ensure that the connectivity of Wales is not compromised by England-centric decision making. • Concessionary bus passes illustrate a lack of joined up thinking, whereby Wales pass holders cannot travel in journeys solely within England, and vice versa.

Introduction 1. The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (UK) Cymru Wales welcomes the committee’s decision to carry out a further investigation into cross-border transport services. The nature of Wales’s geography means that many journeys for passengers and freight need to pass between the two countries, yet with devolution there is a need to ensure that such links are not neglected.

2. Our evidence is structured around the main transport modes – road transport and rail transport. In both cases, we focus upon current service provision and use. With rail transport, we also comment on two of the major policy announcements made recently – the High Speed 2 line and electrification. For road transport, we provide some evidence of our experiences in a recent policy consultation.

Rail transport

Current services 3. Since the last investigation into cross-border rail provision, there have been several changes to the services provided, including: • The extension of Arriva Train Wales services from mid-Wales to Birmingham International. This now provides a direct connection to Birmingham Airport, as well as an alternative interchange for London services. • The ending in January 2011 of the Wrexham and Shropshire railway service, which provided regular London services for North West Wales. Although Virgin Trains retains a daily return service to Wrexham via Chester, the overall effect is detrimental.

34

• Additional stops at Chepstow for Arriva Cross Country services. These appear to have enough passengers for the stops to continue for the time being. • New and additional intermodal freight services, including the train operated for Tesco between Daventry and Wentloog and a second daily Freightliner service from Southampton to Wentloog.

4. In the context of passenger services, both the West Coast and Great Western franchises are to be re-tendered during the next few years. Consequently, there have been consultations on the new franchises issued by the DfT. In relation to the former, CILT(UK) Cymru Wales highlighted that the proposed agreement merely continued the current service provision as specified in the current franchise. Therefore, an earlier train from London to Bangor, a local stakeholder aspiration, is not specified. Further, the Wrexham service is not included as it is commercially operated by the current franchisee and could therefore be seen to be at risk under the new franchise.

5. With the Great Western franchise, our members highlighted the importance of electrification extending to Swansea, an issue discussed in more detail later. The value of maintaining the Cardiff to Portsmouth service was also highlighted, as there is a suggestion in the consultation that such services should be broken into shorter journeys. However, CILT suggested that the local service from Cardiff to Bristol, departing on the hour, be transferred to the Wales and Borders franchise so as to enable it to be operated by electric trains.

6. Finally, freight services have increased in recent years, particularly to and from South Wales. The continued presence of Freight Facility Grants as compared to England and Scotland is a factor behind this. The recently introduced Tesco service between Daventry and Wentloog benefited from such funding, and also Mode Shift Revenue Support funding from the DfT, highlighting joint working between these two bodies.

Electrification 7. As an Institute, we have welcomed the electrification of the Great Western Main Line. This will give the opportunity to improve journey times, the quality of service on the route, provide a degree of future proofing in terms of energy supply. However, we are concerned as to the provision of bi-modal IEP trains on the route. The logic of transporting a diesel engine around to only use it for the last 47.5 miles between Cardiff and Swansea seems flawed. In fact, with only 11 fully electric units proposed in the Great Western franchise consultation, it seems highly likely that many services to Cardiff will be bi-mode trains.

8. Instead, we would welcome the extension of electrification to Swansea. As well as services to London, this would also enable a local electric service to run, possibly sharing rolling stock with an electrified Cardiff Valleys service. In particular, we have previously suggested a Swansea to Bath service that could replace the local Cardiff to Bristol service.

35

Impact of HS2 9. The CILT has welcomed the provision of additional rail capacity through the development of the High Speed 2 line. However, we have also raised concerns that the benefits will be limited to the corridors which are served, and that improving connectivity to London for certain locations through shorter journey times may be detrimental to the competitiveness of Wales (and other parts of the UK) when it comes to attracting investment. For example, Manchester and Leeds which are comparable now will be nearer in journey time than Cardiff, while Newcastle will be about the same journey time to London.

10. In the context of North Wales, the direct services to London will not use HS2 due to their diesel traction and will continue to use the West Coast Main Line. With some capacity being freed up on this route, there may be an opportunity for additional London trains, subject to rolling stock being available. However, there is also a need to fully understand what services will be provided once HS2 is operational. In particular, there is a need to ensure that direct Intercity services are retained, so that North Wales services do not become an extension of London to Crewe inter-urban services with a longer journey time and lower quality of rolling stock.

11. Finally, as an Institute we have put forward that HS2 should not be seen in isolation, but as part of a progressive network of lines that, while initially radiating from London, in the very long term would also provide regional connections. This would reflect the network development strategy for high speed lines in France. In the context of Wales, this would include a South Wales to London link, followed by a Bristol to Birmingham connection. The former would also provide the opportunity to provide an alternative to the Severn Tunnel. In fact, there could be a case for incorporating provision for such a link in any future developments that span the Severn.

Road transport

Current usage 12. In terms of the use of the road network, Table 1 shows the average annual daily flow of vehicles for 2010 on the main roads that cross the Wales-England border, arranged from north to south. It is clear that the cross border routes in North Wales play a vital role in integrating areas like Wrexham and Flintshire into the metropolitan area surrounding Liverpool, including Chester. The A550 also provides the link between the M56 and the A55 towards Holyhead, and is clearly the main route taken by freight vehicles accessing North Wales.

36

Light Pedal Motor- Cars & Buses & Rigid Artic All Road Location Goods Cycles cycles Taxis Coaches HGVs HGVs vehicles Vehicles

A550 Flintshire 0 335 54307 289 7110 3107 3060 68208

A5104 Flintshire 166 88 8434 282 1199 183 36 10388

A55 Flintshire 0 314 35680 130 3235 1903 1151 42413

A483 Wrexham 0 130 27869 125 4891 1693 1784 36492

A534 Wrexham 12 110 5444 48 995 246 240 7095

A525 Wrexham 3 46 6869 58 1516 330 344 9166

A528 Wrexham 20 38 2546 24 392 68 41 3129

A5 Shropshire 12 182 19018 102 3255 813 1145 24527

A483 Powys 4 80 6011 87 1576 438 487 8683

A458 Powys 3 23 5867 66 1272 332 330 7893

A490 Powys 4 7 1492 0 379 109 68 2059

A489 Powys 9 42 2688 18 536 166 86 3545

A488 Powys 20 12 1349 33 390 79 16 1899

A4113 Powys 6 18 2018 12 489 153 125 2821

A44 Powys 1 30 2413 25 390 267 161 3287

A438 Hereford 14 98 4258 23 893 196 166 5648

A465 Hereford 2 59 3805 54 1056 257 181 5414

A466 Monmouth 5 15 1900 52 325 39 7 2343

A40 Monmouth 3 57 18079 87 3292 1042 2790 25350

M48 Monmouth 0 413 15403 87 1944 564 1399 19810

M4 Monmouth 0 448 46632 330 7366 1893 5367 62036

Table 1: Average Annual Daily Flows 2010

37

(Source: DfT statistics, www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts)

13. Moving further south, the A5 remains an important link, capturing traffic heading from Shrewsbury towards North Wales. Access to mid Wales is particularly concentrated on the routes from Wrexham and Shrewsbury (A483 and A458 respectively). The remaining routes in mid-Wales have lower traffic volumes, and across all types of vehicle.

14. In South Wales, the main routes are the A40, M48 and M4.Unlike the main routes in North Wales, these are trunk routes where longer distance connections are as important as the more local markets they serve. There are also notable flows on the A438 and A465, reflecting traffic flows to/from Brecon and Abergavenny. Interestingly, the total number of vehicles using the cross-border routes is less than for North Wales. This also applies for the individual vehicle types as well, with the exception of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). The greater prevalence of these reflects the higher population in the south, and the need for deliveries to satisfy consumer demand.

Freight movements 15. While the above gives a reasonable insight into the movement of passengers across the Wales-England border, freight services are less clear. Table 2 provides a 20 year perspective on freight demand into and out of Wales. At the start of this period, the amount of freight leaving Wales grew but, since 1998, has gradually been declining with 2009 and 2010 being lower than 1990 levels. By contrast, freight moving into Wales has continued to grow, and now exceeds outbound freight. The previous enquiry by the Welsh Affairs Committee into the Severn Bridge Tolls highlighted the pressure on logistics providers in Wales, and the shifting balance in freight flows exacerbates this even more. Reasons for this change include lower consumer demand, the closure of manufacturing facilities and changes in distribution networks.

38

To Wales From Wales

Year (thousand tonnes) (thousand tonnes)

1990 22811 25197

1991 24152 27972

1992 21753 24640

1993 24585 24897

1994 25607 26727

1995 24537 29618

1996 25117 31220

1997 25017 32109

1998 27337 33388

1999 24096 26669

2000 29031 30334

2001 26684 28274

2002 26495 29609

2003 26458 27908

2004 26499 27090

2005 30063 30325

2006 29365 26360

2007 31154 28865

2008 27985 29443

2009 28054 22842

2010 27138 23586

Table 2: Freight volumes to/from Wales (Source: Wales Transport Statistics, http://wales.gov.uk/docs/statistics/2011/111122wts2010ch3ency.pdf)

39

Cross-border road policy

16. In terms of cross-border road policy, our only experience of this came with a consultation by the Department for Transport on their Strategic National Corridors (SNC) consultation in 2010. In this consultation, the only route allocated SNC status was to be the M4 between Cardiff and Bristol. Our response identified additional routes that should be included, such as the A40 link towards Birmingham and routes into North Wales, both of which are already part of Trans-European Network routes. The DfT response to this in 2011 was interesting, highlighting that CILT(UK) Cymru Wales was the only Welsh based response to the consultation. Consequently, many of our suggestions were discounted on the basis that not enough people suggested them.

Bus and coach services 17. The bus network mirrors passenger demand and local bus routes, particularly in the central corridor of Wales, invariably have destinations in England to maintain their viability. Chester, Shrewsbury, Hereford, and Bristol are all key destinations. The bus services perform local journey functions throughout their route in Wales and over the border in England. In many cases, the bus services would not survive in their current form without the attractiveness of the English city destinations.

18. Bus travel to and from Bristol is adversely affected by the toll charge on the Severn Bridges, as operators have a higher base cost to offering any improved frequency, and consequently improving bus and coach links between Wales and Bristol has a greater financial risk. Bus services are currently limited to an hourly service between Newport and Bristol, which largely caters for commuting and daytime travellers.

19. Coach services are an important and potentially growing feature of cross border transport links. Both National Express and Megabus services have been enhanced for 2012 with a mixture of improved service frequencies, additional routes and by using longer and larger capacity vehicles.

20. There are laid down rules for Welsh Concessionary pass holders in Wales and similarly for English pass holders in England. Currently Welsh Concessionary pass holders must start their journey in Wales and, if the bus they are on goes into England, they can travel on the bus to its final destination. There does not appear to be a well understood approach for Welsh Concessionary Pass holders who want to travel only in England or Scotland or vice versa. For example, a Welsh Concessionary pass holder visiting friends or relatives in England would have to pay a full fare to use the bus, although similarly aged people from anywhere in England would be able to travel for free. This seems to be against policies to encourage sustainable transport throughout the United Kingdom.

40

Conclusion 21. Our evidence shows that there is a continued demand for both rail and road services across the Wales-England border. These cover a wide variety of different uses, including both long and short distance journeys. For cross-border services, their viability is often dependent upon use in both Wales and England. In terms of policy coordination, there appears to be a mixed picture with good coordination in some areas and less coordination in others. Electrification should bring a good level of benefit to South Wales, although the full benefit will only be realised through extending the wires to Swansea. High Speed 2, on the other hand, may have a detrimental effect on Wales, both in terms of service provision in the North and competitiveness against parts of England more generally.

About The Chartered Institute Of Logistics And Transport (UK) 22. The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (UK) is the pre-eminent independent professional body for individuals associated with logistics, supply chains and transport planning. The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT) International—formerly The Chartered Institute of Transport—was formed in 1919 and was granted its Royal Charter in 1926. Growth of its overseas sections led to a restructuring in 1994 under which 10 national councils were established in various parts of the world. The Institute operates as a co-ordinating body and custodian of the Royal Charter.

23. The Institute of Logistics and Transport was formed in June 1999, following the integration of The Institute of Logistics and The Chartered Institute of Transport in the UK. In April 2004 the Institute's membership voted in favour of ILT adopting the word "Chartered" into its title. In May 2004 the Institute officially became The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in the UK—CILT(UK). In Wales, CILT(UK) Cymru Wales is responsible for the organisation of events for local members and also comments on transport policy issues which apply to Wales. It is on this basis that we are providing evidence to this Committee. We have over 600 members within Wales, covering transport planning as well as passenger transport and logistics operations.

April 2012

41

Written evidence from Rail Freight Group (TIW 09)

Executive Summary

• Rail Freight Group is pleased to submit this evidence on behalf of the UK rail freight industry. • The submission starts by explaining the commercial and customer contexts in which rail freight operates. • Rail Freight Group’s latest rail freight demand forecasts, covering the next 20 years, are outlined and explained in a Welsh context with reference to recent new flows. • The current capability of the rail network in Wales is reviewed and the barrier it presents to rail freight growth, unless there is significant investment, particularly in ‘loading gauge’ capability, is stressed. • Omission of the rail network in Wales from developments associated with the Strategic Freight Network is highlighted while the need for 24/7 capability is stressed. • Rail freight opportunities arising from extension of current electrification proposals in South Wales, and from electrification in North Wales are discussed. • The need to ensure network capacity for existing and growth freight flows is protected is highlighted. • The need for ever closer alignment of UK and Welsh Government policies is explained.

Introduction

1. The Rail Freight Group (RFG) is the representative body for the UK rail freight industry. Our objective is to grow the volume of goods moved by rail in a cost effective way. We work to influence Government and transport policies in support of rail freight and to help our members to develop their rail freight services and therefore we welcome this opportunity to submit evidence to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee Inquiry into cross- border road and rail connectivity.

2. Rail freight operates wholly in the private sector and its customers’ needs are often linked to global supply chains and distribution strategies which cross international boundaries. RFG has therefore concentrated this submission on those issues that impact on the movement of rail freight to and from Wales and on those factors which affect RFG members’ decision making. We have not commented on other areas being investigated by the inquiry which are outside RFG’s remit and scope.

3. RFG believes that a competitive, commercially led market place works most effectively for rail freight. Freight movements are based around national and international distribution patterns and on appropriate cost criteria. Companies will only switch routes or modes where it fits, operationally and financially, with their logistics and distribution networks and plans.

42

Demand Forecasting

4. RFG published its “Updated Rail Freight Demand Forecasts to 2030”1 in October 2011. These forecasts build on previous figures and have been widely accepted within the rail freight industry and by the UK Department for Transport (DfT). The figures indicate an overall doubling of rail freight by 2030, with the growth concentrated in the intermodal sector including deep-sea and short-sea container flows to/from the ports as well as domestic flows.

5. RFG understands that while Wales currently generates some 2% of all UK rail passenger movements it receives or despatches about 15% of all UK rail freight. However, this is almost entirely in the “bulk” sectors, eg coal, metals and aggregates, with very little penetration of the intermodal market except for a limited number of trains each day to/from the Wentloog Terminal in South Wales.

6. There is no reason why the forecast growth in rail freight over the 20 years should be concentrated solely on the existing key routes such as those between Felixstowe and Southampton and the West Midlands, the North West and Scotland. Providing the rail infrastructure offers appropriate capability (axle-loading, loading gauge) and capacity, growth will occur across the network, including the cross-border links with Wales.

7. The new Tesco service between Daventry and Wentloog is an excellent example of how growth can occur in the domestic intermodal market in a Welsh context. Changing to rail fits with the company’s emerging distribution patterns while the availability of appropriate grants jointly from both DfT and the Welsh Government (WG) made the modal switch financially viable.

Current rail network capability for freight

8. The “Wales Route Utilisation Strategy” published by Network Rail in 2008, shows that while the North and South Wales main lines, plus the Marches Route from Newport to Chester and Crewe, are capable of handling traffic loaded to the maximum axle weight, all these routes plus the lines from South Wales through the Severn Tunnel and to the Midlands have a restricted ‘loading gauge’ that precludes rail movement of many of the larger containers now used in both deep-sea and short-sea shipping unless specialised wagons are used.

9. The “Freight Route Utilisation Strategy” published by Network Rail in 2007 indicated a long term aspiration to enhance the loading gauge capability of the lines from the Severn Tunnel and Gloucester to Cardiff to the “W10” dimensions required to allow 9ft 6ins high containers, increasingly used in both the deep-sea and European markets, to be

1http://www.rfg.org.uk/userfiles/file/Rail%20Freight%20Demand%20Forecasts%20to%202030_ver2.pdf

43

transported on normal wagons. Extension of this capability westwards to Port Talbot, Swansea or Milford Haven would become an aspiration in the event of a development at any of these locations, as would provision of this capability along the North Wales main line if there were developments at Holyhead.

10. It is therefore clear that the rail network in Wales and across the border with England currently acts as a barrier to rail freight growth. Although the potential for further growth in the “bulk” freight markets cannot be overlooked, for example recent additional flows of timber into Kronospan at Chirk also aided by grants from both DfT and WG, the growth in the intermodal market in Wales will be constrained unless there is significant investment in the rail infrastructure to provide enhanced loading gauge capability. This particularly applies to the potential growth of cross-border intermodal movements to/from the existing major ports in the South East of England as well as growth arising from port developments in South or North Wales or from increased movements directly to/from Europe via the Channel Tunnel. Although 9ft 6ins containers can be moved on special wagons where the loading gauge is less that “W10”, there are only limited numbers of such wagons available and their deployment adds both costs and complexity.

11. The development by DfT and Network Rail of the concept of the Strategic Freight Network, the latest investments in which were announced in the Chancellor’s Autumn 2011 Financial Statement, does not include any enhancements of the Welsh rail network, or cross-border links, which will therefore continue to be constrained, particularly in terms of loading gauge.

12. Equally important is the developing concept of the 24/7 railway which is essential if the service requirements of freight customers are to be achieved. This means that appropriate diversionary routes are identified and kept available in the event that principal freight routes have to be closed for any reason. Again, it is important the principal links to/from and within Wales are protected in this way if the potential for growth is to be achieved.

Electrification

13. Current plans for electrification of the Great Western main line as far as Cardiff could offer significant benefits to rail freight but also represent a significant lost opportunity. There is a clear synergy between electrification and enhanced loading gauge dimensions as any structures that need to be rebuilt for electrification are reconstructed at the improved gauge, usually “W10”. However, certain structures which would need to be modified for gauge enhancement may not need attention for electrification. As a result the industry is lobbying for gauge clearance to be undertaken in parallel with electrification and funded accordingly. Assuming this is the case, the current constraint on moving containers to/from the ports of Newport and Cardiff as well as the intermodal terminal at Wentloog will be removed.

44

14. However, based on the present plans the “Relief Lines” between the Severn Tunnel and Cardiff will not be electrified as part of the scheme. This means that electric hauled freight trains will not be able to access the Wentloog terminal, the Tata Works at Llanwern or the ports of Newport and Cardiff. Similarly, unless electrification is extended to Swansea there will be no possibility of electric hauled freight trains accessing the Tata Steelworks at Port Talbot or the ports of Port Talbot and Swansea.

15. RFG is pressing for the electrification programme to include the Relief Lines between the Severn Tunnel and Cardiff as well as the lines west from Cardiff to Swansea. Such additional works are essential to unlock the potential for improved rail freight connectivity and the support of the Committee for these extensions to the existing electrification plans will be extremely valuable. Even though rail freight currently makes little use of electric traction, this will change as a wider electrified network is created on freight routes, providing the adjacent yards and facilities are also electrified and the power supply is sufficient for freight trains.

16. In a similar context, electrification of the North Wales main line, with consequent provision of “W10” gauge capability through to Holyhead, would provide new opportunities for rail freight to and from the port, particularly for the movement of containers, and to other freight terminals that might be established. The potential for viable freight flows along this line to be developed was demonstrated in the March 2011 TAITH report of its North Wales Rail Freight Study which included consideration of a “Landbridge” operation of through freight trains for Irish traffic between Holyhead and France via the Channel Tunnel.

Policy Context

17. In addition to securing improved infrastructure capability for the rail lines connecting with England and serving the main industrial sites, terminals and ports in Wales, it is equally important that the rail network capacity to handle the existing flows as well as the growth in rail freight is protected when plans for upgrades of the track layouts or signalling, and for additional stations and/or passenger services, are being developed. Use of the rail network must always be treated holistically with full consideration given to both passengers and freight.

18. There is also a clear need for ever closer alignment of DfT and WG policies and the recent joint awards of grants for new/additional freight flows are encouraging signs of this co- operation. Which Government controls the funding is not necessarily that important, but it is vital that strategies and decisions on both sides of the border are aligned. Most of the existing rail freight flows in Wales, as well as those that might come from, for example, future port developments in Wales are, and will continue to be, cross border with England. Investment decisions must therefore reflect this reality. It would not make sense, for example, if Welsh ports could not be developed because DfT was unwilling to support

45

any network upgrades required on the English side even though WG would support the enhancements required up to the Border.

Conclusions

19. RFG believes the current rail network in Wales represents a barrier to cross border rail freight connectivity, and that considerable investment in the infrastructure will be required to allow rail to play a full role in serving increased traffic between Wales and England, Ireland and mainland Europe. In particular, investment in the provision of enhanced loading gauge capability will be required if the growth is to come from containerised traffics, although electrification in South Wales and in North Wales could present a significant opportunity in this context.

April 2012

46

Written evidence from Railfuture (TIW 10)

Railfuture is pleased to submit this consolidated national response on Cross-Border Road and Rail Connectivity, jointly prepared by Railfuture Wales, the Railfuture Policy Committee, and with contributions from individual branches.

Railfuture is a national voluntary organisation structured in England as twelve regional branches, and two national branches in Scotland and Wales.

1. The extent to which cross-border public road and rail services are currently provided for and accessed by the Welsh population.

1. There has been no increase in the total of Cross Border rail services since your previous inquiry with the exception of Sundays. The following changes have taken place. • the introduction of additional services by Virgin West Coast from London to Holyhead. Virgin however, has not reintroduced the service they previously provided from Holyhead to London as a connection from the evening ferry services from Dublin. • the Wrexham to Marylebone service has been withdrawn. • a daily (weekdays) additional service from Wrexham to Euston. • an increase in the Sunday service from Cardiff to Manchester from two hourly to hourly by Arriva Trains Wales. Unfortunately there are poor connections into and out of these new services for places west of Cardiff. • additional stops at Chepstow by Cardiff to Nottingham services on weekdays but the withdrawal of one daily Cardiff to Gloucester and return service. • there has been an increase in capacity between Cardiff and Bristol Temple Meads but this has not solved the overcrowding problems on services between these two cities. • the capacity between South Wales and London has remained static but there has been a decrease in capacity on Saturdays and Sundays whenever trains are diverted via Gloucester or Newbury and this is likely to increase in the future as upgrade work continues on the Great Western main line for Crossrail, Reading improvements and Electrification. • capacity continues to be reduced between Swansea and Paddington when events such as the Glastonbury and Cheltenham festivals take place and this leads both to overcrowding and poorer services for passengers especially to/from places west of Cardiff where journey times can be substantially increased. • the poor connections (55 minutes) between West Wales to Manchester and Hereford to Birmingham services continue to exist at Hereford.

2. The following change is anticipated- Railfuture welcomed the ATW decision to extend their Maesteg/Cardiff to Gloucester service to and from Cheltenham. This has provided connections with half hourly Cross Country services all of which do not call at Gloucester. We now understand that ATW wish to terminate one of the extended services at Gloucester from May 2012 thus leaving a gap in excess of two hours in the late afternoon.

47

3. Railfuture has observed an increase in the number of passengers using cross border services with capacity problems on some services. The additional Sunday services between Cardiff and Manchester are well used, including passengers from the Bristol area who join the trains at Newport.

4. Railfuture is concerned about the decline in connectivity between rail services and ferry services to Ireland. The Summer Stena High Speed ferry service from Fishguard to Rosslare has been discontinued from 2012, as has the winter service between Holyhead and Dun Laoghaire from 2011. The terminal building adjacent to the station at Holyhead is not now used in winter and all ferry (Stena and Irish Ferries) passengers at Holyhead are now transferred from the station to the ferry by bus. This can place constraints on the number of foot passengers carried if a system of pre booking is not in place. We appreciate timetable adjustments by ATW from May 2012 to provide improved connections from the rescheduled morning ferries from Dublin Port

5. We provide more detail below for the various cross border rail services in South East Monmouthshire to illustrate the problems that exist. A more detailed transcript is available.

a. South Wales to Bristol Temple Meads - Overcrowding continues not just at the weekday peak but also at weekends especially in summer, pre Christmas and when events are being held in Cardiff. First Great Western have done a great deal to reduce overcrowding over the last couple of years with 50% increase on coaching stock on the Portsmouth services throughout the day and 50% increase in coaches on the peak time Cardiff - Taunton services. The heaviest loaded train is the 07:30 departure from Cardiff, which is now diagrammed as five-car train, after campaigning by a Monmouthshire County Councillor at the SEWTA Board meetings. The present demand is not provided for and there is no provision for considerable anticipated growth.

b. Chepstow to Bristol Corridor - Connections for passengers living in Caldicot and Chepstow are basically acceptable in the peak by changing at Severn Tunnel Junction into Cardiff to Portsmouth services, which were removed in December 2006, but gradually reinstated following local campaigns. Connections are effectively non- existent off peak due to the poor frequency of service on the line and lack of connecting Bristol line services. Chepstow is the same distance in rail mileage to Bristol Temple Meads as Trowbridge. During the day journey times from Trowbridge to Bristol are about 40 minutes, from Chepstow the majority are 100 minutes and this involves going all the way north to Cheltenham to change to come all the way back south again through Parkway to Temple Meads some 80 miles almost four times the distance compared with changing at Severn Tunnel Junction if suitable services and connections were provided.

c. South Wales to Birmingham. The slow all stations ATW service from Maesteg to Cheltenham provides good connections at Cheltenham. Unfortunately as this service runs every two hours at certain times, there is an urgent need for this service to be upgraded to hourly throughout the week. Chepstow has seen considerable

48

improvements with seven additional Cross Country trains each way giving a through service via Birmingham. This is trial for one year only and does not serve Caldicot or Severn Tunnel Junction.

d. Services via Gloucester to London - via Kemble The problem is lack of connections during the day in the London direction, often a wait of half an hour to an hour at Gloucester though there are reasonable connections into the two hourly ATW service coming back the other way.

e. Services to London via Newport. Passengers from South East Monmouthshire have to first travel west to Newport where the half hourly service to Paddington (Mondays to Fridays only) from Newport provides a good service. The problem for South East Monmouthsire passengers is getting to Newport from Chepstow and Caldicot with their two hourly service. The additional Cross Country services from Chepstow do not help much in this direction as they arrive at about the same time as the London departures at Newport so in addition to the twenty minute journey the ‘wrong way’ passengers have the half hour wait for the next service.

f. Services to London via Bristol - In theory Severn Tunnel Junction has a reasonable service to London i.e. hourly and an overall journey time of just over two hours but it involves changing twice, once at Filton Abbey Wood with a six minute connection and then a nine minute connection at Bristol Parkway. It’s not a very reliable service and very few passengers’ risk using it for this reason and the need for a double change. This lack of reliability plus the need for two changes results in most passengers using Newport for the London service, adding at least an extra half hour to the overall two hour journey time.

g. Bristol Parkway - There is no direct service from South East Monmouthshire to this important north south interchange hub. There is also a lack of connectivity between Chepstow and the South Coast and West of England with at least two connections being required.

6. We provide comments on the Crewe to Shrewsbury line which although completely in England is worked by Arriva Trains Wales. It is an interesting case inasmuch as it starts in Shropshire and ends in Cheshire, so crosses an English regional boundary. We would like to see an increased service into and out of Shrewsbury. However, we understand the main flow is in and out of Crewe, particularly from Nantwich. The slowing of the Manchester to South Wales service is illustrative of the point that both the needs of long distance travellers (mainly journeys starting or finishing in Wales) and those who are only travelling locally (mainly just within England) are equally valid. There is a need to maintain a fair balance between these competing but valid aims. There is concern that a strong lead from the Welsh Government could be detrimental to purely English issues Conversely there is a need for DfT to provide the resources and finance for ATW to fulfil the requirements outlined. An improved local service is the responsibility of DfT and not Welsh Government. There is concern that this part of England does not have a strong regional lead on transport issues; services along this

49

line being within three separate English counties, Herefordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire East.

2. The arrangements currently in place to co-ordinate cross-border road and rail transport service provision.

1. Welsh Government has bi annual meetings with adjoining counties served by Arriva Trains Wales. We are not aware of any meetings between the DfT and stakeholders in Wales with regard to services provided by FGW, Arriva Cross Country and Virgin.

2. Some passengers commence their journeys in England travel for a section of their journey in Wales, perhaps making a connection at Newport, and terminate their journey in England. Conversely other passengers connect their journey in Wales travel for a section of their journey in England, perhaps making a connection at Shrewsbury, Crewe or Chester and terminate their journey. This illustrates the need for cross border coordination between the providers of rail transport.

3. The coordinating role of Passenger Focus has diminished and it now does not perform any cross border functions. In addition in England it has responsibility for the effectiveness of bus services but in Wales this function is performed by Bus Users UK. Passenger Focus does not have any staff based in Wales.

4. Travel Line Cymru does not provide information on bus services in England but passes on requests for bus service information to Travel Line offices in England. Travel Line does not provide fare information. However NRES provides cross border rail service and fares information.

5. Whereas meetings were held in England early in the year to discuss the Great Western Franchise no parallel meetings were organised in Wales. A further sequence of meetings was organised in England in March 2012 to discuss the consultation document but none were planned to be held in Wales. Railfuture drew this to the attention of both Welsh Government and Passenger Focus and subsequently a meeting was arranged for late March.

6. The newly created Public Transport Users Committee for Wales has not taken a lead role in coordinating the views of stakeholders with respect to the consultation.

7. We are concerned about that the needs of travellers wholly within England using ATW services are not discounted or passengers disenfranchised as sometimes happens with the English based operators First Great Western and less frequently Arriva Cross Country with their services in Wales. We note, for example, the increase in local traffic between intermediate stations on the Marches line within England. There is a need for a two trains per hour service (not 3 trains every two hours) between Newport and Shrewsbury but there appears to be no method by which DfT can contribute to such an improvement. We need to ensure that such needs are canvassed and considered along with those of wholly within Wales and cross border passengers. Conversely a similar process is required for changes in England that affect passengers in Wales. Structures need to be in place to deal with this especially at stakeholder level.

50

The reference to First Great Western refers to the complete or partial withdrawal of the Monday to Friday Cardiff to Paddington service (which provides connections out of the Milford Haven service at Cardiff) to provide stock for other events and at times of disruption caused by infrastructure failures or engineering work. There are also occasional problems caused by stock shortages. Arriva Cross Country sometimes provides two coach trains instead of three coach trains on the Nottingham to Cardiff route. Conversely ATW has provided additional stops in Manchester to South Wales at stations in England especially between Crewe and Shrewsbury and an additional Sunday service between Shrewsbury and Wolverhampton.

3. The potential impact on Wales of the plans for a High Speed 2 (HS2) Rail Service between London, the Midlands and North of England.

1. It has been proposed that South Wales to Paddington services stop at a new station at Old Oak Common to provide access to HS2. We do not support this proposal, as it will add to journey time to Paddington.

2. The Cambrian Coast to Birmingham services could benefit from the plan for a forty-seven minute HS2 link from Birmingham to London especially if there are direct connections at Birmingham International. The benefit will be reduced if passengers have to change from Birmingham New Street to Birmingham HS2 station. The same could apply to some stations at the northern end of the Heart of Wales line.

3. The North Wales Coast now has direct services to London that use the newly upgraded West Coast Main Line. These take four hours from Holyhead to Euston. The present services from Holyhead to Birmingham take over four hours so it is unlikely that there will be a significant improvement in journey time to encourage passengers to use the HS service by travelling via Birmingham.

4. The funding of cross-border transport infrastructure.

1. Railfuture is concerned about the low level of Network Rail expenditure in Wales compared with England and Scotland. Recent figures quote an expenditure of £250m in Scotland compared with £2.5m in Wales. The large expenditure in South East England compares unfavourably with that in Wales.

2. We welcome moves to improve journey times between Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury and between Wrexham and Chester but the latter improvement is being paid for by the Welsh Government and not by Network Rail. We are not aware of any other cross border proposals to increase line speed compared with proposals within England including HS2.

3. The improvements to the Great Western route will not significantly decrease journey times. A more reliable infrastructure is required. We do not advocate reducing journey times by reducing the number of calling points as this reduces connectivity. For example Bristol Parkway is an important connectional point at which all services should call and additional

51

platforms at the station would improve the connectional opportunities and could reduce the pressure on facilities at Bristol Temple Meads.

4. We view with concern the proposals for the Northern Hub and plans for Manchester, which could affect services from North Wales, which use the through platforms at Manchester Piccadilly. Railfuture has long advocated that all these services should continue to Manchester Airport and the new proposals should provide the infrastructure to enable this to be implemented.

5. Railfuture is concerned that the average age of rolling stock used on Cross Border services especially those operated by Arriva Trains Wales and First Great Western does not compare favourably with that used in the Midlands and South East. There is no cross border electrified service. There are two electrified routes to Scotland but these used only by a maximum of four passenger trains per hour the same number that use the non electrified Severn Tunnel route. We do not support proposals just to electrify to Cardiff instead of the obvious destination Swansea. The use of bi-mode trains will increase production and operating costs, reduce flexibility and the ability to provide for peak demands, create operational problems of joining and splitting sets and will create a poor relation environment for destinations beyond Cardiff which will influence economic and social development.

5. The progress made on improving co-ordination between the Welsh Government and Department for Transport on cross-boundary issues and matters of strategic importance.

1. There is no obvious improvement in coordination between Welsh Government and the Department for Transport. The proposals for electrification to Cardiff and not Swansea again indicate a lack of coordination and integration especially when electrification costs are not devolved. There is a similar situation in North Wales with regard to the Borderlands line

2. The various station improvement programmes appear to be uncoordinated with funding coming from a range of sources including NR, DfT, local government and Welsh Government.

3. There is a lack of consultation in Wales with respect to developments in England that could affect connectivity with Wales e.g. the Manchester Hub and a possible recast of Centro services in the Midlands.

4. We note the lack of coordination between franchises. Six London Midland sets stable at Shrewsbury on Sunday whereas ATW has provided additional trains on Sundays to provide for increased demand. We would have thought that DfT would have amended the London Midland contract.

5. Proposals to continue to provide cascaded rolling stock for Welsh services and not new build as in many parts of England give the impression that Wales is a poor relation of any coordination partnership. This could result in the provision of toilet less EMUs replacing DMUs with toilets. It is important to have rolling stock that is fit for purpose and economical to use for the services that are operated. The dual use of HST’s for commuter trains in the

52

Thames Valley and also as long distance trains to the West of England and Wales is not compatible.

April 2012

53

Written evidence from Severn Tunnel Action Group (TIW 11)

Summary of points

General • The economy of South East Monmouthshire (and the Forest of Dean) is highly dependant on employment, education and health services provided across the border, and particularly in Bristol. Shopping, entertainment and social reasons for visiting Bristol and Bath are other factors. • Tourism, wellbeing (walking and cycling) and sport (horse racing) are strong reasons why people cross the Severn to visit South East Monmouthshire and the forest of Dean. Better bus services in the Wye Valley and Forest of Dean area (for example similar to that operated along the Pembroke Coast or on the Gower Peninsular) would help stimulate tourism in the area. • There is an increasing movement of Bristol residents to relocate to South East Monmouthshire and the Forest of Dean due to the lower housing costs in this area. • Cost of public transport (principally rail) is lower to Bristol Temple Meads than to Cardiff, and slightly quicker. • Sunday rail services do little to help people who work on Sundays, and need to be in places of employment before 10am (Severn Tunnel to Bristol Temple Meads, first train to leave is at 9.46am; Lydney to Chepstow, first train to leave is 11.07am)

1. Rail provision • Trains on the Chepstow line (Cardiff to Cheltenham Spa and beyond) generally have poor connections at Severn Tunnel Junction with those to and from Cardiff and Bristol stations • Provision of regular hourly train service on the Caldicot/Chepstow/Lydney line is a priority • Cardiff to Taunton trains need to regularly go further into the South West England than at present, especially on Saturday’s in summer to overcome overcrowding. • All Portsmouth Harbour to/from Cardiff services to stop at Severn Tunnel Junction and to provide better connections at Severn Tunnel Junction. • A limited number of additional CrossCountry train stops at STJ, Caldicot, Chepstow and Lydney to aid peak interchanges off Bristol trains. • More carriages or trains on Cardiff to Bristol Temple Meads service • Trains on Sunday mornings that will get people to work (i.e. Before 9.00am)

2. Stations • The state of the stations in South Wales leaves much to be desired:

- Newport’s improvements were not designed for ease of passenger movements, - Cardiff looks very weary and is a poor advertisement for the Capital City of Wales

- Parking provision is poor. At Severn Tunnel Junction we urgently seek a much larger car park, ideally with improved access for all types of vehicle.

54

3. Coaches (National Express) • Chepstow’s coach link to Heathrow and Gatwick (Service 201), and the service to London Victoria Coach Station (Services 508 and 509) are less used than possible. Constraints at Chepstow can be overcome.

4. Buses • More done to stimulate tourism in the Wye Valley, Forest of Dean and along the routes of National Footpaths and National Cycle Routes (There are four long distance footpaths that start in or near Chepstow). • Better connections to Bristol • Use of a Park n Ride at Severn Tunnel Junction for buses, coaches and trains

5. Airports • With Bristol Airport becoming increasingly popular as a place to fly from, and with Cardiff International airport in seeming decline, it is essential that good connections by road and rail, from South Wales to Bristol Airport, are developed.

6. Roads • Severn River Crossing tolls are believed to discourage private enterprise in South Wales. To stimulate employment and educational opportunities for those living in South East Monmouthshire and South West Gloucestershire it is vital that improvements are made to public transport provision between this area and the Bristol/Bath area. Also London. • The problem of road congestion and delays around Newport (M4) does not go away. Development of a transport hub at Severn Tunnel Junction (where there is plenty of spare land owned by local authorities as well as farmers) and with links to the M48, should be developed as a matter of urgency. For further details see the Capita Symonds ‘Severn Tunnel Junction Interchange Study’ on the SEWTA website at: www.sewta.gov.uk/uploads/documents/74/original/Severn_Tunnel_Junction_Final _Report_April_2011.pdf?1323427469 • Freight traffic on the rail should be encouraged. In this regard we welcome the recent Tesco initiative with regular rail deliveries from Daventry to Wentloog. We believe more could be done to encourage use of Milford Haven and the other South Wales' sea ports and subsequent onward transport by rail.

55

More detailed information • Rail provision

1.1 South Wales to the Midlands and North of England (via Chepstow) inter-regional service

1.1.1 No direct trains to the North of England. Trains from Cardiff to the North East of England and Scotland were discontinued some years ago. We believe this needs reconsideration.

1.1.2 Recently CrossCountry Trains (XC) provided an extra fourteen trains a day to stop at Chepstow. They also provided extra trains for Lydney. However, of these new services the majority that stop at Chepstow don’t stop at Lydney, and most of those that stop at Lydney don’t stop at Chepstow. None of these extra trains stop at Caldicot and Severn Tunnel Junction, and there is no guarantee they will continue beyond December 2012. Since the extra XC trains started stopping last May the number of passengers from Lydney and Chepstow has increased by about nine percent.

1.1.3 An early morning XC Cardiff to Manchester train operates via Bristol Temple Meads. This is a service to Bristol that’s currently written into the First Great Western franchise agreement! We would suggest that Greater Western franchise should be running it to Bristol, and this train should rather run to Edinburgh and the North East of England via Chepstow (not necessarily at this time of day). A return journey from Edinburgh is also required. We note too that under Virgin Trains there was a service to Edinburgh via Newcastle. As far as Manchester connections are concerned, South East Wales has a regular Manchester service via Hereford.

1.1.4 The local service from Cardiff to Cheltenham Spa is only in the franchise agreement to operate as far as Gloucester, and lacks a regular hourly service. This affects business, employment, tourism and educational opportunities especially when there is no train calling at Chepstow, and operating from Cardiff toward Cheltenham Spa, between 07:49 and 09:48 (similarly for Caldicot)! Next month sees a further change to timetables that will mean no train calls mid afternoon at Caldicot going westward to Cardiff for over two and a half hours. For a town of 14,000 residents this is very poor! The provision of a regular hourly service on this line should be a priority.

1.1.5 Please note that for the Greater Western franchise consultation we have suggested a regular Cardiff to Worcester service. This is also favoured by Gloucestershire County Council. It would serve to give South East Monmouthshire stations, and Lydney, the regular hourly service we seek: it would also provide a regular hourly link between Gloucester and Worcester, and provide Tewkesbury (Aschurch) with the service this fairly new station deserves). It would also provide an alternative link to Birmingham and the South Midlands.

56

1.1.6 A few years ago there were good XC connections off the Cardiff/Birmingham New Street service with those to East Anglia. These are now sadly missed

1.1.7 With poor connections between Cardiff/Cheltenham Spa/Cardiff trains and those Cardiff/Bristol/Cardiff services at Severn Tunnel Junction, we have suggested in the Greater Western Franchise response for a Lydney to Bristol Temple Meads service (reversing at STJ) during peak times.

1.2 South Wales to Midlands and North West England via Hereford and

Shrewsbury 1.2.1 Arriva Trains Wales has a good hourly service to Manchester but no through trains to Liverpool or Glasgow. The decision to award the Birmingham New Street to Glasgow service to Virgin Trains hasn’t helped Wales’ need: it would have been better had it been awarded to CrossCountry Trains. 1.2.2 It is possible to insert an electric power car into the Voyager units operated by Virgin Trains from Glasgow that would permit a bi-modal service to run from Glasgow to Crewe or Birmingham and then on to South Wales and South West England .

1.3 South Wales to Bristol Temple Meads, Taunton, Exeter, Plymouth and Penzance 1.3.1 The hourly trains that run to and from Cardiff Central to Taunton are satisfactory. A small number of these trains travel on to Exeter St David’s, Paignton and Plymouth: but we believe more trains on this service needs to be extended beyond Taunton. This is especially so on Saturdays in summer to overcome overcrowding on connecting trains.

The rolling stock used on this service is often unsatisfactory (diesel multiple units rather than the Class 150’s.)

1.4 South Wales to Bristol Temple Meads, Portsmouth Harbour and Brighton

1.4.1 Currently the Severn Tunnel Junction/Portsmouth Harbour/Severn Tunnel Junction service does not stop at STJ during the off-peak period Monday to Saturday, as it once did. The service, when it stops, generally provides a good connection to/from Bristol Temple Meads with Caldicot, Chepstow and Lydney. For those travelling to or from Bristol and Bath (often tourists going to Chepstow (Wye Valley or Forest of Dean, or race-goers going to Chepstow Races) the connections are currently poor during the day. We would like all Portsmouth Harbour trains to stop at STJ. Over the last five years the numbers of passengers interchanging to this service has increased by over 100 per cent.

1.5 South Wales to North Wales, North West via Abergavenny and Hereford 1.5.1 More use of the connections available via London Midland at Malvern and Worcester.

57

1.5.2 Re-introduction of the Cardiff to Birmingham via Hereford and Worcester service with stops at Abergavenny, Pontypool and Cwmbran. 1.5.3 Opening of a station at Caerleon for students, tourists, day trippers and commuters.

1.6 South Wales to London via either Bristol or Gloucester

1.6.1 From Severn Tunnel Junction: London Paddington is a top ten destination (measured in numbers of tickets sold). Alongside STAG’s aim of creating a ‘Park n Ride’ at STJ, is an ambition to have at least one High Speed Train directly connecting this proposed transport hub for South East Monmouthshire and South West Gloucestershire with London. In recent submissions by SEWTA, Monmouthshire and ourselves we are advocating a daily link to and from Abergavenny with London. It is this that we feel should be the call at STJ. If not this then an early morning service that will also take early workers to Bristol via Bristol Parkway with a return working in the evening. The current earliest train from STJ to Bristol is not early enough! If timed right it will also give good connections off Bristol Parkway to other parts of England and Scotland. 1.6.2 We would like to see the reintroduction of half hourly connections from South Wales to London on Saturdays and Sunday evenings, and as found on Mondays to Fridays.

1.7 Other

1.7.1 In our response to the Greater Western Franchise consultation questions we commented on the need for electrification through to Swansea, and of our concern that the current Cardiff to Portsmouth Harbour service might suffer and be terminated at Bristol Temple Meads.

1.7.2 There appears to be a consensus that a third Cardiff to Bristol Service is necessary. Under West of England Partnership plans for a Bristol Metro, Bristol Parkway is being considered as a second Bristol Transport hub. In addition there are extensive plans for the Filton and Parkway area and we contend there will be a need for a local stopping service: possibly from Swansea to Swindon or even Oxford. Currently many students travel from South East Monmouthshire stations to places of learning via Bristol Parkway. Indeed, many business people drive to Bristol Parkway and even Didcot Parkway to pick up connections to London: such a service, if provided, would help cut greenhouse emissions and could stimulate economic activity in South East Monmouthshire and South West Gloucestershire.

• Stations 2.1 Severn Tunnel Junction 2.1.1 We work with a view to continue the improvements to this station. In recent years we believe demand for trains from this station has been suppressed by

58

lack of parking space. We anxiously seek a 500 place car park which we believe will be filled within a two to five year period. Meanwhile passenger numbers continue to grow

2.2 Other Stations

2.2.1 Newport Station’s redevelopment in readiness for the Ryder Cup saw an award winning design for a passenger unfriendly environment. We urge improvements that will help travellers.

2.2.2 Cardiff Station badly needs redeveloping to give it an image the capital city of Wales can be proud of! • Coaches 3.1 Coach services 3.1.1 Location of pick-up point

Chepstow Bus station is far from ideal as a pick-up/delivery point for would be travellers. Lack of long-term parking; lack of short-term parking in the immediate vicinity, poor passenger shelter with no warm waiting area, no immediate availability of tickets, no toilet facilities nearby, are all contributing factors.

Add to this the location in the middle of a town, surrounded by narrow streets and with direct access only through one of the worst areas in Wales for traffic emissions pollution and traffic queues (Hardwick Hill).

In addition this location adds twenty minutes or more to the journey for those travelling to or from other locations in South Wales.

Our solution is to relocate to a new Coach station located at Severn Tunnel Junction Station, with immediate access to the M48 Motorway. This would increase the value of Severn Tunnel to more than just a ‘Park n Ride’ station; it would make it a major transport hub for the area.

3.1.2 Services to London Victoria

The recent withdrawal of the early morning service (about 6.20am from Chepstow, with an arrival time at Victoria Coach station of 9.20am is regretted. Members of STAG have used this service and found it to be heavily subscribed with twelve or more people boarding at Chepstow and onto an already fairly full coach!

Services to and from Central London are poor (three up and four down each day) with the earliest arrival time of 10.50 at London Victoria, and the earliest departure time from London Victoria of mid day!

3.1.2 Services to London Airports (Heathrow and Gatwick)

59

These are felt to be acceptable

3.1.3 Other services from South Wales

A number of other coach services exist from elsewhere in South Wales and to Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh.

(See ‘Buses’ below) • Buses

4.1 Cross Border Bus Services

4.1.1 Bristol bound

The service used by local people is the 14/X14 from Cwmbran, through Newport, Magor, Caldicot, Portskewett and Chepstow to Cribbs Causeway (a large shopping mall close to the M5 motorway) and on in to Bristol Coach Station.

There is a commuter version that starts in Magor and misses Cribbs Causeway in the mornings. This is very popular not only with Chepstow and some Caldicot commuters, but also with people from the Forest of Dean who drive to Bulwark (a suburb of Chepstow), park their cars in a municipal car park (free!) for onward transit by bus.

The overall service is run commercially and is split between First Group (Somerset) and Stagecoach (Wales).

Day time services are popular with shoppers, particularly as far as Cribbs Causeway. Our contention is that more could be done for commuters, and for those who work or go to places of learning in the Almondsbury, Filton/Bristol Parkway areas of Bristol.

We would like to see more than one bus operate before 9.00am from Chepstow (Monday to Friday), and another service after 18.40 from Bristol. We would also like the service to be hourly throughout the day and for a Sunday/Bank Holiday/Good Friday service to operate.

4.1.2 Lydney to Chepstow

With less than a regular hourly train service operating between these two close communities, the commercially operated bus service is reputedly about to end. Currently it provides four journeys each way per day on Mondays to Fridays, and three on Saturdays. There is no Sunday service.

60

The services are not viable for commuters: from Chepstow the first bus leaves at 9.20am, from Lydney at 8.50am. Last buses leave Chepstow at 17.15 (not Saturdays) and Lydney at 16.30 (also not Saturdays).

We believe better train services between the two towns remains the best option/

4.1.3 Cardiff to Gloucester

This service no longer operates.

4.1.3 Other buses cross-border • Monmouth to Hereford is only two hourly and doesn’t operate on Sundays • We believe the Chepstow to Monmouth service could be integrated with this Monmouth to Hereford service: this would be particularly helpful to walkers and other tourists. Please also take into consideration the fact that Hereford and Chepstow both have rail stations • We suggest Monmouth should become a bus/coach hub. Currently the bus route from Chepstow to Abergavenny (another potentially useful link for tourists and walkers) is poor with a 58 minute (or more) wait at Monmouth for a connecting bus to Abergavenny.

April 2012

61

Written evidence from TAITH (TIW 12)

1. TAITH is the Transport Consortium for North Wales. It is a formally constituted Joint Committee of the six North Wales County Councils. Its remit is to develop an integrated transport strategy for North Wales, delivering the aims and objectives of the Wales Transport Strategy in the region. The Regional Transport Plan was completed in 2009, and covers our Strategic Interventions to 2015.

2. We welcome the opportunity to submit information for consideration by the Select Committee on Cross Border Transport. The economies of North Wales and North West England are closely inter-twined and effective coordination of cross border routes and transport services is crucial. Although effective local liaison groups, especially the Mersey Dee Alliance exist, there is scope for better engagement at Government level, especially in developing strategic transport projects.

3. Transport Provision in North Wales is heavily impacted by the Wales National Transport Plan, which has recently been reprioritised. The potential consequences of this plan are significant for North Wales and a number of key projects are included in the revised NTP for delivery. These are set out below for completeness.

• North-south fast train service – prioritised (NTP 56). o Service provision until May 2012 has been confirmed. o Future options currently being considered.

• Enhancing the capacity of the section of rail between Shrewsbury and Chester, via Wrexham – prioritised (NTP 57)

• Address the transport issues in Wrexham, Chester Deeside triangle – prioritised (NTP 95). o Report on the options due later this year (NEWABTS and A494 study)

• Increasing the capacity of the A55 across the Menai – prioritised (NTP 93).

• Address the issues on the A55 at Junctions 15 and 16 – prioritised (NTP 94). o Consultants appointed to progress details.

• Congestion reducing measures on Britannia Bridge.

A number of these projects impact directly on cross border linkages.

62

4. The importance of the cross border links from North Wales to the North West and Midlands of England and vice versa cannot be underestimated. These cross border routes are essential not only for long distance access to markets, but also to support the industrial and commercial economies in both England and Wales. This includes significant commuting to work and access for leisure and tourism purposes. There are also significant linkages between Ireland through the Port of Holyhead and the UK and European markets.

5. There are significant congestion issues on parts of these key routes, especially the road network, and whilst some work on resolving the issues and considering opportunities is underway, much remains to be done. A number of the key issues are set out below.

6. A55 / A483 Junction – This junction is a significant congestion bottleneck that impacts on the network in England and Wales. Although the key junction is the responsibility of the Highways Agency, there are major problems in Wales as a result of the lack of capacity. A range of potential interventions is possible and need investigation. We should encourage the Highways Agency and Welsh Government to work with the two relevant Local Authorities to identify measures for improving the current situation.

7. A494 Aston Hill – This is part of the second main route linking North Wales with the North West of England and the main Motorway network. There have been significant improvements in recent year, but these stop at the River Dee Crossing. The Welsh Government is considering options for the improvement of the route from the River Dee to the junction with A55 at Ewloe, and these options are expected soon. There is significant congestion at peak times on the route, which serves long distance transport as well as being a key local link to the major industrial areas in the locality. There are further significant developments under consideration in the area, and Deeside has recently been awarded Enterprise Zone status.

8. A49 – Although this route is in England, it forms part of a key route from North to South Wales. A major barrier is the lack of a relief road for Hereford. A solution to the issue and a better means of cross border input into key links such as this would be helpful.

9. Port of Holyhead – is a key gateway to Ireland and one of the main points of access between Irish companies and their main markets in Europe and the UK. There are significant investment proposals at the Port and its surroundings, which will have impacts on traffic flows across North Wales and beyond. The links with Ireland and between Ireland and Europe are significant, and the role of Holyhead as a key entry and exit port should not be under estimated by the Committee.

10. Wylfa Horizon Project – The significant development proposal to develop a new power station adjacent to the current Wylfa plant will, if approved, have significant transport implications for North Wales. Construction activity will be considerable and

63

will take place over a number of years. There will also be significant accessibility improvements funded by the Company on the island, and TAITH and the North Wales Local Authorities will have to respond to the substantial opportunities this investment will bring.

11. The job creation during construction will be significant, access to the site, accommodation and transport routes will be impacted as a result of the project.

12. Although located well within Wales, the pinch point of the Menai crossing is a critical point in the link between the port of Holyhead and the UK and Europe. As part of the key TEN-T route, the capacity constraint at the Menai is an issue that needs a solution.

13. Enterprise Zones - In September 2011 the Welsh Government Minister for Business Enterprise Technology and Science (BETS) announced the sites for five new Enterprise Zones across Wales. Two of these are located within the TAITH area, an area at Deeside focussed on advanced manufacturing and the whole of Anglesey focussed on key sites for the energy sector. Subsequent to the original announcement, a further site around Trawsfynydd in Gwynedd has been announced. This site sits within the TraCC (Mid Wales Transport Consortium) area, but may have impacts into the TAITH area. Of significance is the potential for the development of the rail link to the area for freight and additional passenger services.

14. From a transportation perspective, the designation of these sites is highly significant. It is evident that the sites are intended to benefit the whole of North Wales, creating significant employment opportunities for the whole area. It is also clear that in order for the areas to achieve this goal, accessibility to them is crucial. This includes resolving local problems that prevent access to the sites in the Enterprise Zones as well providing alternatives other than use of cars for the longer distance journeys. Because the potential job numbers are significant, improvements to longer distance accessibility will be essential if the employment created at the sites is to be sustained.

15. The designation of Enterprise Zones in England, especially at Wirral Waters and at Warrington will also be a contributor to additional cross border traffic. Through the Mersey Dee Alliance, we are working across the border to ensure a joint approach to the issues and opportunities these designated sites will provide.

Cross Border Rail Connections

16. There are a number of strategic investment projects and franchise renewals that impact on North Wales and Cheshire. There are both potential threats and opportunities from these. More detail is provided below.

West Coast Main Line Franchise

64

17. The through rail service between Holyhead and Euston is of immense importance to the economy of North Wales. Tourism is our biggest industry and a significant proportion of visitors come from the south east of England. The service is also a lifeline to the business community and it attracts businesses to locate here. Without it, attending meetings in London would not be possible within a day as there is no air service and the car journey takes 5-7 hours each way.

18. It is important to note that the region is heavily dependent on this route, and the London centric nature of the core train service requirement is an area of concern. The new franchise should reflect that the route provides essential regional and local links to and from North Wales to all parts of the UK. Crewe is a major hub for connecting services to and from North Wales, and it is important this is reflected in the service levels to this hub. The stopping pattern of services at Crewe is of significant importance, as it is the main access point to UK rail services from North Wales.

19. The discussions underway regarding the renewal of the franchise are crucial. We have welcomed the initial specification proposed for the new franchise that maintains the current service level of through trains between Holyhead/Bangor and Euston. We are however concerned about the ‘flexibility’ that is to be given to the successful bidder to look for alternative uses for the rolling stock and different calling patterns. The current service level and journey times of through trains between Euston and North Wales / Chester should be specified as a minimum that can be provided throughout the duration of the franchise to prevent the TOC from redeploying the rolling stock to wealthier parts of the UK where they might earn more revenue due to the higher fares that people in such areas can afford to pay.

HS2 20. TAITH has previously expressed support for the HS2 project, as it should provide extra capacity and better connectivity which are both essential for business productivity and growth in North Wales. The proposed “Y shaped network”, in combination with the initial London to Birmingham route offers significant opportunities to connect cities and take pressure off the existing lines - in fact without investment in high speed rail the existing networks are forecast to be full by 2024.

21. We are however concerned that the competitiveness of the North Wales, Cheshire and Merseyside areas should not be disadvantaged through HS2. Therefore as a minimum there should be effective and appropriately located interchanges for the area into direct HS2 services from the existing West Coast Main Line and other services, and that the chosen HS2 route into Manchester supports this. It is worth noting that the Northern Hub scheme and train service package will be required for effective HS2 delivery. We expect to see freed up capacity on the WCML continuing to support this area’s transport network.

65

22. A significant issue is that the only part of the WCML that is not electrified is the Crewe to Holyhead section, which is a concern for this area, and one that we would like to see acknowledged within future strategic transport investment planning. With the development of HS2, the lack of electrification on the route will not allow the proposed classic compatible train services to access North Wales and Chester.

23. Given the importance of the West Coast Mainline to Cheshire, Merseyside and North Wales, we are concerned at the extent of disruption to existing services at Euston during the new construction phase of HS2, and would like this to be minimised at all costs.

Manchester Hub 24. The proposals to improve infrastructure and electrify lines in the Manchester / Northern Hub has potential impacts on Cross Border rail services. There are proposals to increase the numbers and frequency of rail services between Chester and Manchester as part of the project. There are opportunities to increase the speed of the Llandudno Manchester services, which currently act of the local stopping service on this route. We would encourage the acceleration of the N Wales trains, and would also seek to improve direct rail services from the region to Manchester Airport. It is important that these opportunities are considered as part of the Wales and Borders and Northern Rail franchise renewals.

Halton Curve 25. The curve provides a link between the Chester – Manchester line at Frodsham with the West Coast Main Line to Liverpool at Runcorn. It is currently totally under utilised. The TAITH Rail Strategy proposes options for direct services between the North Wales Coast and Liverpool Lime Street. There are also options for additional services between Wrexham and Lime Street. These services would provide direct rail links to Liverpool South Parkway and John Lennon Airport, a growing point of embarkation for North Wales travellers. We would encourage support for improvements to the Halton Curve and for new services to be implemented along the line.

Wrexham – Saltney Junction 26. The Welsh Assembly Government has recently announced that construction works are to commence as early as 2012 on improving the line capacity between Saltney Junction (Chester) and Wrexham. This will present new opportunities to maximise the full potential of the Chester-Wrexham-Shrewsbury route which have not been possible to date. The increase in demand and the investment being made in the infrastructure in Wrexham have and will present new opportunities for rail travel. We are in the process of commissioning work to maximise the potential of the Chester - Wrexham - Shrewsbury route and specifically the growing demands for rail travel to and from Wrexham. This will consider the potential for additional new stations and also an enhanced service frequency of services on the line. The additional capacity provided by the work will allow the potential development of • Additional trains and capacity between Chester and Wrexham for commuters

66

• Additional services from Wrexham to London Euston • Additional direct services from Wrexham to Liverpool and Manchester • Additional freight paths for services to reduce lorry movements.

Borderlands Line 27. It has long been an aspiration in the region to secure a half hourly service on this important but under valued cross border line. After some delay, there is renewed interest in securing improvements to the service along this railway line. Because it crosses the border, there is a concern that the development of the line has been considered peripheral in both Wales and the Merseyside area in the past. Merseyrail are considering options for service enhancements and have had recent discussions with the WG. There is a need to encourage the parties to develop a clear strategy for the line for the medium and long term. The route offers opportunities to develop better links between Liverpool and North East Wales, and the route also provides a link between two recently designated Enterprise Zones at Deeside and Wirral Waters. The access to employment sites along the route that could be provided if an additional service was created is considerable.

Freight Services 28. Throughout Wales, around 100 million tonnes of freight is lifted each year, representing 13 billion tonne kilometres of goods moved and around 5% of all freight transported in the UK. It contributes around £2.5 billion to the Welsh economy. The quantity of freight has not increased for more than 30 years, yet tonne kilometres have doubled, meaning goods are moving longer distances to reach their destination. There is significant cross border movement by lorry, which has an impact on road congestion at key points in the network. 29. The North Wales Rail Study concluded that a number of rail freight projects should be taken forward for further consideration. As a result a further report was commissioned and in terms of freight, three options have been taken forward for further investigation • F1/F2 Land-bridge Service to Ireland and Accompanying Rail Terminal at Holyhead; • F5: Development of a Rail Freight Consolidation Centre at Shotton, Deeside; • F12: Movement of Domestic Waste by Rail

Each of these options involves the replacement of existing freight flows by road, and moving the flow to rail. If progressed, the additional rail freight traffic would reduce peak level congestion through the removal of lorry movements from the road network. The projects would also deliver significant sustainability improvements through carbon reduction.

67

Integrated Transport and Cross Border Bus Services 30. In the North East Wales area, close to the Border, there is considerable local service demand for public transport and accessibility. Most bus services in the area are commercial, and this has created gaps in the provision. A significant issue is the relatively poor linkages between communities and employment sites. There is a need for increased local dialogue on cross border routes and specific provision in support of access to the major employment sites in Wales and West Cheshire.

31. TAITH and the Welsh Government have commissioned a joint study into transport issues in the Chester – Deeside – Wrexham triangle. The study, the North East Wales Area Based Transport Strategy (NEWABTS) is nearing completion. The strategy is based on identifying integrated transport solutions to resolve some of the congestion issues on the trunk road network in North East Wales and West Cheshire. Included in the work is an emphasis on linking areas of deprivation and unemployment to areas where job opportunities exist, through a variety of sustainable transport access alternatives.

32. The strategy includes a range of public transport interventions including, improvements to bus stops along the main Shotton corridor and the creation of a dedicated bus route and associated infrastructure is suggested alongside improvements to traffic signals along the route to ease congestion at peak times. Work will also be done with passenger transport operators to understand how the current route network can be used to support accessibility to employment.

33. There are also a number of Walking and Cycling proposals identified. These provide safe and sustainable links from communities to major employment areas. Routes linking the communities of Shotton, Connah’s Quay and Queensferry, to Deeside Industrial Park, employment sites at Sandycroft and the Airbus site at Broughton are included. Additional links from Saltney and Penyffordd to Airbus are also suggested. There is also a proposal to link Deeside Industrial Park to the cycle network on the Wirral, giving access to the Wirral Way included in the programme. Because of the geography of the area, and the sometimes lengthy access routes by car to some of the sites in the Deeside area, walking and cycling can provide a viable alternative to car based access to some of the areas key employment sites.

34. It is positive to note that the emerging recommendations of the report have been recognised in the NTP priorities recently announced by the Welsh Government. Support for these interventions linked to the delivery of an effective personal travel planning service is a key component to helping resolve cross border congestion.

35. DfT Local Sustainable Transport Fund - The cross border importance of the employment in this area has been recognised and Cheshire West and Chester Council has recently submitted a bid to the DfT for the Local Sustainable Transport Fund

68

which is complementary to some elements of NEWABTS recommendations. The Council’s package area is focussed in key travel to work corridors in the west of the Borough where there is both existing and future job opportunities and where they consider that modest interventions can encourage a more sustainable approach to how people reach work and training opportunities. These are • The Chester – Ellesmere Port – Wirral – Merseyside corridor; and • Links between Chester and Ellesmere Port and the Deeside Enterprise Zone in North East Wales.

36. Merseytravel has also submitted a bid to the fund, and the joint work between the organisations through our membership of the Mersey Dee Alliance needs to be encouraged.

April 2012

69

Written evidence from the British Ports Association (TIW 13)

Summary of main points

• Welsh ports depend on their connectivity to the transport network both at the border and within Wales. • A number of improvement schemes, optimising the existing transport network, could be developed which would have significant benefits for freight and sea passenger flows. • Freight transport, as distinct from passenger transport, should be given greater priority within transport planning. • Ports represent major opportunities for economic growth and regeneration.

Background

1. We very much welcome this inquiry. This response is made on behalf of the Welsh Ports Group which represents the overwhelming majority of cargo and all sea passengers passing through Welsh ports. We have concentrated on current cross border road and rail provision. Links with Ireland create their own, highly significant, cross border connectivity issues, and we have included these in our submission.

2. Connectivity is the foundation of successful ports, and successful Welsh ports are fundamentally important to the Welsh and indeed to the UK economies. The total cargo throughput for 2010 (the latest recorded year) was 60m tonnes, equivalent to 12% of the UK total and amounting to a record year for port traffic in Wales in spite of economic challenges. Passenger throughput in 2010 was 2.9m, representing 14% of the UK total.

3. Although ports in Wales are privately funded, they nevertheless depend on public investment in road and rail connections. Moving freight efficiently is an objective that can be overlooked in the face of the claims of public transport investment. Of course investment in public transport is important too, but bearing in mind limited resources, proper consideration needs to be given to ensuring that freight connectivity has sufficient priority.

4. Such connectivity is closely tied in with promoting economic growth and regeneration. In our view, the Welsh Government (WG) should concentrate on improving those parts of the network where improved performance will support economic growth. This would entail investment to improve congested urban areas, key inter urban routes and links to international gateways as represented by ports.

70

The arrangements currently in place to co-ordinate Cross-border road and rail transport services provision

5. In addition to the England/Wales border, we regard the efficiency of the connections to Ireland as another important border worthy of consideration. The route to and from Ireland is a major EU network connecting Ireland and the UK to Continental markets.

6. The primary freight routes are self-evidently the North and South main arteries, connecting the border with routes terminating at Holyhead and Fishguard/Pembroke and which connect all the main ports in Wales. The adequacy of road links to Holyhead is a key concern to all those who use the port. These links represent a strong example of where relatively small improvements in terms of budget and construction could make significant differences to traffic flow and ease of use of the port. For example, the A55 expressway stops some distance from check-in facilities and this in turn causes delay to freight and passengers. Not only do these blockages increase costs to users, they also represent a constraint on future freight and tourism growth. Also, the section of strategic highway from the North West of England to Holyhead seems to be the subject of continuous repair, delay and congestion. Apart from a better co-ordinated effort to manage traffic, these problems could be susceptible to better information supplied to users about restrictions and potential delays through the use of improved IT and telematics.

7. Because of strategic links to Ireland through this Northern route and thereafter to England and the Continent, this is a fundamentally important part of the Welsh, UK and EU transport network requiring prioritisation and investment.

8. In South Wales, major improvements to the M4 are needed. The restrictions imposed by the Bryn Glas tunnel are a particular problem. There is also a concern for the South Wales ports that the proposal for a new motorway to bisect Newport Docks will adversely impact trade through the Port of Newport; this is the subject of consultation between Newport and WG, and remains an important issue. As with the North Wales routes, a number of local road enhancement projects could, at relatively low cost, generate significant benefits. These include the completion of the Port Talbot peripheral distributor road, the Fabian Way infrastructure enhancement works at Swansea and the Eastern Bay link road in Cardiff, all of which would improve links to the immediate hinterland.

9. The majority of freight is delivered to and collected from Welsh ports by road and for commercial and practical reasons this is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future. In relation to traffic using the three major Welsh port Ro/Ro gateways - Holyhead, Fishguard and Pembroke - it is extremely unlikely that there will be a

71

significant freight shift from road to rail. Indeed there have been several private sector studies in the last 20 years examining options for transferring Ro/Ro freight on to trains at ports, as often occurs in Europe. The findings were that to do this would involve substantial costs and that rolling stock complications make this option unfeasible. This demonstrates the vital importance of the maintenance and improvement of the northern and southern road corridors.

10. There is however always room for development, and rail could play a stronger role, particularly for developing container and bulk business. Rail freight paths have to be retained and protected and to this end, it is vital that Network Rail, the freight operating companies, WG and other key stakeholders continually address capacity and capability constraints on the network. These should include the removal of freight network pinch points – for example the Severn Tunnel – and address gauge issues.

11. Another important aspect is connections, both in terms of road and rail, west of Swansea. The port operations Pembroke Dock and Fishguard have important Ro/Ro connections to Ireland. These are vital economic gateways but are not served by the best road access. The A40 which begins at Fishguard is a single carriageway road for 35 miles with only one 2 lane section east bound for overtaking, and none west bound. As well as these gateways to Ireland the substantial port operations at Milford Haven, which in terms of tonnages is the third busiest UK port, often appear marginalised in terms of road provision. Improvements in road connections to Pembrokeshire on the southern corridor would therefore link Milford Haven and Fishguard, along with south west Wales, to England and the wider UK motorway network.

12. The North and South Wales main lines, plus the Marches Route from Newport to Chester and Crewe, are capable of handling traffic loaded to the maximum axle weight. Nevertheless, all these routes, plus the lines from South Wales through the Severn Tunnel and to the Midlands, have a restricted loading gauge. This constrains rail movement for the larger containers now used in deep and short sea shipping unless specialised wagons are used. Extending rail capability westwards would open up new opportunities for Port Talbot, Swansea and Milford Haven. Our understanding is that there are still no plans to remedy this through needed new investment.

13. Equally there is a need for electrification which could be carried out in parallel with gauge clearance. Similarly, electrification of the North Wales main line, with provision of W10 gauge capability through to Holyhead, could provide opportunities for the movement of containers. It is equally important that the capacity for handling existing flows, as well as growth in rail freight, is protected. This is a further example of the potential benefits of prioritising freight as opposed to passenger transport. It is acknowledged that the cost of rail enhancement schemes are significant, but they are

72

strongly linked with increased port business and rail is a priority under the TEN-T programme.

Border Controls

14. In addition to addressing road and rail connections along the lines already suggested is consideration of the efficiency of the border itself. Welsh and Irish ports are part of the Common Travel Area (CTA) which should ensure the free flow of passengers, but the operations of the UKBA can cause delay as passengers are checked for ID. There is also a strong Special Branch presence at Welsh ports which can also create delays. We would certainly resist any attempt to dismantle the CTA and introduce full border requirements.

TEN-T

15. TEN-T is under review and final decisions are unlikely to be made until 2013. It is important that WG is fully involved in discussions bearing in mind that Wales has two proposed Core Network ports, Cardiff and Newport, and four ports proposed for the Comprehensive Network, namely Swansea, Milford Haven, Fishguard and Holyhead. It is uncertain what the significance of being on the Comprehensive Network is, but the fact that they are identified confirms that these are important links within the EU network for both freight and passengers and deserve priority within UK transport planning.

16. In the maps currently provided by the Commission, the North and South Wales road connections are described as “completed”. This could be challenged, although indications are that under the new TEN-T programme, funds for road projects will not be available, either for Core or Comprehensive Network ports. The Commission do intend, however, to make funds available for rail, and the WG, working closely with DfT, should be in a position to negotiate for a share of these. The Welsh Ports Group continues to work closely with the Welsh Government to explore every opportunity for improving connectivity available under the TEN-T programme. This would include making the case for improved road connections on which Welsh ports are so dependant. We look forward to discussing these points further with the Welsh Government.

12 April 2012

73

Written evidence from Bristol Airport (TIW 14)

Summary • Bristol Airport is the major regional airport for the South West of England handling 5.77m passengers in the year ending 31 December 2011. • The majority of air passengers travelling to and from each of the preserved counties of South Wales use airports in England. • Bristol Airport is well served with road connections from Wales via the M4 and M5 and by rail via the Great Western Main Line with connections through Bristol Temple Meads. • In view of the importance of Bristol Airport to air travellers to and from Wales cross- border road and rail connections should be maintained and improved where possible. • Effective cross border working between the Highways Agency, Welsh Government, the Severn River Crossing Plc and the local transport authorities is required to ensure that a seamless signage trail and public transport network is in place between England and South Wales.

Introduction 1. Bristol Airport Limited welcomes the opportunity to provide evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee Inquiry into cross border road and rail connectivity.

2. Bristol Airport is the major regional airport for the South West of England handling 5.77m passengers in the year ending 31 December 2011. This makes Bristol Airport the ninth largest airport in the United Kingdom, the fifth largest outside the south east of England and the third largest UK regional airport in terms of international passengers. Bristol Airport serves a catchment area with a population of between seven and eight million people within a two hour drive time. Flights are currently available to 103 destinations across 29 countries including 11 capital cities. 79 destinations across 21 countries are served by direct scheduled services, including ten departures a day which connect with the worldwide Star Alliance and SkyTeam airline networks through the European hub airports of Paris, Amsterdam and Brussels.

3. Bristol Airport serves a catchment area with one to two million people within a one hour drive and seven to eight million people within a two hour drive. This includes much of Wales and South Wales, in particular, lies within easy reach of Bristol Airport. The 2008 CAA Passenger Survey indicated that around 13% of Bristol Airport passengers in that year had an origin or destination in Wales. On this basis around 740,000 passengers in 2011 originated from Wales, accounting for 17%2 of the total Welsh air passenger market. Bristol Airport has enjoyed significant growth over the past ten years, almost trebling the

2 Bristol Airport calculation derived from CAA Passenger Survey data.

74

number of passengers handled. This growth has been reflected in the proportion of passengers from Wales using the Airport which has grown to the current levels from just 7% of the Welsh market in 2000.

4. Bristol Airport is just 24 miles by road from the Wales/England border. The South Wales coast is clearly visible from the Airport’s control tower, including the Millennium Stadium on a clear day. Bristol Airport has an important role to play in providing international connectivity for Wales.

5. The majority of air travellers flying to and from Wales use airports in England. The purpose of this evidence is to highlight the importance of cross-border road and rail connectivity for these air travellers.

Analysis of the air travel market in Wales 6. Table 1 shows our estimate of the number of passengers from each of the preserved counties3 of South Wales using Cardiff, Bristol, Birmingham and the London Airports in 2011. We have calculated the distribution of passengers using origin and destination data primarily drawn from the 2008 CAA Passenger Survey, the latest report available for Cardiff and Bristol Airports. The calculation assumes that the distribution of passengers has not changed in the intervening years so the estimates of the number of passengers using English airports are therefore likely to be conservative given the decline in passengers at Cardiff Airport since 2008.

Table 1: Distribution of passengers by preserved counties of South Wales

Estimated number of passengers from each county by airport in 2011

(in thousands)

County Cardiff Bristol London Birmingham Totals Airports

Dyfed 123 63 216 26 428

Gwent 128 213 407 26 773

Mid Glamorgan 300 133 293 17 743

South 381 208 537 17 1142 Glamorgan

West Glamorgan 174 104 198 0 478

3 The CAA report data on the basis of the preserved counties in the data analysed rather than the current administrative areas.

75

Powys 16 17 113 26 171

Totals 1122 738 1764 112 3736

Source: Bristol Airport calculations based on CAA Passenger Survey data

7. It can be seen from the above data that the majority of air passengers travelling to and from each of these preserved counties are using airports in England. The two most convenient airports for South Wales, Bristol and Cardiff, account for about 50% of the total South Wales market. This comprises a large proportion of domestic and short haul international passenger traffic to and from South Wales, split 40:60 between the two airports. Passengers from Gwent are generally closer to Bristol Airport than they are to Cardiff Airport and as a result Bristol has 62% of the market from this county.

Cross-border connectivity 8. The journey time between the centre of Cardiff and Bristol Airport by road is just over one hour, compared with 35 minutes to Cardiff Airport. Newport is approximately equidistant (in journey time) between Cardiff Airport and Bristol Airport, as is Abergavenny (the ‘gateway to Wales’) and Hay-on-Wye. Swansea lies within a two hour drive time of Bristol Airport with a journey time penalty of around 30 minutes compared with Cardiff Airport. The opening of the Second Severn Crossing in 1996 improved access to Bristol Airport for Welsh passengers by providing a shorter route via the M49 which avoids the most congested part of the M5 around the Almondsbury Interchange.

9. South Wales is ideally positioned to take advantage of the Bristol route network. Ease of access, investment in infrastructure and the opening up of the Bristol route network in the last decade has allowed Bristol Airport to meet a significant proportion of demand for air travel from Wales that was either previously suppressed or met from airports further afield with long surface access journeys. Planning permission was granted by North Somerset Council in February 2011 to develop the Airport to handle 10 million passengers per annum (mppa) releasing any further capacity constraints to future growth. Development commenced in November 2011 with the construction of new aircraft stands.

10. Importantly, public transport connections between Wales and the West of England are good. Coach journey times between Cardiff and Bristol coach stations are just one hour. An easy connection to the Bristol Flyer express bus service can be made at Bristol Coach Station and a total journey time to the airport by coach of under over two hours is achievable throughout most of the day. The journey, by train, between Cardiff and Bristol Airport via Bristol Temple Meads is even better, with a journey time of just one and a half hours. Trains between Cardiff and Bristol Temple Meads run every thirty minutes and the

76

Bristol Flyer bus service now provides onward connections throughout the day and night with services every ten minutes at peak. Public transport has proved popular with passengers travelling to and from Wales using Bristol Airport, with around 10% of passengers recorded in the 2008 CAA Passenger Survey as using the Bristol Flyer bus service.

11. In 2011 the West of England Partnership4 received Department of Transport support and funding for the delivery of five major transport schemes in the Greater Bristol area with a combined value of £244m. These schemes have the potential to transform the surface access arrangements at Bristol Airport (including, in particular, from Wales) with significant improvements in accessibility from the motorway network and by public transport across the city region. Bristol Airport is making a significant financial contribution to these schemes through the Section 106 Agreement accompanying the 2011 planning permission.

12. Bristol Airport is therefore well served with road connections from Wales via the M4 and M5 and by rail via the Great Western Main Line with connections through Bristol Temple Meads. In view of the increased importance of Bristol Airport to air travellers to and from Wales these connections should be maintained and improved where possible. In previous evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee we have highlighted an opportunity to improve signage to Bristol Airport on the M4. We have also emphasised to the Department for Transport, in their consultation on the Great Western franchise replacement, the importance of rail-air connections through Bristol Temple Meads for both east and west bound passengers. Further opportunities currently under consideration by Bristol Airport include an evaluation of the viability of a direct coach service between Cardiff and Bristol Airport and improved marketing at Cardiff Central Station of the Bristol Airport Flyer service operating from Bristol Temple Meads. The viability of a direct coach service between Cardiff and Bristol Airport is likely to depend on the availability and convenience of linking public transport services into Cardiff Bus Station.

13. We would encourage continued and effective cross border working between the Highways Agency, Welsh Government, the Severn River Crossing Plc and the local transport authorities to ensure that a seamless signage trail and public transport network is in place between England and South Wales. It is particularly important that that this network is maintained during periods of traffic disruption in the event of highway maintenance works or major events taking place.

April 2012

4 Comprising the four unitary authorities in the Greater Bristol area.

77

Written evidence from the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF) (TIW 15)

1. The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF) is the UK’s largest train driver’s union representing approximately 18,000 members in train operating companies and freight companies as well as London Underground and light rail systems. ASLEF welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the current Welsh Affairs Select Committee Inquiry into the provision of Cross Border Services in Wales. 2. The Union recognises that many important renewal works are taking place within the Welsh rail infrastructure at present, although the Union is of the view that much of this work needs to be far more ambitious in order to qualitatively improve Cross- Border services not least because cross border services account for one third of all passenger journeys in Wales. 3. ASLEF believes that many basic improvements to Welsh infrastructure could aid cross border services, not least the speed at which trains can enter and leave stations. For instance there are currently speed restrictions of 15 miles per hour in and out of Cardiff Central. Proper investment in track and signalling would allow trains to move in and out at a higher speed not only improving journey times but also increasing the capacity of the station. In some parts of the network trains can enter and exit station at speeds of up to sixty miles per hour. Such a step would dramatically assist some of the issues of bottlenecks in the Cardiff Central area. ASLEF regrets that Network Rail’s infrastructure development plans for Cardiff station are simply replacing like for like and will not address the urgent capacity issues which need to be faced. 4. ASLEF applauds the investment into renewing the infrastructure of the railway network in Wales however there must be greater emphasis on expansion and capacity. Whilst recognising that renewals improve efficiency and reliability which in turn can lead to increased capacity, it is important to be bold in planning for the future of rail in Wales considering the extent to which passenger numbers have increased. Since

78

privatisation, passenger journeys have increased by 80% in Wales. Cross border services have increased by 58%. 5. ASLEF strongly supports the electrification of the Great Western Mainline. Electrification brings a huge amount of benefits including many long term savings. Due to there being fewer moving parts, maintenance on the trains becomes simpler and cheaper. Also, because the vehicles vibrate less and are more rugged, electric traction trains have far longer operational lives meaning they are more cost efficient. It also has many environmental benefits. Electrifying the mainline is a good start but it should not represent the end of the process. Branch lines must also be considered. 6. The Union is concerned that the electrification will end at Cardiff. This will lead to a dramatic deterioration of the service between Cardiff and Swansea and have a negative effect on Swansea’s economy. This is despite the fact that First Great Western who run the franchise believe that there is a business case to continue electrification to Swansea. 7. Cross border passenger journeys which go to and from Swansea have increased by a third since 1995-96 suggesting more frequent services are required, not fewer. 8. There are many services that should be extended but cannot due to a lack of investment in track. It is simply not good enough for Swansea, the second city of Wales to only have an hourly service to London that takes three hours. Trains should be running at 125mph to cut the journey time to two hours. This would bring great benefits to the whole of South West Wales. The evening service from London should also be re-established. 9. Footfall on the on the Cambrian line between Aberystwyth and Shrewsbury grew by 9.2% in 2009-2010. More frequent services are being demanded by passengers. Passenger Focus research, which interviewed more than 800 people, found that 61% would like an hourly service on weekdays. Punctuality is another continuing area of concern on the route, with only 62% of survey respondents satisfied with this aspect of their journey. Such improvements to frequency and punctuality would require improvements to the infrastructure and signalling. While ASLEF welcomed the investment of £13 million into the Cambrian Line to improve reliability and

79

punctuality the Union firmly believes that ensuring a higher frequency service is equally important. 10. ASLEF are concerned that it appears the electrification of the Borderlands Line between Wrexham and Bidston appears to be no closer. Merseyrail estimate the cost of such work would only be £60 million. The Union feels that this could lead to a major catchment area having a more frequent and efficient service, and possibly lead to more passengers using the connection to commute to London and increase passenger service capacity on the W&SR. The scheme would also allow access to jobs and opportunities in both Deeside Industrial Park and central Liverpool. 11. The proposals have been around since the 1970s for the Borderland Line to be electrified. Despite studies being conducted into the feasibility of this, little real progress has been made. 12. ASLEF believes that this option should be pursued and consideration should be given to further lines. Greater electrification is becoming an even more logical infrastructure enhancement aspiration with volatile oil prices and the need to reduce carbon emissions to reduce the impact of climate change. 13. ASLEF is concerned that cross border rail services in Wales have in fact reduced in recent years with direct services from Swansea to north Wales and to Birmingham, York and Newcastle all discontinued. Our view is that such services are vital to on- going Welsh economic, social and environmental development. ASLEF is also very concerned that very little consideration is given to onward connections when Welsh passengers are forced to change services in stations such as Bristol Parkway or Crewe. It is essential that services are integrated so that passengers who cannot take direct services are able to make connecting trains without long waits. Only when the system is integrated will people feel they are receiving the service they deserve. 14. ASLEF believes that in order to improve the one third of all journeys in Wales which are cross border rail services there has to be greater investment in the country’s rail infrastructure. Network Rail’s Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) for Wales, for instance, errs too much on replacing track and signals with like for like rather than

80

upgrading the infrastructure to provide the vital infrastructure enhancements needed to boost capacity and frequency of service. 15. Whilst there has been progress in regard to cross border services over the last few years, there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure capacity meets current passenger numbers and the growth that is expected in the future.

April 2012

81

Written evidence from the South East Wales Transport Alliance (Sewta) (TIW 16)

Sewta welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Inquiry on Cross-Border and Rail Connectivity.

Sewta is a consortium of 10 local authorities; the councils of Blaenau Gwent, Bridgend, Caerphilly, Cardiff, Merthyr Tydfil, Monmouthshire, Newport, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Torfaen and Vale of Glamorgan. Sewta works with stakeholders, including the likes of Network Rail and train operating companies, other partners and the Welsh Government to improve regional transport in South-East Wales. Sewta represents the regional transport interest of 1.4 million people and is the largest of the four transport consortia in Wales.

In our 2010 Regional Transport Plan one of our overarching objectives is to improve connectivity by sustainable transport between South-East Wales and the rest of Wales, the UK and Europe.

Our response will use the headings set out in your invitation to respond to the Inquiry, and our position can be summarised as follows • Cross border bus services – we highlight the variances between tendered services, who subsidises such as services and those which are provided on a commercial basis by bus companies • Cross-border rail services – we note the level of input into the original specifications for each of the three franchises, the challenges such specifications have caused and the potential for improvements to be made. • Infrastructure – we record the potential for rail infrastructure improvements to be made with the greater devolution of Network Rail, and possible opportunities to use local government borrowing powers to improve road infrastructure but highlight the need for clarification on whether English authorities have the same opportunities.

Background 1. Setting into context the issues associated with cross-border transport infrastructure, it is important to note the level of traffic, in terms of people commuting to work, for leisure or education and flow of goods between England and Wales.

2. For example, in Monmouthshire we know that the last statistics suggested that some 3000 people commute each day between Monmouthshire and Bristol. There is also the potential for this demand to increase should the proposed housing development for the Severnside areas of Monmouthshire, Llanwern and 5000 houses planned for the Forest of Dean occur.

3. This level of cross-border traffic, of both people and freight, supports the position of Sewta in one of its objectives to improve connectivity by sustainable transport between South-East Wales and the rest of Wales, the UK and Europe.

82

The extent to which cross-border public road and rail services are currently provided for and accessed by the Welsh population

4. Cross-border bus services are currently provided in a number of ways; • Tendered services subsidised by Welsh local authorities (notably Monmouthshire County Council), • Tendered services subsidised by an English local authority (such as Herefordshire County Council or Gloucestershire County Council) • Tendered services jointly subsidised between Welsh and English authorities; or; • Commercial services.

5. In addition there are a number of commercial coach services which run between England and Wales.

6. Supporting the bus service is a concessionary fares system. Welsh bus pass holders, irrespective of their home authority area, can travel on any bus service which starts in Wales and which finishes in England – and vice-versa. This again tends to be services which start in Monmouthshire and finishes in one of the English border counties. There are no time restrictions for Welsh pass holders.

7. English pass holders have the same concession, except that pass holders are only able to travel from their local area into Wales, and make the same return journey into their home area. Neither English or Welsh concessionary bus pass holders however can travel on buses which start and finish in the other country. English pass holders cannot use their passes until 0930 on Monday to Fridays, and at any time on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank or Public Holidays.

8. For rail services, there are currently three routes which cross the English-Wales border. The Marches (Hereford-Abergavenny-Newport) line; Chepstow (Gloucester-Chepstow- Severn Tunnel Junction) line and thirdly the Great Western Main Line (Pilning-Severn Tunnel –Severn Tunnel Junction. Services on them are provided by three separate franchises.

9. The Wales and Borders franchise, currently operated by Arriva Trains Wales, runs broadly a two hour service on the Cardiff-Holyhead route and an hourly service on the West Wales – Manchester route respectively, and a broadly two hourly service on the South Wales to Cheltenham service along the Chepstow Line, with an additional hourly service every second hour.

10. The Cross Country franchise, currently operated by Arriva Trains, provides an hourly service between South Wales and Nottingham, though not every station in the border counties (e.g. Severn Tunnel Junction, Caldicot, Chepstow and Lydney) currently receives an hourly train service. In addition one train a day under the same franchise runs from Cardiff via Newport and Severn Tunnel Junction to Bristol, before continuing northwards.

83

11. The Great Western franchise currently operated by First Great Western provides an hourly London to Swansea service, with additional peak services to provide an half hourly frequency in the morning and late pm peaks. On Mondays to Fridays there is also an hourly London to Cardiff service, thus providing an all day half hourly service between London and Cardiff.

12. The franchise also provides a Monday to Saturday half hourly service between Cardiff, Newport and Bristol, before continuing on towards either Bath and the South Coast, or Taunton. However, not every station in the border counties (e.g. Severn Tunnel Junction, Pilning and Patchway) currently receives a half hourly train service.

The arrangements currently in place to co-ordinate cross-border road and rail transport service provision

13. The specification for the Wales and Borders franchise was originally set by the former Strategic Rail Authority, whilst the Cross Country and Greater Western franchises were specified by the Department for Transport.

14. For each franchise, it would be fair to say that there was a variance in level that the interests and objectives of the likes of the Welsh Government, local authorities in Wales, and England, and regional transport consortia such as Sewta, were included in the final specifications.

15. For example, it is often reported that the original Wales and Borders franchise was not specified to allow any significant growth in passenger demand, with also the service on the Chepstow Line being one of the few inter-regional within the whole franchise not to have a specified hourly service.

16. Similarly the Greater Western Franchise originally specified a reduction in the service on the cross-border Cardiff to Bristol routes.

17. Despite these failings in the original specifications and some improvements to the service, particularly on the Cardiff to Bristol route, passenger demand on the three cross-border routes has been strong and exceeded all rail industry forecasts.

18. Management of the Wales and Borders franchise is the responsibility of the Welsh Government, with the Department for Transport maintaining some interest and management of those cross-borders services within the franchise. Direct management of the Cross Country and Great Western franchises still sits with the Department for Transport, who also maintain an interest in those cross-border services as defined as such within the Wales and Borders franchise.

84

19. We understand there is dialogue between the Welsh Government and Department for Transport over the Cross Country and Great Western franchises but are not aware of the frequency, extent or content of such discussions.

20. A further point to make in relation to the three franchises concerns the specification to consult with stakeholders on timetable changes.

21. The Wales and Borders and Cross Country franchises have a formal requirement to consult on timetable changes, and we have welcomed the decision of the Cross Country franchise operator to increase their service to some stations on the Chepstow Line.

22. Despite this, we would however suggest there is the potential for the two franchise operators on the route to work more closely in terms of timetabling services to provide overall a higher level of service within the franchise’s respective specifications.

23. No such formal requirement to consult on timetable changes exist within the Great Western franchise. This omission from the requirements, which when combined with the deficiencies in the original service specification has caused challenges in the life of the franchise.

24. We must acknowledge however that the operator of the Greater Western franchise has undertake a degree of informal consultation with local authorities, regional transport consortia and local rail user groups to the extent that increases in the level of service on the Cardiff to Bristol route has been secured, above that which the operator is contractually obliged to run.

25. For rail services, we are also aware of bi-annual cross-border forums hosted by the Welsh Government with the English local authorities. However, no Welsh authority or any of the regional transport consortia is invited to these meetings and furthermore we do not receive any specific direct feedback from the meetings.

26. Notwithstanding, good relationships exist between English and Welsh local authorities within Sewta, and Monmouthshire County Council meeting a number of times each year with the West of England Partnership, Gloucestershire County Council, North Somerset Council, Wiltshire Council and Swindon Councils.

27. In the past two years, this has also seen these organisations come together, with economic forums in Wales and business groups in the Great Western Partnership to lobby for electrification of the Great Western Main Line and development of a high speed rail service between London and South West England and South Wales.

28. More recently, Sewta, Monmouthshire County Council, the West of England Partnership, Gloucestershire County Council, North Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire councils met and regularly liaised over identifying common themes to inform our organisation’s respective responses to the Department for Transport consultation on a replacement for

85

the Greater Western Franchise.

29. Dialogue also exists with Herefordshire County Council in terms of services on the Marches Line.

30. The cross-border local authorities meetings and early meetings of the Great Western Partnership did see attendance from the respective government agencies in England, such as the South West Regional Development Agency and Government Office for South West, and Welsh Government. Attendance of these bodies at recent meetings of the Great Western Partnership has declined, which in the case of the South West RDA is due to their abolition.

31. Turning to subsidised bus services – particularly those where there is a joint subsidy between English and Welsh local authorities, regular dialogue between the authorities take place to secure agreement on the level of service, funding and tendering arrangements.

32. For commercial services however, we are reliant on maintaining a regular dialogue with those operators which provide such services and again this is predominantly led by Monmouthshire County Council. We would also be advised of any changes to bus services through the bus registration process administered by VOSA.

33. Looking forward, authorities in Wales await with interest the results of the Department for Transport’s intention to decentralise certain aspects of specification of rail services to local authorities in England.

34. Sewta and Monmouthshire County Council will be responding to the current Department for Transport consultation in due course, but in our response to the Department for Transport's Greater Western Franchise consultation we observed that whilst the principle of decentralisation is largely sound, issues such as level of funding, need to maintain decision making at a level where there exists a sufficient level of democratic mandate (i.e. local or unitary authorities, and not perhaps parish or community councils).

35. We also argue that there also needs to be an acknowledgement that one of the strengths of the rail system is that it’s a national network, and devolution does of course offer the potential, perhaps unlikely, for a decision made at a local level to run contrary to a national objective. An issue which is perhaps most pertinent with those cross-border services.

36. However, our greatest concern should devolution of rail services be given to English local authorities and regional transport groups, concerns again how cross-border service provision and aspirations are met. We would expect again that the likes of Welsh Government, local authorities and regional transport groups in Wales are fully consulted

86

by both the franchise operator and English local authority on any rail service scheme which has the potential to improve or have an impact on passengers in Wales.

The potential impact on Wales of the plans for a High Speed 2 (HS2) Rail service between London, the Midlands and North of England

37. Our only observation on the High Speed 2 Rail Service is that linkages to existing rail lines (particularly in London) needs to be carefully thought through.

The funding of cross-border transport infrastructure

38. For the road infrastructure, it is important to make the distinction between the different responsibilities for certain roads. There are those cross-border roads which are the responsibility of the relevant English local authority and Welsh Government/South Wales Trunk Road Agency (SWTRA), such as the A465 between Herefordshire and Monmouthshire, or those roads like the A466 which links Herefordshire, Monmouthshire and Gloucestershire which is the joint responsibility of the local authorities.

39. Those different responsibilities do then have a bearing on the funding arrangements and management plans for the respective road. It is generally the case that because of funding constraints, those roads which are solely the responsibility in Wales of a local authority, enjoy less funding in terms of maintenance and improvement than say that of those roads under the responsibility of the Welsh Government and their agents in SWTRA.

40. Recently, Welsh Local Authorities have been given a commitment from the Welsh Government to use prudential borrowing under the Local Government Borrowing Initiative on capital highway improvement investment under the main objectives of improving the condition of the asset, and improving the functionality of the highway – such as a Making Better Use scheme.

41. It is not clear however, if English local authorities also have a similar prudential borrowing initiative and of so, how this could be aligned with the Welsh initiative for improving the cross-border highways infrastructure.

42. Turning to rail infrastructure, the first point to make is that the funding of Network Rail’s activities, as set out by the Office of Rail Regulation and Control Period documentations, still combines spending for Wales with that of England.

43. Although Network Rail in the publication of their route plans, and move to greater devolution and setting up a Wales unit, does provide an indication of spending within Wales, it is not totally clear how funding of cross-border routes is or current looked after or will be dealt with in the future.

87

44. It is important however to make the point that the end users of the road and rail infrastructure, such as freight companies and commuters, will by design often benefit from improvements to cross-border routes and particularly those in another country.

The progress made on improving co-ordination between the Welsh Government and Department for Transport on cross-border issues and matters of strategic importance.

45. From a low base with the original no-growth specification of the Wales and Borders franchise, and problems which arose with the initial specification for the Greater Western franchise it became increasingly important for bodies within Wales, such as the Welsh Government, to increase their dialogue with the Department for Transport.

46. We would suggest that engagement with the Department for Transport, and lobbying of them by the Welsh Government has led to schemes like electrification of the Great Western Main Line through to Cardiff, and through to Swansea, and electrification of the Valley Lines receiving far more coverage than they would have say 10 year ago.

47. Mindful of what happened at the last award of the Great Western franchise specification, we were therefore pleased to note the discussions that appear to being taken place between Welsh Government and Department for Transport officials on the specification for the Greater Western franchise which will be awarded this year.

48. That said, we would suggest there remains the opportunity and potential for much better dialogue between the likes of Welsh Government, Department for Transport and local authorities on cross-border rail services, to achieve pan-agency support for improvements in services, with a view to achieving better value for money and use of available resources.

49. We are not aware of the extent of the dialogue that has taken place regarding road services and road infrastructure. For example, the Welsh Government has recently begun a public consultation on alleviating congestion on the M4 between junction 23 at Magor and 28 at Castleton around Newport, but we are not aware that the likes of the Highways Agency and English local authorities have been engaged to seek their views and opinions on the transport problems along the adjacent roads which feed traffic into the M4.

50. A key aspect of the cross-border road infrastructure is of course the two Severn Crossings, and whilst aware from what has been reported in the press of discussions about the future toll and concession arrangements, we again have not been directly involved in any discussions between the Welsh Government and UK government over the future of the tolls.

April 2012

88

Written evidence from Ian Lucas MP (TIW 17)

Cross-border transport in the Wrexham constituency

• The A483 road is a key road for the Wrexham constituency.

• Improvements to other roads in the constituency are being affected because of the lack of upgrades to the A483 at its junction with the A55 across the border in Cheshire.

1. The A483 is the predominant trunk road through the Wrexham constituency and its key link to the motorway network.

2. Links are also possible via to the South of Wrexham Industrial Estate, eventually, to the motorway network in the West Midlands; and, eventually, to the North of the constituency to the A550 and the Merseyside motorway network and A55 as a Westerly link to Ireland.

3. For cross-border traffic the A483 , and its intersection with the A55 and from there the M53, M56 and ultimately M6 motorways, remains the key road in Wrexham constituency. For much of the traffic which serves the Wrexham Industrial Estate heading across the border, the links on the A583 are key.

4. The upgrade of the Wrexham Industrial Estate link road, being carried out by Berse Construction and funded by the Welsh Government and Wrexham County Borough Council, has finally put into place a transport link between the A483 and the estate which is fit for purpose and is unquestionably an improvement.

5. Unfortunately, while the links between the Industrial Estate, the A5156 and the A483 have been boosted thanks to a direct capital investment project by the Welsh Government, the intersection between the A483 and A55 just over the border from the Wrexham constituency remains problematic. The heavy use of the routes, especially at peak times of the day, means drivers can face hugely expanded journey times.

6. This, of course, impacts upon the road links to the Wrexham Industrial Estate, and I raised the point with Ministers in February of this year to ask if funding for works in the area could be secured from the Regional Growth Fund:

89

• http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120223/debtext/1 20223-0001.htm#12022332001550

• 10. Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): Which transport schemes will be funded by both her Department and the Regional Growth Fund. [95958]

• The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker): One transport project secured funding from both the Department and the regional growth fund—the low emission transport and sustainable manufacturing north-east bid from Gateshead college, which was successful in round 2 of the regional growth fund. The project was awarded £6.3 million as part of a £45.6 million package that includes £3 million from the Government’s “Plugged-in Places” programme. Both funding streams support the development of high-quality transport technology for low- emission vehicles.

• Ian Lucas: The Labour Welsh Government are funding the building of a relief road to Wrexham industrial estate to facilitate growth and to help create jobs. Unfortunately, the Government on the Cheshire side of the border are blocking good access. The project, which is extremely important, could help to facilitate growth, should the Government believe in that. Can the regional growth fund help?

• Norman Baker: The regional growth fund has been very well received and is producing jobs in areas of high unemployment and from where the public sector is withdrawing to some extent. The fund is important and it has been successful. My Department is investing heavily in infrastructure, but I will look into the specific matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), will reply to the hon. Gentleman.

7. I have not yet, to my knowledge, received such a letter.

8. Some funding has been found in previous years for works on the A483 and A55 interchange; the most recent such project took place in 2011, where a third lane for Eastbound traffic was created onto the A55 and a similar lane to the A483 Southbound.

9. However, as welcome as these improvements were, the junction between the two roads is still in need of further improvement and the congestion created at peak times – especially on the Southern portion of the A483 – is not only impacting business and personal journeys, but, I believe, is having a greater impact on traffic coming from the Welsh side of the border.

April 2012

90

Written evidence from Flintshire County Council (TIW 18)

1. Flintshire County Council is one of six Councils in North Wales which forms part of the TAITH Transport Consortium and recognises the important role it plays in developing and delivering an integrated transport strategy for North Wales.

2. Flintshire County Council fully supports and endorses the submission provided by TAITH on this Call for Evidence. The recent designation of Deeside as an Enterprise Zone and the close proximity of the area in North East Wales cross boundary into England impacts significantly on our need to ensure effective and efficient transport corridors and services.

3. The cross border links from Flintshire and other parts of North Wales to England and vice versa are vital to support economic development and prosperity in both Wales and England.

4. There are major traffic congestion problems on the highway network, particularly the A494 Trunk Road, which need to be addressed to provide sustainable development and transport in the future for Flintshire and beyond.

5. The North East Wales Area Based Transport Study (NEWABTS) commissioned by the Welsh Government and TAITH will seek to address the transport issues in the Deeside, Chester, Wrexham triangle and is a priority in the Wales National Transport Plan (NTP95).

6. Flintshire County Council have worked with the Mersey Dee Alliance and with Cheshire West and Chester and Merseytravel/Wirral MBC in the development of their Local Sustainable Transport Fund bids of over £30 million which Councils in Wales do not have the benefit of bidding into.

7. Flintshire does not have the benefit of a direct passenger rail service between Wrexham, Flintshire, Cheshire, Wirral and Liverpool. This would significantly improve cross border movement and access to employment and leisure opportunities and provide the opportunity to fully integrate transport services and provide sustainable transport which is supported by TAITH and Merseytravel/Local Authorities/stakeholders.

8. The railway network is currently under utilised for Freight and the opportunity exists for the development of a Rail Freight Consolidation Centre at Shotton, Deeside which is within the newly formed Enterprise Zone. This would involve the replacement of existing freight movements by road and reduce carbon emissions and could be enhanced by the building of the Shotton Rail Chord to meet the needs of North Wales going forward.

April 2012

91

Written evidence from Monmouthshire County Council (TIW 19)

Monmouthshire County Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Inquiry on Cross-Border and Rail Connectivity.

Monmouthshire County Council is a member of Sewta, the regional consortium of 10 local authorities looking after the transport interest of some 1.4 million people in South East Wales. Given its geographical position, Monmouthshire County Council often represents Sewta on at meetings on cross-border transport issues, some of which are referred to in the rest of our response.

In the Sewta 2010 Regional Transport Plan, one of the overarching objectives is to improve connectivity by sustainable transport between South-East Wales and the rest of Wales, the UK and Europe. This is particularly relevant to ourselves in Monmouthshire given the higher than average level of outcommuting from the authority to the likes of Bristol, Gloucestershire and Herefordshire.

Our response will use the headings set out in your invitation to respond to the Inquiry, and our position can be summarised as follows

• Cross border bus services – we highlight the variances between tendered services, who subsidise such services and those which are provided on a commercial basis by bus companies • Cross-border rail services – we note the level of input into the original specifications for each of the three franchises, the challenges such specifications have caused and the potential for improvements to be made. • Infrastructure – we record the potential for rail infrastructure improvements to be made with the greater devolution of Network Rail, and possible opportunities to use local government borrowing powers to improve road infrastructure but highlight the need for clarification on whether English authorities have the same opportunities.

Background

1. Setting into context the issues associated with cross-border transport infrastructure, it is important to note the level of traffic, in terms of people commuting to work, for leisure or education and flow of goods between England and Wales.

2. For example, in Monmouthshire we know that the last statistics suggested that some 3000 people commute each day between Monmouthshire and Bristol. There is also the potential for this demand to increase should the proposed housing development for the Severnside areas of Monmouthshire, Llanwern and 5000 houses planned for the Forest of Dean occur.

92

3. This level of cross-border traffic, of both people and freight, supports the position of Monmouthshire County Council to improve connectivity from the authority to the UK and Europe.

The extent to which cross-border public road and rail services are currently provided for an accessed by the Welsh population

4. Cross-border bus services are currently provided in a number of ways;

• Tendered services subsidised by Welsh local authorities (this is for the most part ourselves at Monmouthshire County Council), • Tendered services subsidised by an English local authority (such as Herefordshire County Council or Gloucestershire County Council) • Tendered services jointly subsidised between Welsh and English authorities; or; • Commercial services.

5. In addition there are a number of commercial coach services which run between England and Wales.

6. Supporting the bus service is a concessionary fares system. Welsh bus pass holders, irrespective of their home authority area, can travel on any bus service which starts in Wales and which finishes in England – and vice-versa. This again tends to be services which start in Monmouthshire and finishes in one of the English border counties. There are no time restrictions for Welsh pass holders.

7. English pass holders have the same concession, except that pass holders are only able to travel from their local area into Wales, and make the same return journey into their home area. Neither English or Welsh concessionary bus pass holders however can travel on buses which start and finish in the other country. English pass holders can not use their passes until 0930 on Monday to Fridays, and at any time on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank or Public Holidays.

8. For rail services, there are currently three routes which cross the English-Wales border. The Marches (Hereford-Abergavenny-Newport) line; Chepstow (Gloucester-Chepstow- Severn Tunnel Junction) line and thirdly the Great Western Main Line (Pilning-Severn Tunnel –Severn Tunnel Junction. Services on them are provided by three separate franchises.

9. The Wales and Borders franchise, currently operated by Arriva Trains Wales, runs broadly a two hour service on the Cardiff-Holyhead route and an hourly service on the

93

West Wales – Manchester route respectively, and a broadly two hourly service on the South Wales to Cheltenham service along the Chepstow Line, with an additional hourly service every second hour.

10. The Cross Country franchise, currently operated by Arriva Trains, provides an hourly service between South Wales and Nottingham, though not every station in the border counties (e.g. Severn Tunnel Junction, Caldicot, Chepstow and Lydney) currently receives an hourly train service. In addition one train a day under the same franchise runs from Cardiff via Newport and Severn Tunnel Junction to Bristol, before continuing northwards.

11. The Great Western franchise currently operated by First Great Western provides an hourly London to Swansea service, with additional peak services to provide an half hourly frequency in the morning and late pm peaks. On Mondays to Fridays there is also an hourly London to Cardiff service, thus providing an all day half hourly service between London and Cardiff.

12. The franchise also provides a Monday to Saturday half hourly service between Cardiff, Newport and Bristol, before continuing on towards either Bath and the South Coast, or Taunton. However, not every station in the border counties (e.g. Severn Tunnel Junction, Pilning and Patchway) currently receives a half hourly train service.

The arrangements currently in place to co-ordinate cross-border road and rail transport service provision

13. The specification for the Wales and Borders franchise was originally set by the former Strategic Rail Authority, whilst the Cross Country and Greater Western franchises were specified by the Department for Transport.

14. For each franchise, it would be fair to say that there was a variance in level that the interests and objectives of the likes of the Welsh Government, local authorities in Wales, and England, and regional transport consortia such as Sewta, were included in the final specifications.

15. For example, it is often reported that the original Wales and Borders franchise was not specified to allow any significant growth in passenger demand, with also the service on the Chepstow Line being one of the few inter-regional within the whole franchise not to have a specified hourly service.

94

16. Similarly the Greater Western Franchise originally specified a reduction in the service on the cross-border Cardiff to Bristol routes.

17. Despite these failings in the original specifications and some improvements to the service, particularly on the Cardiff to Bristol route, passenger demand on the three cross-border routes has been strong and exceeded all rail industry forecasts.

18. Management of the Wales and Borders franchise is the responsibility of the Welsh Government, with the Department for Transport maintaining some interest and management of those cross-borders services within the franchise. Direct management of the Cross Country and Great Western franchises still sits with the Department for Transport, who also maintain an interest in those cross-border services as defined as such within the Wales and Borders franchise.

19. We understand there is dialogue between the Welsh Government and Department for Transport over the Cross Country and Great Western franchises but are not aware of the frequency, extent or content of such discussions.

20. A further point to make in relation to the three franchises concerns the specification to consult with stakeholders on timetable changes.

21. The Wales and Borders and Cross Country franchises have a formal requirement to consult on timetable changes, and we have welcomed the decision of the Cross Country franchise operator to increase their service to some stations on the Chepstow Line.

22. Despite this, we would however suggest there is the potential for the two franchise operators on the route to work more closely in terms of timetabling services to provide overall a higher level of service within the franchise’s respective specifications.

23. No such formal requirement to consult on timetable changes exist within the Great Western franchise. This omission from the requirements, which when combined with the deficiencies in the original service specification has caused challenges in the life of the franchise.

24. We must acknowledge however that the operator of the Greater Western franchise has undertake a degree of informal consultation with local authorities, regional transport consortia and local rail user groups to the extent that increases in the level of service on

95

the Cardiff to Bristol route has been secured, above that which the operator is contractually obliged to run.

25. For rail services, we are also aware of bi-annual cross-border forums hosted by the Welsh Government with the English local authorities. However, no Welsh authority or any of the regional transport consortia is invited to these meetings and furthermore we do not receive any specific direct feedback from the meetings.

26. Notwithstanding, good relationships exist between English and Welsh local authorities within Sewta, and Monmouthshire County Council meeting a number of times each year with the West of England Partnership, Gloucestershire County Council, North Somerset Council, Wiltshire Council and Swindon Councils.

27. In the past two years, this has also seen these organisations come together, with economic forums in Wales and business groups in the Great Western Partnership to lobby for electrification of the Great Western Main Line and development of a high speed rail service between London and South West England and South Wales.

28. More recently, with Sewta, officers of Monmouthshire County Council, the West of England Partnership, Gloucestershire County Council, North Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire councils met and regularly liaised over identifying common themes to inform our organisation’s respective responses to the Department for Transport consultation on a replacement for the Greater Western Franchise.

29. Dialogue also exists with Herefordshire County Council in terms of services on the Marches Line.

30. The cross-border local authorities meetings and early meetings of the Great Western Partnership did see attendance from the respective government agencies in England, such as the South West Regional Development Agency and Government Office for South West, and Welsh Government. Attendance of these bodies at recent meetings of the Great Western Partnership has declined, which in the case of the South West RDA is due to their abolition.

31. Turning to subsidised bus services – particularly those where there is a joint subsidy between English and Welsh local authorities, regular dialogue between the authorities take place to secure agreement on the level of service, funding and tendering arrangements.

96

32. For commercial services however, we are reliant on maintaining a regular dialogue with those operators which provide such services and again this is predominantly led by Monmouthshire County Council. We would also be advised of any changes to bus services through the bus registration process administered by VOSA.

33. Looking forward, authorities in Wales await with interest the results of the Department for Transport’s intention to decentralise certain aspects of specification of rail services to local authorities in England.

34. Along with Sewta, Monmouthshire County Council will be responding to the current Department for Transport consultation in due course. However, in our response to the Department for Transport's Greater Western Franchise consultation we observed that whilst the principle of decentralisation is largely sound, issues such as level of funding, need to maintain decision making at a level where there exists a sufficient level of democratic mandate (i.e. local or unitary authorities, and not perhaps parish or community councils).

35. We also argue that there also needs to be an acknowledgement that one of the strengths of the rail system is that it’s a national network, and devolution does of course offer the potential, perhaps unlikely, for a decision made at a local level to run contrary to a national objective. An issue which is perhaps most pertinent with those cross-border services.

36. However, our greatest concern should devolution of rail services be given to English local authorities and regional transport groups, concerns again how cross-border service provision and aspirations are met. We would expect again that the likes of Welsh Government, local authorities and regional transport groups in Wales are fully consulted by both the franchise operator and English local authority on any rail service scheme which has the potential to improve or have an impact on passengers in Wales.

The potential impact on Wales of the plans for a High Speed 2 (HS2) Rail service between London, the Midlands and North of England

37. Our only observation on the High Speed 2 Rail Service is that linkages to existing rail lines (particularly in London) needs to be carefully thought through.

The funding of cross-border transport infrastructure

97

38. For the road infrastructure, it is important to make the distinction between the different responsibilities for certain roads. There are those cross-border roads which are the responsibility of the relevant English local authority and Welsh Government/South Wales Trunk Road Agency (SWTRA), such as the A465 between Herefordshire and Monmouthshire, or those roads like the A466 which links Herefordshire, Monmouthshire and Gloucestershire which is the joint responsibility of the local authorities.

39. Those different responsibilities do then have a bearing on the funding arrangements and management plans for the respective road. It is generally the case that because of funding constraints, those roads which are solely the responsibility in Wales of a local authority, enjoy less funding in terms of maintenance and improvement than say that of those roads under the responsibility of the Welsh Government and their agents in SWTRA.

40. Recently, Welsh Local Authorities have been given a commitment from the Welsh Government to use prudential borrowing under the Local Government Borrowing Initiative on capital highway improvement investment under the main objectives of improving the condition of the asset, and improving the functionality of the highway – such as a Making Better Use scheme.

41. It is not clear however, if English local authorities also have a similar prudential borrowing initiative and of so, how this could be aligned with the Welsh initiative for improving the cross-border highways infrastructure.

42. Turning to rail infrastructure, the first point to make is that the funding of Network Rail’s activities, as set out by the Office of Rail Regulation and Control Period documentations, still combines spending for Wales with that of England.

43. Although Network Rail in the publication of their route plans, and move to greater devolution and setting up a Wales unit, does provide an indication of spending within Wales, it is not totally clear how funding of cross-border routes is or current looked after or will be dealt with in the future.

44. It is important however to make the point that the end users of the road and rail infrastructure, such as freight companies and commuters, will by design often benefit from improvements to cross-border routes and particularly those in another country.

98

The progress made on improving co-ordination between the Welsh Government and Department for Transport on cross-border issues and matters of strategic importance.

45. From a low base with the original no-growth specification of the Wales and Borders franchise, and problems which arose with the initial specification for the Greater Western franchise it became increasingly important for bodies within Wales, such as the Welsh Government, to increase their dialogue with the Department for Transport.

46. We would suggest that engagement with the Department for Transport, and lobbying of them by the Welsh Government has led to schemes like electrification of the Great Western Main Line through to Cardiff, and through to Swansea, and electrification of the Valley Lines receiving far more coverage than they would have say 10 year ago.

47. Mindful of what happened at the last award of the Great Western franchise specification, we were therefore pleased to note the discussions that appear to being taken place between Welsh Government and Department for Transport officials on the specification for the Greater Western franchise which will be awarded this year.

48. That said, we would suggest there remains the opportunity and potential for much better dialogue between the likes of Welsh Government, Department for Transport and local authorities on cross-border rail services, to achieve pan-agency support for improvements in services, with a view to achieving better value for money and use of available resources.

49. We are not aware of the extent of the dialogue that has taken place regarding road services and road infrastructure. For example, the Welsh Government has recently begun a public consultation on alleviating congestion on the M4 between junction 23 at Magor and 28 at Castleton around Newport, but we are not aware that the likes of the Highways Agency and English local authorities have been engaged to seek their views and opinions on the transport problems along the adjacent roads which feed traffic into the M4.

50. A key aspect of the cross-border road infrastructure is of course the two Severn Crossings, and whilst aware from what has been reported in the press of discussions about the future toll and concession arrangements, we again have not been directly involved in any discussions between the Welsh Government and UK government over the future of the tolls.

April 2012

99

Written evidence from Professor Stuart Cole, Emeritus Professor of Transport, Wales Transport Research Centre, University of Glamorgan (TIW 20)

1 CROSS BORDER ROAD / RAIL CONNECTIVITY: CURRENT PROVISION MATRIX

This Matrix shows the key routes in terms of the level of cross border service provided.

The principal key car travel and road freight movements between Wales and England are along certain key roads: 1) North East Wales to Cheshire/Merseyside (A55; A548 Queensferry link) 2) North to Manchester / London (A55 & onward Motorway links) 3) Mid Wales to Shrewsbury / Birmingham (A483; A44 & onward Motorway links) 4) South east commuting: Notably Bristol via Severn Bridges (M4/M48); also over land border (Gloucestershire/Herefordshire-A48; A449).

The exclusion of any region of Wales indicates that the traffic flow is relatively low between the points referred to. The flows include cars, freight transport and public transport by road and rail. The mode/type of road indicates the significant major part of the journey

Mode of Transport

Road Rail

Wales Motorway Expressway Single IC Regional A Road Region

To/from

(England region)

North √ √ √

London/S E England Mid √ √ √ √

South √ √

North √ √ √

100

Midlands/Birmingham Mid √ √ √

South √ √

North √ √ √

N W Mid England/Manchester

South √ √

S W England/Bristol South √ √

Liverpool/Merseyside North √ √ √

Rail Operators

Intercity (IC): First Great Western; Virgin Trains

Regional: Arriva Trains Wales; Cross Country Trains

2 CO-ORDINATION OF CROSS-BORDER ROAD / RAIL SERVICE PROVISION (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS)

There is a need for a coordinated policy on traffic generating activities (e.g. health care), on travel plans and on forecasting flows between the Welsh Government (WG) and the Department for Transport (DfT). An understanding of the overall objective of reducing unnecessary travel to reduce emissions and traffic congestion often resulting from other policies is required.

Bus

Cross border bus services generally provide for access by Welsh residents to employment and activities such as retail, education, leisure and health services in England. The bus network is provided commercially (i.e. for profit) by the private sector and any intervention by either WG or the local authorities in Wales or England would be restricted to covering specific shortcomings in bus services where a subsidy is required. Co-ordination of services can therefore be difficult and throughout this briefing paper it will become apparent that expenditure and service priorities differing between the two countries and between local transport authorities (i.e. county councils / PTE’s) are a hindrance to such integration of

101

cross-border bus service provision. The other hindrance is the provision in the Transport Act 1985 relating to bus deregulation. This is problematic, outside London, for any effective integrated public transport policy.

Powers to transfer regulation of bus services to the Regional Consortia (as a similar franchising regulatory regime to London and Northern Ireland) in Wales were excluded from the Transport (Wales) Act 2006 but proposed in a subsequent LCO in 2008 and supported by all parties in the National Assembly. Such a change would provide for integration on the Welsh side of the border with a need to then examine the role of the local authorities in bus service integration on the English side. Such a move would enable integrated bus operations to be more easily achieved but with expenditure priorities continuing to present a problem.

In its 2008 Cross-border inquiry the Committee will have received information on the Central Wales - West Midlands ‘Memorandum of Understanding on Cross Border Collaboration. It was an example of good practice in coordination but it had no expenditure function and was therefore limited to being a discussion forum.

Rail

Train services in Wales as in England are provided for by train operating companies within a tendering process. The Wales and Borders franchise is let to Arriva Trains Wales while the DfT is the tendering body for the Great Western (First Group), Cross Country (Arriva), and West Coast Main Line - operating on the North Wales Main Line (Virgin Trains) franchises.

Through the franchising system and the work of the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC, Network rail, the DfT and the Welsh Government) there exists for Great Britain a comprehensive operational timetable. This ensures a means of priority of operation along lengths of track and links cross border services. The Carmarthen – Manchester service for example is a single cross border operation as is the Swansea – London service and the Cardiff – Birmingham service. All operate along common sections of track for varying distances and all provide cross – border services. There never was any intention of changing at Severn Tunnel Junction or Shotton merely to facilitate the border. The reference at the time of devolution to a Craven Arms International station was of course ‘tongue in cheek’.

Markets determine the operating pattern of trains with intervention by the two government franchising authorities where socially necessary services and subsidy are required. This is not to say that interconnections between train companies or even within the same operator are guaranteed. They will frequently be available but other ‘product led’ rather than ‘market led’ factors such as train set and crew working patterns and the types of train availability will come into play. For example the early morning cross border trains from Swansea or Cardiff to London either have tight connections or a long wait from local west Wales or Valley Lines services

The key stations defining rail services in Wales are in order of importance – Reading, Birmingham New Street and Crewe. Cardiff comes later but it does indicate how cross border services are operationally linked. Cardiff has become a major hub for south Wales rail

102

operations to London, Birmingham, Manchester and Bristol. Chester and Crewe perform the same function for north Wales and Shrewsbury for mid Wales

Thus in the case of the railways the cross border services are more a matter of operations and markets than the existence of the border itself. But there remains an on-going question – to what extent are services to / from / within Wales put second to services within England at e.g. Reading or Birmingham.

Freight

The freight business on both road and rail is entirely in the private sector.

The primary issue which companies raise is the quality or capacity of the highway or rail network.

3 HS 2 – POTENTIAL IMPACT ON WALES

The essential point here is not that High Speed rail (HSR) is unacceptable. It is a vital part of the means of providing an efficient rail system and provides high quality connectivity. The issue is that HS2 does not meet the needs of Wales. Even with its extended route to north west England and the capacity increases it will bring to the West Coast Main Line, the lack of electrification on the North wales Main Line does not allow it to bring major economic and travel benefits to north Wales.

HS2: improve capacity and journey times between north-south Britain

The original objective for HS2 was to increase capacity on the line between Birmingham and London but subsequently concentrated on the potential for economic growth. A HSR Strategy focused on addressing both capacity and economic activity objectives could look different to the current proposals in terms of geographic spread and phasing.

The current proposals although presented as a “HSR network for the whole of Britain” only cover north-south connectivity in England and potentially to Scotland and do not include south west England or Wales. Wales and south-west England are excluded on the basis that electrification of the GWML will address the capacity issues. Excluding Wales on this basis is no longer valid (irrespective of the decisions on electrification) if, promoting economic growth, spreading of economic prosperity from London and the south-east, and reducing regional disparity are objectives of HSR.

Economic Prosperity for Wales

Given HSR is being presented as a means of promoting economic growth then the strategy for HSR should cover the whole of Great Britain, should be integrated with a wider strategy for rail and be clear on the economic benefits and impacts of the strategy and implementation programme being promoted.

103

Promoting economic activity is a key priority for the Welsh Government. Wales has the lowest GVA per head of all the nations and regions of the UK and its position is worsening. . This is evidenced by Government figures in 2010 showing that Wales’ GVA has fallen to 74.3% of the UK average down, 2.5% on 2009 and down from 77.4% in 2000. Much of this can be attributed to the structural nature of the economy in Wales according to an analysis by the University of Glamorgan Business School.

The current HS2 proposals are detrimental to the economic prosperity of Wales compared to those parts of Great Britain to receive HSR and given the analysis undertaken (by Greenguage 21) assumes the electrification of the GWML to Swansea, then the position for Wales could be even worse and will increase regional economic disparity.

Based on the evidence any HSR Strategy that does not include Wales For every year that improvements in journey time are delayed impacts on the continuing competiveness and economic prosperity of Wales, as the position of Wales relative to other regions will continue to worsen and the economic effects will be compounded.

With the HS2 full extension proposals Manchester, Leeds and North East of England will be better connected to London, Birmingham and each other than Cardiff and Swansea. This will undermine the position of Wales even further.

HSR: an all - Great Britain rail strategy

This requires clear objectives and a clear understanding of the benefits and implications of the HSR strategy and the phased implementation of the strategy.

A review is needed of the UK Government’s plan for HSR as part of a coordinated strategy with the WG which will promote the best rail investment options for the whole of Great Britain and for Wales in particular.

4 FUNDING CROSS-BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS)

Rail Infrastructure

This in both Wales and England is the responsibility of Network Rail. The establishment of the new Cymru – Wales Route (Division) will enable transparency of expenditure and enable the Welsh Government to work alongside the Cardiff Network Rail office to put forward a stronger case for rail investment in Wales.

Roads

Highways are a devolved matter. In England the national network is the responsibility of the Highways Agency and Transport Wales, a department of the Welsh Government in Wales. All other roads are the responsibility of the local authorities in both countries. The priority

104

given to a particular road which crosses the border will affect the action taken on the highway.

This may apply to the north Wales A55 Expressway if for example any changes are envisaged in the Queensferry area with increased capacity on the A494 linking into the M56. There is no process for cross border capacity integration and historically over the last 40 years there has been no framework for cross border road construction planning. Further as much of the traffic on this road is bound for Chester or Merseyside any move to create a North east Wales – Cheshire – Merseyside Rail Metro to deal with commuter flows also has no specific governmental ‘forum’ although it could be easier to establish given the franchised nature of the railways system.

More difficult is the A483 which runs from Llandovery to Welshpool. It then enters England after Llanymynech, serving Oswestry and Gobowen, re-enters Wales at Chirk, serves Ruabon and Wrexham, and finally continues into England, linking with the English trunk road and motorway network at Chester. The A483 in Wales is a Welsh Government national trunk road between west and mid Wales and the north west of England and also within Wales. Investment in those stretches in Wales have not had matched priority to the isolated English stretches (e.g. from Pant to Llanymynech) from the local authorities nor therefore by the Highways Agency. If this position remains it would be one cross-border highway which ought to be restored to the Highways Agency Major Schemes Programme.

The M4 presents a capacity issue at Newport and at Bristol. While this is a matter for the respective governments it does present transport delays in peak periods and on event dates.

The other important cross border road, the A 465 / A 40 / M 50 Swansea - Abergavenny – west Midlands route is of either dual carriageway or motorway standard. The quality upgrade in this case is required on the Welsh side of the border.

Severn Road Crossing - Profits and Funding

The capital investment in the total two bridge project was

Debt from First Severn Crossing £120m

Construction cost of Second Crossing £330m

Total Investment £450m

Source: The Severn Crossings Toll: Report, Welsh Affairs Committee 22 December 2010

The company’s concession allows it to recoup £998m from tolls at which point the concession ends. This is currently estimated to be 2017 (Announcement April 2012). Alternatively the concession must end in 2026

The capital funding of the second Severn Road Crossing (SSRC) came from five sources: • U K Government

105

• European Investment bank • A debenture issued solely for this bridge by a single purpose company. • Shareholders • A syndicate of banks led by Lloyds Bank plc.

The four equity shareholders are: • 35% VINCI the French /multinational construction company • 35% John Laing the British construction company • 15% Barclays Capital Fund • 15% Bank of America

The concept of profit or loss only applies to the SRC plc Company itself. This has made small profits or losses (its expenses have exceeded its income) each year in the traditional sense of a plc. However it’s operating position alone is a profitable one. Its income in 2009 was £77m and its expenditure on operations, maintenance, salaries, cash collection, policing etc. was £12m. An additional £3m expenditure gave £15m in total. This gives an operating profit of £62m. The SRC plc asserts that their funding charges exceed that £62m and they therefore make a loss. Part of that money goes to pay debenture holders each year and part goes into a fund to pay off the capital at agreed periods. The information publicly available on those capital debt repayment stages is: • The senior debt has been repaid • The bank debt was repaid in2007 (to whom). SRC plc have said that the bank consortium led by Lloyds Bank had provided a syndicated loan of £190m at a rate of 8% - 9% (an attractive rate apparently in 1992) and EIB a loan of £150m. This latter would typically be a soft loan at a low rate of interest • The European Investment bank debt was repaid in 2009 • There is an accumulated fund to pay off the debenture holders in 2013 • The outstanding debt to the UK Government has to be paid off at the end of the concession

However if the financial position of the funding bodies is examined a different picture emerges

UK Government was repaid £62m (half of its loan) in 1992 on day one and the balance was used to finance the construction

Debenture holders including pension funds who loaned £131in 1992 have been paid their fixed coupon (or dividend) on 31 June and 31 December each year. The capital element is paid from the fund referred to (Committee Report on The Severn Crossing Tolls 2010, para197, - Mr James Rawle).. This loan has to be repaid before all other creditors (except HMR&C) including the equity shareholders.

EIB has been repaid

106

The Lloyds Bank led syndicate has been repaid

So profits may not have been made by the company but their financial backers have not suffered from their investment.

Shareholders. The only risk on repayment for the investment lies with the shareholders. They are the last in any repayment of debt chain. They would expect a return on their capital (interest and capital repayment) and are experienced financial or construction companies who having taken the risk would expect a “profit” at the end of the concession. Shareholder investors are not entitled to take any profit or dividend until the very end of the concession. So it is a 25 – 26 year investment period (Report 2010, para 25 Mr Jim Clune)

Maintenance vs. Toll Costs

Based on the figures provided by the witnesses and the notes taken at the bridge meeting the following appears to be the position • Income £77m • Expenditure 1 £12m • Expenditure 2 £3m • Operating profit £62m

Notes

Expenditure 1 included all the costs of maintenance (excluding latent and other maintenance which is the Highways Agency responsibility); staff costs; cash collection costs; policing

Expenditure 2 is an item which might be determined from SRC plc.

It could therefore be suggested that when all funding costs are paid off the only remaining expense at 2009 prices is the £15m in expenditure and that represents in terms of tolls: • £15m / £77m = 19.4% • £5.60 at 19.4% = £1.10 (rounded up to the nearest 10p).

This could be the toll charged by a returned to public sector not for profit operation. The DfT did reserve the right to charge appropriate tolls for five years to set up a maintenance fund

Rail

This is the responsibility of Network Rail. It is a not for dividend company in the private sector and is able to borrow capital on the financial market outside the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement.

In fact there is a close financial relationship with DfT

107

There is a process of establishing the expenditure in each Network Rail Control Period (financial period). The current Control Period 4 is 2009 -14. At present the determination of the expenditure and income for CP 5 (2014 -19) is the subject of inputs from DfT, the Office of Rail Regulation) who produce their High level Output Statement (HLOS)), Network Rail and the Welsh Government.

A potential problem arises from the dichotomous position of the DfT in that it is part of the Network Rail financing process and also the determinant of which rail services in England will be funded. The electrification of the Trans Pennine network was announced in December2011 but the outcome of the discussions on the Great Western Main Line and Valley Lines electrification had not been determined. On the basis of HM Treasury’s Financial Business Case methodology on which all schemes are to be assessed the economic returns on each scheme should be determined before any expenditure decision is made, would be the economists view.

Freight

There is no specific infrastructure specifically for cross border traffic other than that referred to above under road and rail expenditure.

5 PROGRESS ON IMPROVING CO-ORDINATION BETWEEN THE WELSH GOVERNMENT (WG) AND THE DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT (DFT) [POLICY AND MATTERS OF STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE]

Severn River Crossing Tolls

These are the responsibility of the DfT under the terms of the Severn Bridges Act 1992. There have been discussions between WG and DfT on the future of the tolls and the management of the bridges. One possibility would be to transfer the bridges to WG at the end of the concession in 2017 (current estimated date). This would merely require a short Act to amend the 1992 legislation. It would provide an appropriate funding stream for additions to the DfT funded electrification programme or to provide an affordable fiscal base for a new M4 in place of PFI or direct borrowing by WG.

Discussions would be expected to be continuing between the two governments on this issue and the future of the bridges in general.

Roads

The investment prioritising on both sides of the border apparently still remains a problem on the A483 although there have been steps in the right direction. The A458 at Buttington is now being jointly considered by the WG, the Highways Agency and DfT but it is understood not to be in the Highway Agency’s Major Projects Programme. The extensive motorway network in north west England has an impact on cross-border roads into north Wales. In all these cases regular discussion between the two Governments would be expected. The outcome which is not so easy to achieve is the fiscal priority and investment in the connecting roads.

108

Electrification of Valley Lines and GWML

This was a particularly successful process in terms of producing the Transport Business Case for the Valley Lines and South Wales Main Line electrification schemes. It could be seen as a model for cross border transport investment and strategic planning. The economic and technical process carried out by the professional economic and operational team was overseen by a working group with representative from both WG and DfT. As the economist involved in the review and verification of the economic appraisal I found the relationship between WG and DfT worked well

There are discussions now taking place between Ministers and officials to determine the expenditure mix which both Governments find acceptable. The Benefit Cost Ratio of the electrification pf the GWML to Swansea and the full Valley Lines Metro (Maesteg – Bridgend – Glyn Ebbw, Cardiff Bay and the Vale of Glamorgan lines) is 4.3:1. This is more than double the BCR on the HS 2 scheme (2.0:1)

The decision by the UK Government in the 1980’s to restrict the electrification of the GWML to London Heathrow Airport only was criticised by the then BRB Chairman, Sir Bob Reid. The marginal cost per mile of extending that scheme to Cardiff and Swansea and to Reading, Bristol and Plymouth was low compared with the cost of the scheme now under consideration. The reason for the difference is the high set up cost (establishing a team, technical design, procurement and scale economies, and rail track possessions - closures for engineering work) no matter how many miles of track electrification are involved.

The same principle applies to the electrification of Cross Rail to Maidenhead becoming the basis for the electrification to south Wales.

In general electric trains: • Are cheaper to run • Require less maintenance • Do not carry their fuel around as an extra weight related cost • Emit less carbon at the point of operation at least • Given that oil is likely to become a scarcer and more expensive source of fuel and other forms of electricity generation are likely to provide benefits of energy source security in the longer term.

The new generation of Intercity Express (IEP) trains: • Will deliver between 20% and 40% more capacity • Will be readily adaptable to whatever future power sources prove most efficient • Are expected to be trialled in 2014 for delivery from 2016 • Will be lighter weight to give passengers a better ride

109

The application of this programme to the Great Western Main Line could double the existing peak capacity from: • the remodelling of Reading station area • deployment of the new Intercity Express train • re modelling of tracks around Paddington • Cross Rail services from Maidenhead

Mr Iain Coucher, the previous Chief Executive NR said publicly that all routes on which the Intercity Express Project trains would operate should be electrified to save dragging diesel engines around under the wires, starting with the Midland and Great Western Main Lines.

Doubling Rail Track Wrexham – Chester

The funding for this scheme has been allocated by WG and Network Rail. Network Rail are now preparing the GRIP 4 analysis. This deals with the detailed design of the scheme following the GRIP 1-3 feasibility and strategic stages. Completion could be expected by 2015 / 16

Concessionary Bus Passes

Following the success of the national (Wales) concessionary free bus travel arrangements (Cerdyn Cymru), a decision was made in England to extend the subsequent English county- based version across the country. This has however proved to be difficult to operate and with a high financial implication.

In England, funding is via the originating travel concession authority (e.g. counties or PTA’s) for travel on off peak bus services only but with discretion to pay for other journeys on peak services or on trams or trains. This could lead to those English residents who travel into Wales (e.g. to Abergavenny or Monmouth, or Chepstow) being redirected to less convenient English towns, to the detriment of both themselves and the Welsh border economy.

There are significant operational differences in funding arrangements. In Wales, WG funds the scheme via local authorities based the county of residence of the holder. The pass holder may travel on any bus at any time of day within Wales. Welsh residents who travel into England (e.g. to Chester, Shrewsbury, Hereford or Gloucester) would qualify for free travel in both directions.

The DfT see considerable financial implications which would need to be resolved before mutual recognition of bus passes in Wales and England could be pursued. Local cross border arrangements on a localised basis may continue.

The WG view also identifies practical and financial issues before a cross-border card could be introduced. The geographical extent of the scheme in England in itself is problematic. There

110

are inconsistencies in times of use and the scheme in England is operated by local authorities as individual schemes. In Wales the counties are the agents of the Welsh Government.

The Welsh Local Government Association believed a recharging system between Welsh and English authorities can be derived but ‘should not work to the detriment of passengers on either side of the border’. This is probably true but at present only through a financial expenditure increase which is unlikely to be affordable to the Welsh Government.

Traffic Commissioner

The Local Transport Act 2008 abolished the Traffic Commissioner for Wales and for the West Midlands. Previously a Traffic Commissioner was appointed for each traffic area of which Wales was one. In Wales and in the West Midlands it was currently the same person.

There has been considerable discussion on whether a Traffic Commissioner based in Birmingham can deal with current issues in Wales, let alone in circumstances where there are likely be further devolved powers on bus operation.

Successive reports from the House of Commons Welsh Affairs Committee and the National Assembly for Wales have recommended that a Welsh Traffic Commissioner based in Cardiff is the way forward. (Transport in Wales (HC 205, Session 2002-03); Draft Transport (Wales) Bill (HC 759, Session 2003-04. Page 11; Recommendation 6 Page 36); Draft Transport (Wales) Bill (Economic Development and Transport Committee, National Assembly for Wales Report, July 2004. Page 29))

The UK Government Response (HC 1252, Session 2003-04; Recommendation 6 Page 3) says the Government ‘will work closely with the Assembly to monitor concerns about the accessibility of the Commissioner in Wales’. From evidence given to the Committee on 12 June 2008 by it was clear that no consultation did take place despite the UK Government’s undertaking to so consult.

The Local Transport Act moved the position in the opposite direction towards a London centralised body where the Senior Traffic Commissioner has powers over the other Traffic Commissioner’s on guidance or general directions on the exercise of their functions. The unambiguous recommendations of both the National Assembly and the House of Commons towards a devolved basis for the Traffic Commissioner were not taken into account in the final structure.

The weight of professional and parliamentary opinion (based on well considered evidence) is in favour of establishing a separate Traffic Commissioner for Wales. The Department for Transport appears to oppose such a position.

This does not suggest a Department of Transport working in co-ordination with the Welsh Government.

Scotland retains its single Traffic Commissioner for the Scottish Travel Area.

111

Cross border funding of rail services

Along links between English counties and Consortia areas in Wales or along a railway line such as the Marcher Line through both Welsh and English counties, the responsibility within Network Rail has become clearer following the establishment of the Network Rail Cymru – Wales Route (Division) for operations and maintenance and the creation of a Wales strategy and planning function. Establishing train path requirements for increased capacity and discussions on improving north – south lines to provide significant benefits in sections of the Welsh network, lines in England and along total north – south journeys, are in progress.

One key issue which will be difficult to overcome is the level of priority given to the Marcher Line. It is an important strategic line in the WG rail plan linking as it does in the form of a reversed ‘E’ the three main east west railway lines but is relatively long way down the list in DfT terms. DfT ministers have said in the past that the East Coast Main Line, the West Coast Main Line and London commuting will be their priority in England. This is understandable but makes coordination of cross-border investment plans very difficult for Network Rail

The initial subsidy agreement between the (then) Strategic Rail Authority and Arriva Trains was for a Year 1 subsidy of £120m reducing over the 15 years of the franchise to under £100m. The WAG determined to pursue a policy to extend train lengths, acquire new trains, and extend platforms etc. will this year subsidise the Wales and Border franchise by £140m (compared with the SRA settlement of £112m. It has been suggested by some analysts that Wales was short changed and that WAG are now paying two ‘prices • the shortfall in the SRA budget which should come from the DfT • the provision of services in England to which DfT should contribute.

Both of these are funded from the Welsh ‘block’ grant with no HM Treasury payment supplement.

Electrification North Wales Main Line (NWML) / Wrexham – Bidston Line

The electrification of the Great Western Main Line and the NWML has been discussed in the past and the NWML scheme was first assessed in the 1970’s. An opportunity was missed to electrify the North Wales Main Line when the West Coast Main Line was upgraded. The relative extent to which lack of coordination and the differences in priority for DfT expenditure played a part in the failure by DfT to fund this electrification is important to know as a reference point for understanding the DfT’s position in respect of rail infrastructure investment in Wales

It has been suggested by Merseyside planning authorities that north Wales / West Cheshire is a single economic unit, an economic sub-region. The Wales Spatial Plan also implies a similar position.

The cross-border journey to work travel pattern is one sided from west (Fflint / north Wales) to east (Merseyside/Cheshire). Flintshire to Chester trips constitute ‘the major flow’ … and

112

80% of trips are by car. The other significant flows are from Wirral / Ellesmere Port to Chester and from Flintshire to Wrexham

This position requires close coordination of both cross border strategic planning and the priority within expenditure programmes. There is also a modal issue in determining investment in the rail network of the area to create an electrified north east Wales – Cheshire – Merseyside metro system. This would include the electrification of the Wrexham – Bidston and the Wrexham – Chester lines and their integration into the Merseyrail network. Discussions have started several times on such a plan but so far have not progressed to any great extent

Diversionary railway route via Kemble / Gloucester

At present this route to / from Wales has a single track section between Kemble (Gloucestershire) and the junction with the main GWML west of Swindon station. The remainder of the route to Gloucester is double track.

It was not deemed necessary to re-double the line to meet local capacity demand and was not therefore put forward to the Office of Rail Regulation for inclusion in the HLOS investment plan (2009-2014) for possible funding. The line improvements were seen as achieving: • improved performance on the Swindon to Kemble route (for local services) • reduced the impact to train services to / from south Wales when the Severn Tunnel and the Patchway route need to close in planned or emergency situations

At the time (2007-08) the route’s role as the alternative strategic route to south Wales in the event of a long term or permanent and unforeseen closure of the Severn Tunnel was not emphasised sufficiently.

However it became clear following discussions between WG and DfT that a strong strategic case could be made. Consequently on June 30 2008 Mr Tom Harris, the transport minister, told the House that he “understands the arguments in favour of doubling the Swindon- Kemble line. I will commit my officials to working with the industry to make the case strongly to the ORR that re-doubling should go ahead”.

Mr Harris was replying in the debate concerning the ORR’s draft determination on which NR schemes could be funded in 2009-14. “Although the ORR has determined it would not fund NR projects whose primary benefit is to improve performance or capacity beyond levels specified in HLOS, the ORR will take account of the need for a sustainable network plan and the longer term needs of the railway” - Mr Tom Harris , House of Commons , 30 June 2008.

Cross border franchise consultation

The Wales and Borders franchise is a WG responsibility while the three other franchises in Wales (involving FGW, Virgin Trains, and Arriva Cross Country) are managed by the DfT. The latter are effectively extensions or branches of far more extensive franchises operating primarily in England. The view given by WG to this Committee was that consultation on the

113

‘English’ franchises came following the Railways Act. (First Minister Mr Rhodri Morgan, to the Committee 12 June 2008 Q 632: Cross-border provision of public services for Wales: Transport, Session 2008-9, HC 58). However this did not appear to take place following the changes in regulated fares conditions restricting the timings of Saver tickets, a matter which should have been referred to the Minister at the DfT whose authority under the Railways Act is required for such changes. It would be useful to know if this situation has improved.

Cross border governance – Memoranda of Understanding

A Memorandum of Understanding between the National Assembly and the Department for Transport was it is understood agreed in 2004 and is intended to deal with detailed arrangements and responsibilities such as integration of timetables and ticketing and information provision.

Knowing the exact current extent and content of this Memorandum would help in understanding the relationship in terms of coordination of cross-border issues and matters of strategic importance.

Cross border integration of transport plans

Within Wales the Transport (Wales) Act 2006 requires that the Wales Transport Strategy be prepared and that the regional transport plans (one from each of the four consortia) and the National Transport Plan (covering e.g. trunk roads, motorways, rail investment, Wales and Borders franchise and Traws Cymru) should all fit together and fit with the Wales Transport Strategy.

There does not appear to be any statutory requirement for the Transport Consortia /WG in Wales to consult or integrate with adjacent transport authorities / DfT or vice versa. For example, the discussions on the Wrexham – Bidston rail corridor appear to stem from common objectives rather than statutory duty.

The lack of a statutory framework may be the reason for an apparent lack of consideration by DfT in its setting of priorities for scheme expenditure along the Wales – England border. Alternatively what might be important for Wales in transport terms might have merely be of considerably less important to the DfT either in its Great Britain role for railways or its England role for roads

One might also suggest that a significant point in this discussion is the wording of DfT references to the democratically elected National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government as a ‘devolved administration’. This gives in general terms some idea of the way in which Westminster departments see the governance of Wales. One might respectfully suggest a question along those lines may help clarify their view.

April 2012

114

Written evidence from the Department for Transport (TIW 21)

Introduction

1. The Department for Transport (DfT) welcomes the opportunity to provide evidence to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee inquiry into the provision of cross-border public transport services for Wales.

2. We understand that the inquiry will examine:

• the extent to which cross-border public road and rail services are currently provided for and accessed by the Welsh population; • the arrangements currently in place to co-ordinate cross-border road and rail transport service provision; • the potential impact on Wales of the plans for a High Speed 2 (HS2) Rail Service between London, the Midlands and North of England; • the funding of cross-border transport infrastructure; and • the progress made on improving co-ordination between the Welsh Government and Department for Transport on cross-boundary issues and matters of strategic importance.

3. The evidence submitted below covers these areas in relation to policy on rail and roads.

Progress made on improving co-ordination between the Welsh Government and Department for Transport on cross-boundary issues and matters of strategic importance

4. Relationships between the Welsh Government Transport Group and the Department for Transport have advanced significantly, and new processes have been agreed to continue this development. Fundamentally, both sides now operate on a “no surprises” basis, where appropriate information is shared during policy development to ensure that the wider implications are understood.

5. The aim is for the Welsh Government and the Department for Transport to have in place a constructive working relationship that enables officials to provide their Ministers with the best advice possible in order to deliver the aspirations of the respective Governments. This includes recognition of the importance of engaging on devolved and reserved issues.

6. Working relationships between Welsh Government Transport Group and the Department for Transport continue to develop through a range of mechanisms including Ministerial and high level official meetings; a twice yearly High Level forum to discuss strategic issues and monitor working relations between the two administrations; regular bi-laterals; and ad hoc policy lead liaison.

7. Specific examples of joint collaborative working between officials include;

(a) Salt: improved process and communication channels to ensure that appropriate resilience plans are in place to deal with harsh winter weather.

115

(b) Rail: close working during the development of the Outline Business Case for electrification of the Great Western Line between Swansea and Cardiff, and the Valley Lines, including the sharing of DfT economist support, and regular interaction between project sponsors.

(c) Legislation: work on proposals for HGV charging to bring about a constructive conclusion and ensure that the necessary legislation can be put in place.

RAILWAYS Cross-border services

8. Wales is served by the following passenger rail franchises: First Great Western; Virgin Trains; Cross Country and Arriva Trains Wales. 9. The Wrexham, Shropshire & Marylebone Railway non-franchised direct services between Wrexham and London via Shrewsbury have ceased operating. 10. In 2009/10 there were over 26 million passenger journeys to, from or within Wales5. 30.8% of those journeys crossed the border. The most significant journey flows were to/from the South West of England (8.5%); London (7.8%); the North West (6.2%); the West Midlands (4%); and the South East of England (2.2%).

Co-ordination of cross-border service provision

11. Since the implementation of the Railways Act 2005 a range of procedures has been put in place between DfT and WG to facilitate the co-ordination of services procured by both administrations. These include: • the statutory obligation to consult the Welsh Government Ministers before issuing an invitation to tender for a franchise agreement which includes services to/from Wales. (Where a franchise provides services wholly within Wales, WG Ministers must be a signatory, as in the case of ATW); • the creation of the Cross-Border Forum of English local authorities whose areas are served by the ATW franchise. This forum provides the opportunity for these English local authorities to have a dialogue with WG about ATW's cross-border services, which are specified and funded by WG. DfT is represented on the Forum. • regular meetings between DfT and WG officials to discuss the cross-border franchises.

Department for Transport and Welsh Government respective responsibilities

12. The Department for Transport (DfT) is responsible for:

5 National Rail Trends Yearbook 2010-11, Office of Rail Regulation, July 2011.

116

• specifying and funding, through the High Level Output Specification (HLOS), the infrastructure outputs that the Government wishes to be provided by Network Rail in England and Wales; • specifying and funding the franchised services operated by Virgin Trains, First Great Western and CrossCountry, and the Arriva Trains Wales (ATW) services that operate wholly in England; • specifying and funding the Access for All programmes to improve the accessibility of selected stations in England and Wales.

13. The Welsh Government (WG) is responsible for: • specifying and funding the ATW services that operate wholly in Wales and across the Wales-England border. • Day-to-day management of the ATW franchise including English only services. • WG also has powers to purchase additional services for Wales via franchises let by DfT, and to invest in infrastructure in Wales or England for "Welsh purposes". 14. The Secretary of State and the Welsh Government Ministers are joint signatories to the ATW franchise. WG became an active party to the franchise from 1 April 2006, when it received a resource transfer of some £141m from DfT to support ATW's services that operate within Wales and across the border. Since 2008 WG has received funding for the ATW franchise directly through the Treasury devolution block grant. 15. Capital investment in infrastructure in England and Wales is funded by DfT through the HLOS process. The current HLOS provides specifically for Network Rail to improve infrastructure capacity in the Cardiff area whilst significant renewal of signalling is undertaken. WG also invests in enhancements from its own capital budget. 16. DfT is responsible for rolling stock enhancements for the franchises serving Wales that it manages directly; WG funds rolling stock capacity increases for services run by ATW within Wales and across the border. Funding of cross-border services: 2007 Rail White Paper and HLOS

17. The current HLOS sets out the levels of safety, reliability and capacity the Secretary of State wishes the railway to provide in England and Wales over the five-year period from April 2009 to March 2014. There are three key output measures – safety risk reduction, service reliability and increased capacity to meet demand (an additional 14% on Welsh routes).

18. In addition, the HLOS provides a high level specification of major projects and other investment which the Secretary of State wants the railway to deliver. On the Great Western Main Line (GWML), a major enhancement scheme at Reading, due for completion in 2015, will deliver a bigger station and improved track layout that will provide route wide benefits including four more trains per hour, performance improvements of 35-40% and journey time improvements. A new depot, transport interchange and station facilities will also be provided. The station works are expected to be complete a year early by the end of 2015. Electrification to Cardiff by 2017 and the introduction of Intercity Express Programme trains will enable

117

additional capacity and improved train journey times by an average of 13 and 15 minutes from London to Cardiff and Swansea, respectively. In addition, the extension of services from Shrewsbury to Birmingham International provides direct links to the airport/conference centre, facilitating the expanded Virgin Trains December timetable. 19. Other HLOS projects that benefit Wales include tackling crowding problems and improving the passenger environment at Birmingham New Street, development of radio- based cab signalling (ERTMS) for the network, improved facilities at 150 intermediate stations in England and Wales (in addition to the £190m Access for All programme), support for Network Rail’s Discretionary Fund, and funding to facilitate the implementation of a Strategic Freight Network in England and Wales.

20. We are working closely with the Welsh Government as it develops outline business cases for electrification of the Valley Lines and the main line between Cardiff and Swansea for delivery during the next rail investment control period from 2014 to 2019. Good progress is being made and we expect to announce decisions on electrification when the next HLOS is announced by July 2012.

21. Funding for the re-doubling of the line between Swindon and Kemble, scheduled for commissioning by Easter 2014, will improve performance and journey times for South Wales to London services when diverted via Gloucester - particularly when electrification works are taking place on the GWML in 2015/16. From 2016/17 onwards, when the Severn Tunnel is closed for routine maintenance, bi-mode intercity express trains will maintain good through links between London and South Wales using the newly doubled route.

Refranchising 22. The Department for Transport is consulting stakeholders, including the Welsh Government, on the new Great Western franchise to be relet in April 2013. The new West Coast franchise contains a new flexible franchise agreement to give bidders flexibility to vary timetables on individual days of the week to cater for changes in demand, enabling the future operator to provide better services for passengers, whilst protecting existing services by specifying a minimum number of weekly stops at each station. The Welsh Government was consulted on this approach prior to the final Invitation to Tender being published in January.

High Speed Rail

23. The aim of the HS2 project is to deliver hugely enhanced rail capacity and connectivity between Britain’s major conurbations, supporting economic growth across Britain. The benefits come both from faster, more comfortable and convenient journeys, and from businesses being able to operate more efficiently, increasing their productivity, accessing new markets and labour pools. Passengers from Wales, as well as those from the Thames Valley and the South West, will have a convenient link to the new network via the interchange between the Great Western Main Line and HS2 at Old Oak Common. HS2 passengers will also be able to connect to Crossrail, for rapid and convenient access to and from key business

118

destinations in the West End, the City, Canary Wharf and Heathrow airport. Alternatively, passengers could also connect with Heathrow Express for services to the airport.

Improving Connectivity

24. The Government welcomes the work currently underway by Network Rail to assess the outline feasibility and business case for a new rail connection between the Great Western Main Line near Slough and Heathrow Airport. Such a link could significantly reduce journey times to the airport for passengers from the Thames Valley, the West of England and South Wales. There are long held aspirations to electrify the Borderlands Bidston to Wrexham Line and bring it into the Merseyrail network, improving connectivity between NE Wales and Wirral and links into the Wirral Waters Enterprise Zone. A similar rail investment issue, although much smaller scale, concerns the Halton Curve which, if re-opened, would allow through running of services from NE Wales to Liverpool Airport via Chester. Neither scheme features as a short term priority for Network Rail, though both have local support. Both Borderland Electrification and the Halton Curve are however under discussion on the Core Cities agenda, and feature in the initial draft of the City Deal proposed by Liverpool City Region.

HIGHWAYS

25. The road network between England and Wales is well-developed. Nine English trunk roads run to the Welsh border.

• In the north, the A5117/A550/A494 and the A55 link to the North Wales Expressway. Following the completion of the A5117 Deeside Junctions scheme in 2008, significant capacity exists on this route. • In mid-Wales, several roads link across the border. Between the A5 and the A40 no road takes more than 9,000 vehicles per day. • In the south, the Severn Crossing and the A40 are the main routes of access. The physical standards of both roads are high. Major improvements to the M4 and M5 around Bristol began work in January 2012, which will remove a major bottleneck in travel to south Wales.

26. Funding of the road network is a devolved matter, and there is no history of providing cross-border subsidies for transport purposes. The recent M4/M5 scheme has been funded entirely from London. Similarly, proposed improvements to the M4 between junctions 23 and 29 would be funded by the Welsh Government. Only where a scheme has physically crossed the border, as with the A5117 Deeside Junctions, have funds been directly transferred from one national authority to another.

Status of the Severn Crossing

27. The Severn Crossing is operated by a private concessionaire, Severn River Crossings plc (SRC). The concession will complete once SRC has recovered a pre-determined sum,

119

representing the costs of construction and maintenance. After this date, the UK Government is entitled to impose a toll of its own, to recover its own costs from building and maintaining the crossing.

28. We are aware of the Welsh Government’s aspiration to take control of the crossing following the end of the concession period, and are in discussions to determine what this would entail. However, no decisions have been taken on the future of the crossing.

29. In operational terms, there is a good working relationship between the Highways Agency and the South Wales Trunk Road Agency around adverse weather and events management.

Other issues – Movement of Wind turbines

30. The daily management of the road network involves regular cooperation between the Highways Agency in England and the Welsh Government and its agencies, and between local authorities in both nations. This has been showcased recently in cooperation over the delivery of wind turbines to north and mid-Wales. This represents around 4,500 abnormal loads, all of which must be delivered with minimum disruption to traffic. The Highways Agency has led on transport planning for deliveries, working closely with Powys Highways and the Welsh Government, and trial runs have so far proven successful. There are, however, some road management issues where we understand that Cheshire, Shropshire and Herefordshire would like a closer relationship with the Welsh Government.

Conclusion

31. The Government believes that infrastructure investment is crucial for Britain’s future, and as part of this is investing considerable sums to secure enhancements to cross border transport connections serving Wales. The devolution settlement must not be a barrier to achieving a genuinely national, high quality transport network. In his Autumn Statement, the Chancellor committed to £5 billion of additional spending on infrastructure over the next three years, with new spending by Network Rail, bringing a billion pounds more. Smaller, targeted improvements will make smarter use of our current infrastructure and improve the capacity, performance and resilience of the existing networks.

32. The Department enjoys good, constructive working relationships with the UK devolved administrations and the Territorial Offices, working with them on matters of mutual interest. Formal structures, such as bilateral concordats and high level official meetings also help ensure a coordinated approach and the delivery of mutually beneficial outcomes.

April 2012

120

Written evidence from the Freight Transport Association (TIW 22)

Overview

1. Freight Transport Association (FTA) would like to thank the Welsh Affairs Committee for the opportunity to participate in this Inquiry. Our response will concentrate on areas which have a direct impact on our members.

2. Freight Transport Association represents over 14,000 companies engaged in the transport of freight both domestically within the UK and internationally. Several hundred of these members are based across Wales, and many hundred more are involved in moving goods between Wales and the wider world. Their interests range from those as operators, carriers, freight service providers, through to customers – suppliers of raw materials, retailers, manufacturers, and wholesalers, covering all modes of transport – road, rail, inland waterways, air and sea. FTA is the UK’s main intermodal trade association, representing every step in the supply chain.

3. Freight transport touches every aspect of society and the economy. The goods on our shop shelves or delivered to our door must first be moved as freight. Efficient supply chains bring the consumer all year round product availability, up to the minute fashions and rapid response times to orders placed in the comfort of our own homes or business.

Roads 4. Road currently remains the dominant land freight mode between Wales and other countries, and also within Wales, because road freight movement has a number of advantages to the end user such as;

• Direct access to/from collection and delivery points (i.e. door – to – door movements); • Flexibility and freedom for the supplier (or his nominated contractor) to match fleet capacity (number and size of vehicles) to demand (volume/weight of goods to be moved); • Ability to operate ‘Just in Time’ delivery systems, whereby the combination of direct access and flexibility of fleet capacity enables a supplier (or his contractor) to replenish customer stock levels ‘Just in Time’ (i.e. when stock has declined to a pre- determined minimum level); • Speed of both delivery and collection; and • Highly professional services

5. In England the DfT’s guidance on ‘Funding transport infrastructure for strategically significant developments’ (published April 2009) set out a framework for determining the extent of public contributions to necessitate infrastructure upgrades (i.e. road and rail links).

121

But the key question that will determine the success or otherwise of this policy will be the extent to which the Government identifies funding streams for such improvements.

6. In England there are currently discussions being held with stakeholders designed to identify ideas to improve the A14 corridor connecting the east coast with the Midlands. Government suggest that whilst they have no intention of charging motorists for an unimproved facility, they would expect to consider tolling for enhanced capacity along with other cost sharing arrangements. FTA believes that if a decision comes down in favour of tolling then there needs be robust safeguards in place to ensure that the outcome benefits all road users along with the wider benefits for the area, rather than limited to a financier of the infrastructure.

7. Tolled infrastructure should not be the first choice if no realistic alternative to the route exists. If Tolling is applied then it must be affordability, realistic and provide tangible benefits for all road users and the wider socio-economic area. Tolling should also encompass guidelines which clearly define how the tolls are paid, i.e. free flow technology along with the ability of government to regulate annual increases therefore reducing any detrimental impact on the road user which is clearly evident on the Severn Crossing.

8. Around 2017 the Severn Bridge is due to come back into public ownership, with its users having paid just short of £1 billion. Whichever Government acts as administrator for the Bridge it should not be viewed as a ‘Cash Cow’. The rate of toll on these bridges impacts the road freight sector directly and constitutes a direct tax on doing business for Welsh operators, or on doing business in Wales.

9. The M4 and A55 are both designated as part of the Tens-T network and provide important access to markets in England, Ireland and Europe. They are also important for access to and from all of the main ports in Wales. It is therefore important that these routes are maintained to a high standard to accommodate the expeditious movement of freight traffic, which benefits the environment, and the economy.

10. FTA welcomes the current consultation on the future of the M4 around Newport; this important part of the road infrastructure is near or has exceeded its design capacity and is urgently in need of improvement. The four options range in cost from £45 million to £830 million, therefore the Welsh Government should ensure that action is taken at the earliest opportunity to add this to their trunk road programme and help keep development costs down through early adoption.

11. Government should not underestimate the importance of working closely with the freight sector on identifying where investment and change is required. It is therefore important that the close working relationship developed with the Welsh Government through forums such as the Wales Freight Group are regenerated and maintained. Policy makers must be open to dialogue with freight generators to ensure that future decisions regarding road and rail and importantly, access are based on the needs of industry. Such an approach would establish a strategic freight policy that is based on the needs of the freight

122

and industry, identified by industry, rather than the aspirations of politicians, civil servants and others that might seek to prejudice decisions on investments in strategic infrastructure.

12. lorry parking facilities are an essential part of driver welfare and reducing the impact of inappropriately parked HGV’s who by law are required to take daily breaks and minimum rest periods overnight, particularly along these routes. Planning permission should be viewed with a presumption of acceptability rather than have developers plans refused by a local authorities planning/transport committee. Indeed Flintshire has refused three applications for lorry parks in the last two years. Given the localism agenda, safeguards should be put in place to ensure that projects which have a national or strategic outcome be considered using a separate set of guidelines rather than left to the political apparatus at local level, indeed recommendations (Ro7, Ro8) outlined in the Wales Freight Strategy6 recommends that this real problem be considered at a national level.

Rail 13. Rail freight is vital for the future economic and environmental well-being of the British economy. It has in essential place in securing continuing competitiveness and business wealth creation through its part in an integrated supply chain. Rail freight has a particularly large potential for the UK over the next 30 years as containerised imports increasingly become the norm.

14. Too often, any political discussion on rail is automatically taken to mean passenger rail. In fact, around 30 percent per cent of the traffic carried on the British rail network is freight trains, rather than passenger7. Whilst the political imperative behind a focus on passenger traffic is understandable, it is vital to consider freight as an equally important part of the rail network’s offering to the British economy.

15. Rail plays a highly significant part in the economic well-being of Britain. Rail freight moves an estimated 43.5 million tonnes of goods to and from the UK’s ports. 65 per cent of intercontinental trade to the north of England and Scotland arrives by rail from the UK’s southern gateway ports.

16. Rail freight has increased by 10% since 2004 against a total freight market that has fallen by almost 10% in the same period due to the recession. Most significantly, intermodal rail freight (containerised movements outside the traditional rail areas like coal) have increased by 60% over that eight year period, demonstrating that rail can successfully service this major part of the logistics market8. This still represents only about 12 per cent of the UK surface transport market, so rail has great potential to do more.

17. As the UK’s pan-modal logistics trade association it is FTA’s assessment that rail has the ability to not only increase the amount moved on the tracks but also to increase its market share. This development would enhance the UK supply chain. More efficient supply chains

6 One Wales Connecting the Nation -Wales Freight Strategy, May 2008 7 As defined by tonne kilometres. Source ORR 8 All figures based on tonne km. Source Network Rail

123

support the performance of our exporters and improve the value for money of our imports, helping fight inflation. Retailers such as Marks & Spencer, Superdrug, Argos and ASDA are increasingly using rail as part of their supply chain solution with rail performing the trunk movement from import point to distribution centre and road performing the final delivery to store. See FTA’s “On Track – retailers using rail freight to make cost and carbon savings” report for more details.

18. A typical freight train can remove 50 lorries from Britain’s roads. Over the last six years, rail freight is estimated to have saved two million tonnes of pollutants, 6.4 billion lorry kilometres or 31.5 million lorry journeys. When compared with carrying the same tonnage by road, rail produces less than a tenth of the carbon monoxide, around a twentieth of the nitrogen oxide, and less than nine per cent of the fine particulates and around 10 per cent of the volatile organic compounds. Every tonne of freight carried by rail produces at least 80 per cent less carbon dioxide than if moved by road.

19. For Wales to compete with the southern ports changes need to be considered to accommodate containerised traffic. Issues such as the Severn Tunnel and development of a W12 (or at least W10) gauge clearance should be looked at. This allows compatibility with standard freight flows, allowing the line to work as part of rail’s developing Strategic Freight Network.

20. Alternate routes out of south Wales are gauge constrained. While this is not a big issue for bulk movements (eg steel and coal) it is an issue for containerised movements. With increased production at places such as Port Talbot, there is a growing demand for container movements. Diversionary routes need a better gauge clearance.

21. In order to attract retail traffic onto rail it is essential that land is available at the intermodal interchange point to attract retail warehousing for RDC's. This will allow retailers to develop RDC's at the rail terminal allowing rail to be viable to service the RDC.

22. There also needs to be a plan for the Welsh ports that are rail connected to have adequate rail infrastructure and land to support the use of rail. Currently we are not convinced there is adequate infrastructure. This would radically reduce the ability of rail to compete with road. The Wales Freight Strategy9 reinforces these concerns with many of the recommendations on rail freight consistent with the statements above. FTA would recommend that these are taken forward, using the Wales Freight Group as a mechanism for delivery.

April 2012

9 Welsh Assembly Government: One Wales Connecting a Nation: The Wales Freight Strategy (May 2008)

124

Written evidence from Passenger Focus 1. Introduction

1.1 Passenger Focus is the statutory watchdog for rail passengers in Great Britain; and for bus, tram and coach passengers in England (outside London).

1.2 This submission focuses on the provision of rail travel.

2. The importance of cross-border rail travel to Wales

2.1 The latest figures from the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) highlight the importance of cross-border journeys to Welsh rail users with just under one-third (31.5%) of the 27 million annual journeys that start and/or finish in Wales crossing the Wales-England border.

2.2. Of this one-third (8.59m journeys), the majority are going to/coming from the South West and London

Journeys to/from other regions 1.7% 1.7% 0.6% 0.5% South West 1.8% London North West 7.5% 28.0% West Midlands South East 12.7% Yorkshire and Humber East of England East Midlands 20.4% 25.2% Scotland North East

125

Source: National Rail Trends. 2010-11. Office of Rail Regulation

2.2 Analysis by district/unitary authority shows that the majority of journeys into England start or finish in the Cardiff/Swansea/Newport corridor.

Wales- Passenger journeys to/from other regions

Journeys (thousands) 2010-11 by District/Unitary Authority

2010- 2010- To/From 11 11

CARDIFF - CAERDYDD 2,965 34.5%

NEWPORT - CASNEWYDD 900 10.5%

SWANSEA - ABERTAWE 554 6.5%

WREXHAM - WRECSAM 475 5.5%

GWYNEDD - GWYNEDD 452 5.3%

CONWY - CONWY 437 5.1%

DENBIGHSHIRE - SIR DDINBYCH 419 4.9%

MONMOUTHSHIRE - SIR FYNWY 373 4.3%

FLINTSHIRE - SIR Y FFLINT 355 4.1%

POWYS - POWYS 257 3.0%

BRIDGEND - PEN-Y-BONT AR OGWR 205 2.4%

CEREDIGION - SIR CEREDIGION 202 2.4%

NEATH PORT TALBOT - CASTELL-NEDD PORT TALBOT 191 2.2%

ISLE OF ANGLESEY - SIR YNYS MON 183 2.1%

CARMARTHENSHIRE - SIR GAERFYRDDIN 164 1.9%

PEMBROKESHIRE - SIR BENFRO 122 1.4%

126

THE VALE OF GLAMORGAN - BRO MORGANNWG 107 1.2%

RHONDDA CYNON TAFF - RHONDDA CYNON TAF 94 1.1%

TORFAEN - TOR-FAEN 61 0.7%

CAERPHILLY - CAERFFILI 48 0.6%

MERTHYR TYDFIL - MERTHYR TUDFUL 18 0.2%

BLAENAU GWENT 6 0.1%

Wales Total 8,590 100%

Source: National Rail Trends. 2010-11. Office of Rail Regulation

2.3 These figures highlight the fact that, for Welsh rail passengers, important parts of the network are located outside of Wales. Travel to these destinations is often on services provided by English-based train operating companies (TOCs), especially (based on the evidence above) of First Great Western.

3. Passenger satisfaction with cross-border rail travel – The National Passenger Survey (NPS)

3.1 The National Passenger Survey (NPS) measures passengers’ satisfaction with a range of train- and station-based aspects of their journey. Results from the NPS are usually reported in terms of the respective train companies, but by using the information gathered on departure and destination stations it is also possible to use the data to examine satisfaction with cross-border travel between Wales and England.

3.2 The following table provides a summary of the results from the latest NPS (Autumn 2011) for journeys that were wholly within Wales and those that involved travel between Wales and England. As much of the cross-border travel is likely to have been long distance travel, such as journeys to London, the table also presents the results of the "Long Distance" group of train companies—this comparison is important as long distance travel is likely to be on more comfortable trains and between larger, better resourced stations than is often the case on commuter and regional services within Wales

Long Within Wales - Distance % Satisfied NPS Autumn 2011 Wales England Sector

Overall satisfaction 82 85 86

127

Station Facilities

Overall satisfaction with the station 65 80 81

Ticket buying facilities 79 81 84

Provision of information about train 75 84 times/platforms 86

The upkeep/repair of the station 58 67 buildings/platforms 73

Cleanliness 56 69 77

The facilities and services 34 56 65

The attitudes and helpfulness of the staff 71 75 77

Connections with other forms of public 54 76 transport 74

Facilities for car parking 55 63 62

Overall environment 56 68 74

Your personal security whilst using 63 73 74

The availability of staff 54 66 66

How request to station staff was handled ** 87 85 87

Train Facilities

The frequency of the trains on that route 77 85 84

Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train 87 86 arriving/departing on time) 83

The length of time the journey was 85 84 scheduled to take (speed) 88

Connections with other train services 76 81 79

The value for money for the price of your 56 58 ticket 56

Upkeep and repair of the train 73 77 84

128

The provision of information during the 56 76 journey 76

The helpfulness and attitude of staff on train 75 79 79

The space for luggage 56 64 53

The toilet facilities 41 47 52

Sufficient room for all passengers to 69 74 sit/stand 70

The comfort of the seating area 74 75 79

The ease of being able to get on and off 83 76 82

Your personal security on board 79 82 84

The cleanliness of the inside 70 78 82

The cleanliness of the outside 68 73 79

The availability of staff 64 70 66

How well train company deals with delays 35 40 50

3.3 Analysis of the NPS scores shows that passenger satisfaction is higher for cross-border services than for services within Wales but is still, in general, slightly behind the average for the long-distance sector.

4. Improving cross-border services

As much of cross-border rail travel between Wales and England involves relatively long journeys many of the issues needed to improve the experience of Welsh passengers using these services are shared by users of Long Distance services more generally. From a Welsh, cross-border perspective, the following are of particular interest:

4.1 Fares

4.1.1 Passenger Focus' research10 shows that passengers rate value for money as their top priority for improvement on the railway, and our National Passenger Survey shows that only 58% of cross-border passengers are satisfied that they get value for their money.

10 Passenger priorities for improvements in rail services. Passenger Focus.

129

4.1.2 Our submission11 on the recent consultation for the next Great Western franchise identified a number of recommendations: • Introduce an element of flexibility in Advance Fares Allow Advance tickets to be ‘upgraded’ if a booked train is missed. Passengers should be able to pay the difference between what they have already paid and the price of the ticket valid at the time, subject to a reasonable administration fee. This would address the sense of grievance that many passengers feel when they are confronted with paying the full cost of the most expensive walk-up fare when they miss their train. Such flexibility could indeed be offered as a premium to the basic ticket • Improve access to Advance Fares Ideally, passengers should be able to purchase Advance tickets at any time before a service departs. However, we recognise that this is not achievable with the rail industry’s current systems. So in the interim we would like to see the cut-off time for the purchase of Advance tickets moved from 1800 to no earlier than 2359 on the eve of travel. This would at least allow people to get home from work and plan their affairs for the following day without automatically paying higher prices. Efforts must also be made to increase Ticket on Departure (TOD) schemes and e-ticketing as there are parts of the country where access to Advance tickets is dependent on delivery by post or involves a lengthy round trip to a station with reservation facilities. • Give passengers the information on which to make an informed purchase Ticket restrictions and validities must be supplied at the point of purchase. Passenger Focus’s recent research on ticket-vending machines showed that some passengers struggle to buy a ticket from a machine as they were not provided with sufficiently precise or enough information to ensure they got the correct ticket at the right price. This potentially results in passengers buying the more expensive ticket, utilising a ‘better safe than sorry’ mentality, or taking a chance on the cheaper ticket and risking a penalty or excess fare. We believe that validities should also be printed on the ticket itself (or at least be supplied with the ticket) to provide continuing reassurance to passengers.

4.2 Car parking

4.2.1 As Long Distance rail travel is from main-line stations and often involves an early departure and/or a late return, good car parking facilities are even more important than for local journeys.

4.2.1 Passenger Focus research12 has found that passengers travelling to a railway station from rural, semi-rural and edge of town locations will generally drive and park at the station. If they struggle to find a car parking space at their station they may turn their backs on the railway and drive exclusively. The NPS results show that satisfaction with car parking facilities for cross-border travel is on a par with the sector average but, at only 63%, still leaves plenty of room for improvement.

11 The Great Western Franchise: A consultation response from Passenger Focus. April 2012 12 Getting to the station. March 2007

130

4.3 Connections with other train services

4.3.1 The NPS results show that satisfaction with cross-border services is slightly higher than that of comparable services for connections with other train services.This is important to maintain as good connections are an important consideration when deciding whether to drive or use rail.

4.4 Delivery of improvements

4.4.1 In July 2012 The High Level Output Specification for England and Wales (HLOS) and the Statement of Funds Available (SoFA) will be issued by the Secretary of State for Transport. This will set out the strategic outputs that Government wants the railway to deliver and the level of public funding they are prepared to make available. The targets and aspirations set within this will go a long way to determining the strategic delivery of rail services. While not specific to cross-border services they will naturally have an impact – for example, decisions on further electrification schemes or major infrastructure upgrades.

4.4.2 Passenger Focus’s input13 into this process emphasised five key areas: • value for money • punctuality • frequency • crowding • information during disruption

4.4.2 In addition, DfT’s existing franchise programme will see new franchises being let for both the West Coast and Great Western franchises – both of which will again have a bearing on the provision of cross-border services. We have provided submissions for each of these14. Again, the emphasis was on providing a reliable ‘core product’: value for money, punctuality and getting a seat.

13 Passenger Focus response to the rail industry’s Initial Industry Plan for England and Wales in Control Period 5, 2014-19 November 2011 14 Both available on our website. www.passengerfocus.org.uk

131

Written evidence from Arriva Trains Wales

Question 1: The extent to which cross-border public road and rail services are currently provided for and accessed by the Welsh population; • The key cross-border routes for Arriva Trains Wales are between North Wales and Chester to Manchester, Aberystwyth/Pwllheli to Shrewsbury and Birmingham International, West Wales and Cardiff to Crewe and Manchester and between South Wales and Cheltenham. • Arriva Trains Wales also provides important rail/sea connections for Ireland at both Holyhead and Fishguard Harbour which also feed into our cross-border routes. • We also serve important airports including Birmingham Airport, Cardiff Airport (via a bus link) and Manchester Airport. • In total, Arriva Trains Wales carries approximately 26 million passenger journeys a year across the Wales and Borders network, which has grown by 60% since the Franchise was let in 2003. Our busiest routes include the journey legs between Shrewsbury and Birmingham International, Chester and Manchester and the route between Cardiff and Manchester. • The recent May 2012 timetable changes have delivered over a third of a million new seats on our busiest routes through increasingly efficient use of our limited fleet of trains. This includes:

. extra seats for Telford and Birmingham in the morning commuter period . extra seats between Birmingham and Aberystwyth in the mid-morning period . extra seats and extra services between Chester and Llandudno Junction in the mid-afternoon and evening commuter period . improved connections with ferry services from Ireland at Holyhead

Question 2: The arrangements currently in place to co-ordinate cross-border road and rail transport service provision;

• Arriva Trains Wales and Welsh Government hold bi-annual meetings with all cross- border Rail Transport Officials including Department for Transport to develop and look at ways of improving train service provision. Regional Transport Consortia, with which ATW meets regularly, often raise issues and present new development ideas relating to cross-border rail services provision. • Daily contact with key representatives in Welsh Government provides regular opportunity to develop and implement improvements to services, including development of timetables, capacity management and the identification of new funding opportunities with other third parties.

132

Question 3: The potential impact on Wales of the plans for a High Speed 2 (HS2) Rail Service between London, the Midlands and North of England;

• Arriva Trains Wales’ franchise ends in 2018, before the full implementation and commissioning of the HS2. It is likely that the structure and format of the current franchise will evolve, meaning that the impact of the HS2 scheme may not be appropriate to postulate against the current network, franchise agreement and contained service provision. • Some presumptions can be made, that with the additional capacity provided by HS2, demand on existing routes may decrease, resulting in additional pathways through key hubs such as Birmingham and Crewe, providing additional pathing opportunities for a Wales and Borders Train Operating Company.

Question 4: The funding of cross-border transport infrastructure;

• Arriva Trains Wales, as a Train Operating Company, is not directly responsible for infrastructure. However, we do work closely with partners including Welsh Government, Network Rail and Department for Transport to guide and support infrastructure development. This can be within the remit of performance and reliability improvement projects, capacity improvement projects, station improvements and fleet refurbishment and enhancement projects. Arriva Trains Wales is currently working with Network Rail on the delivery of a major signalling upgrade in the Cardiff Area (CASR). This will release extra capacity through Cardiff, a major hub in Wales, resulting in the potential for improved services on cross-border routes. We are also exploring with Network Rail how to improve capacity and line speeds between Newport, Shrewsbury and Chester to meet the aspirations of Welsh Government in delivering improved North – South Wales journey times, whilst also addressing the growth in passenger numbers on English and Cross Border flows between Cardiff and Manchester. • Fleet capacity is a major consideration. Some of the highest passenger growth figures have been seen on cross-border services and Arriva Trains Wales is already delivering over 20% more capacity than its contract stipulates. Arriva Trains Wales has re-deployed resources to provide the maximum level of capacity possible, however currently no long term plans are in place to secure more rolling stock to address crowding which is causing passenger discomfort and stifling further growth. We are however currently in talks with Department for Transport and Travel for Greater Manchester regarding the securing of additional capacity on the route between Chester and Manchester.

Question 5: The progress made on improving co-ordination between the Welsh Government and Department for Transport on cross-boundary issues and matters of strategic importance.

133

Arriva Train Wales has taken initiatives to improve Cross Border services in consultation with the Welsh Government and the Department for Transport. One specific example of the close and productive working relationship is shown in the recent May 2012 timetable change, a step change in terms of targeted and efficient use of finite resources to the benefit of cross- border rail travel. Other examples include the unlocking of funding for numerous infrastructure improvements and close partnership working in assisting with business cases for electrification of parts of the Arriva Trains Wales network.

June 2012

134

Written evidence from Rail4Wales

Introduction

Rails4Wales-Yn Ein Blaenau is a community-based NGO, for the promotion and support of schemes intended to rejuvenate the economy of Welsh regions by means of rail, and thereby to maximize the considerable physical, human and social capital of those regions.

The organisation

 responds to Government transport consultations and to Wales Transport Consortia consultations  supports rail freight schemes and options, notably the Blaenau Ffestiniog and Conwy Valley Line, Slate Aggregate by Rail Scheme  lobbies at every tier of Government and challenges Network Rail  presents rail schemes for debate and consideration, notably the proposal of a North- South rail link within the borders of Wales. This proposal has received considerable press coverage and support.15

Rails4Wales is pleased to be able to offer some observations on Wales-England Cross-Border Rail Connectivity garnered mainly from its own engagement with specific rail issues over several years.

Historical Context

The issue of current Wales-England rail connectivity should not ignore the historical context. Many settlements – large and small – within Wales were once served by rail and were thus not only connected to each other but to the UK-wide rail network.

Accordingly, the closure of rail infrastructure across the border and the closure of lines which connected with cross-border lines are facts that have diminished intrinsic rail connectivity between England and Wales.

In many cases, bus replacements, if they exist at all, go only some way to overcoming the acute connectivity problems that are experienced by the citizens of many regions in Wales that are no longer rail-connected - especially problems affecting citizens who do not own cars. These problems are often most acute in the poorest regions of Wales.

Connectivity to and from these communities was better, more comfortable and more achievable in the late 1950s and even early sixties than it now is.

15 It is unfortunate that the Welsh Assembly Government did not discuss this proposal at its series of meetings of the Enterprise and Learning Committee on ‘Future Railway Infrastructure in Wales’ from 21 October to 23 November 2009. Its Report may be found at http://www.assemblywales.org/cr-ld7872.pdf

135

The following were key east-west lines that are now closed and that used to provide direct or easy cross-border connectivity:

 Pontypool Road to Neath - connecting all the intermediate valleys, with interchanges at Crumlin, Pontllanffraith, Hengoed, Nelson & Llancaiach, Treharris, Quaker’s Yard, Penrhiwceibr, Mountain Ash and Aberdare. It then went on to Hirwaun, Rhigos, Glyn Neath, Resolven and Neath.16

 Merthyr to Abergavenny (Y Feni) – likewise connecting the intermediate valleys, but at their heads

 Ruabon to Barmouth – providing, for example, a regular Chester to Pwllheli service via Llangollen, Corwen, Dolgellau and the Cambrian Coast

 Whitchurch to Buttington Junction – (via Ellesmere and Oswestry) i.e. the now closed section of the ‘Cambrian Main Line’. Trains were timetabled between Whitchurch and Aberystwyth for example.

 Chester- Denbigh via Mold – areas that now have highly congested roads

 Hereford – Brecon via Hay on Wye

 Branch lines - There were also a number of short, cross-border branch lines17

Accordingly, there are now six fewer key rail routes connecting Wales to England than in the past.

As a rail organisation promoting the regeneration of Welsh regions by rail, R4W also promotes specific rail re-openings which it has assessed to be strategic. It has also identified certain rail alignments as worthy of protection.

In this briefing to Members of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, we would like to focus on the cross-border rail connectivity potential of the Central Wales Line (CWL).

16 No infrastructure investment could better deliver the former Welsh Assembly Government’s aspiration to ‘turn around’ the Valleys than the re-opening of this line thereby reconnecting the valleys with each other. Turning heads - A Strategy for the Heads of the Valleys 2020 ‘The aim is that the Heads of the Valleys will become a rich, dynamic network of communities helping to drive the success of south east Wales’. http://wales.gov.uk/topics/businessandeconomy/regeneration/strategicareas/HofV/programme/turningheads/;js essionid=20R8PWQflrhTKfS5kpv4vcn3TR6pgs3MLpQbGntKyDtNfQHdM6CZ!929540729?lang=en

17 Such, for example, were Wrexham-Ellesmere, and several branch lines around Oswestry.

136

In passing, we also commend for consideration an additional cross-border service that could be delivered easily and in the short term by re-opening existing rail infrastructure between Oswestry to Gobowen. This could provide for example, a service between Chester and Oswestry, thus connecting Wales to England in two directions.

The Central Wales Line (CWL)

(A) Current situation

The Central Wales Line (CWL) is one of the five remaining lines that connect England to Wales, and runs from Craven Arms to Llanelli and then – reversing at Llanelli – trains run on to Swansea. North of Craven Arms trains use the Borders Line. The service which operates on it is usually a service between Swansea and Shrewsbury with one train a day (the 8.09) commencing not at Swansea, but at Cardiff. All terminate or start at Shrewsbury. In the past, the service accessed Swansea directly without needing to go via Llanelli, and there was also a branch from Llandeilo to Carmarthen.

The route traversed by trains using this line is approximately 120 miles, with the Central Wales Line itself consisting of 90 miles of invaluable rail infrastructure. It represents a considerable feat of rail engineering. Much of it used to be double-track.

Having long been downgraded to single track most of the way from Craven Arms, it had recently suffered considerable neglect by Network Rail in that three out of five of the passing loops had been rendered inoperable through NR having cannibalised the point machines. Rigorous lobbying by R4W, placed Network Rail under considerable pressure, and they restored the 3 loops to operational use. WAG seems to have challenged NR only when the neglect of the infrastructure became public knowledge and when both organisations had been challenged rigorously by Rails4Wales.

By any account, this line is currently an under-used transport asset.

Historically, the line was operated as a main line, advertising its service as ‘fast, safe and comfortable’. There was considerable freight on the line. It remains a ‘diversionary route’ for freight, and is occasionally used for that purpose.

We regard the following as deficiencies in the way the Central Wales Line is viewed and operated:

1. Status

137

In identifying the rail axes in Wales, the Wales National Transport Plan does not even identify the Central Wales Line as a significant ‘strategic corridor’.18 R4W has addressed this issue in its Response to that document.

2. Investment

Because it is not regarded as an important axis, capital spending on the CWL is intrinsically unlikely to be a political priority for the WG.

3. Rolling-stock

By now, the service provided on the line cannot be said to be either fast or comfortable. Its rolling-stock is invariably made up of one or more Class 153 units. These units are not suitable for such a long journey and are often seriously overcrowded with standing room only. Even on the refurbished Class 153s, the windows remain fairly high and therefore do not maximise viewing by passengers.

4. Time-table

The time-table has gaps between trains as long as four hours, four and a half hours and even five hours, and the minimum gap is three hours fifty-eight minutes. This severely curtails the usefulness of the route. Only four trains a day run in each direction.

5. Type of service

This major rail infrastructure connecting England and Wales supports what is basically a bus on rail, with all services offering to stop at all stations and halts. It is therefore a slow service unsuitable for many types of journey that potential passengers might need. Little regard seems to be paid to connections at Shrewsbury.

6. Infrastructure constraints

The infrastructure constraints on the line are significant even now three loops have been put back into use.

 the overall line-speed is low (predominant line speed between 45mph and 60mph)

18 It observes as follows (p 11) ‘The strategic corridors are: East-west in north Wales; East-west in mid-Wales; East-west in south Wales; North-south’ http://wales.gov.uk/docs/det/publications/100329ntpen.pdf . Nor does investment in this line form any part of the Welsh Government’s ‘Prioritised National Transport Plan’ http://wales.gov.uk/docs/det/publications/111207prioitisedntpen.pdf

138

 there are many additional speed restrictions at various locations, notably at open level crossings

 manually operated barriers which require the staff to use a ‘plunger’ add time to the journey19

 We regard as particularly dangerous and inexcusable the presence of a crossing without barriers at Ffair Fach where the busy major A483 road crosses the CWL 7. Publicity

 Conductor guards

When trains from other routes (such as the Cambrian) arrive at Shrewsbury, conductor-guards may mention all other routes emanating from that station but generally do not mention the Central Wales Line. This is presumably a means of keeping passenger numbers down on the CWL.

 The Nation Rail Information Service

At present it is very difficult to obtain timings for journeys to or from south Wales via the Central Wales Line unless one is specifically travelling to a station on that line. Should one wish to travel from Wrexham to Carmarthen, for example, the software always wants to send people along the Borders Line, and does not come up with the CWL as an option. This does not help increase the profile of the Central Wales Line.

Comment

R4W views the following deficiencies as being deliberate means of keeping passenger numbers down on the CWL:

 Irregularity of the service  Slow speed of the journey  Failure to advertise the service extensively and provide information about it  Timetabled delays at Llanelli station and at a signal outside Swansea

All these readily remediable factors may be intentional so as to avoid making the route more attractive to the travelling public as this would in turn generate the need for more and better rolling-stock.]

19 At Llandrindod, there is the absurd situation brought about through lack of investment, whereby all trains not only stop at the station, but also have to stop to use the plunger manually to operate a level crossing a few hundred yards north of the station. In either direction, the train has no sooner started than it has to stop.

139

8. Current policy for the line

(A) Network Rail’s virtually non-existent ‘aspirations’ for the line may be viewed at the following link:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/uploadedFiles/networkrailcouk/Contents/Publications/Route_ Plans/Route%20Specifications%202011%20Wales.pdf

They are summarised as follows:

‘Planned infrastructure investment in remainder of CP4 (2009 - 2014)20

No schemes currently planned for Control Period 4.

Proposed infrastructure investment in CP5 (2014 – 2019)

No schemes currently planned for Control Period 5’

It is specified that no improved line-speeds or improved signalling are intended in the next ten years (i.e. beyond CP 5), or more than 4 trains per day in each direction anticipated during the next 30 years.

(B) Welsh Government

The previous Welsh Assembly Government rejected any possibility of capital spending on the line and this organisation does not possess any information to the effect that the present administration in Cardiff intends to change this policy.

*************

(B) Potential

This major route has considerable potential as a major rail transport axis, not only connecting Wales to England but also connecting north-east Wales to south-west Wales via England.

It forms the third side of the geographical triangle of which the other two sides are Shrewsbury to Cardiff and Cardiff to Llanelli, and is therefore a diagonal and more direct route from the north- east to the south-west of Wales, and the north-west of England to south-west Wales and back.

Furthermore, people actually travel to south-west Wales from north Wales and from the north- west of England and likewise to those areas from south-west Wales.

Present timings on the CWL include possible stops at every halt. This works out at one stop in just over every six minutes. Even so, on the present timetable, whilst Shrewsbury to Llanelli on

20 CP = Control Period

140

the Borders Line via Cardiff and Swansea can take as long as 3 hours 20 minutes, Shrewsbury to Llanelli on this third side of the triangle (the CWL) can take only 3 minutes longer in spite of all the constraints that exist on the line, viz low line-speeds / manually operated barriers / open crossings / multiplicity of halts.

Were the Manchester to Milford or Tenby or Carmarthen trains to use this route, they would not of course be timetabled to stop at every halt, and the time saved could be more than 15 minutes even as things stand now, without infrastructure improvements.

With appropriate remedial action, we believe that the journey could be reduced by at least a further 20 minutes. The outcome would be a reduction by at least 35 minutes on a journey undertaken by any train going through both Shrewsbury and Llanelli if it were routed along this route instead of going on the Borders Line and then through Cardiff and Swansea.

Whilst such a train for Milford Haven or Carmarthen, for instance, would lose passengers from large towns on the borders route, those locations are already served by other services, and could be served by additional services from Newport to Shrewsbury as is advocated by Railfuture.

The connectivity and regeneration benefits to sizeable towns on the Central Wales Line would be significant: Llandrindod / Llandovery / Llandeilo / Ammanford.

People travel north and south to Llandrindod Wells which is a favoured venue for all-Wales meetings and conferences, but travel has to be by road because of the infrequency of the service on the CWL.

Accordingly R4W believes that there is undoubtedly a case for

 a ‘fast’ train - stopping at only major stations. We suggest that initially there be two such trains a day in each direction in addition to the current service

 changing the destination of the proposed ‘fast’ trains. These do not need to originate in Shrewsbury or terminate in Swansea. There is no reason why trains using this route should not originate from or terminate at the following places: Wrexham, Chester or Manchester in the north and Haverfordwest or Carmarthen or Milford Haven in the south.

 providing an additional service that does not use the whole line. Carmarthen to Llanymddyfri would be particularly useful for commuting, easy to deliver, and would begin to maximise the potential of the infrastructure.

Only innovative and proactive policies which provide attractive rail options can hope to deliver the Welsh Government’s target of 2% reduction of carbon emissions and bring about modal shift.

Longer-term strategy

141

This route’s ability to become a key axis could be greatly enhanced by the re-opening of the fairly short route between Llandeilo and Carmarthen.

This is a very straight alignment where considerable line-speeds could be achieved, and its re- opening would deliver the following:  direct access to and from Carmarthen to and from the north-east of Wales and the north- west of England  direct access via Carmarthen to points west of Carmarthen, such as Haverfordwest, Pembroke Dock, Milford Haven and even Fishguard, and trains to those destinations could be routed on that branch which is again the third side of a triangle.

With this in mind, it is important that the Welsh Government’s plans for work on the A483 at Llandeilo (construction would begin after 2014 according to the Prioritised NTP) should have no detrimental impact on the possibility of re-instituting the Llandeilo to Carmarthen line.

Actions required

That there should be incremental investment in the Central Wales Line such as has been undertaken on the Aberystwyth-Shrewsbury Line. The investment should be undertaken with a view to delivering the following:

1. Increasing the line speed and gradual installation of CWR (continuous welded rail)

2. Re-doubling ‘singled’ parts of the route

3. Installation of ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System http://www.ertms.net/) with a programme of replacing all open level-crossings and those activated manually by plungers so that none of these crossings is left within a time-scale of about 5 years. The crossing on the A483 at Ffair Fach should – as a matter of great urgency - be remediated within the next sixth months by installing full barriers.

4. That the existing time-table be replaced with an hourly service with the origination and destination of some trains being to locations not presently served from the CWL route. For example, a Chester to Carmarthen train using this route could provide a most useful and valuable service.

5. That Class 153s should no longer be used on the line as they inhibit visibility, and that they be replaced by class 175s for which clearance should be obtained. It is a long route which justifies rolling-stock that is not designed for commuter routes.

6. That a ‘fast’ service which does not stop at all halts be introduced on the line.

142

7. That it be ensured that the time-tables displayed by Arriva at Shrewsbury should always and clearly display the times of Central Wales Line trains as well as the Borders Line service as options for people whose destination is Swansea or Llanelli.

8. That the Nation Rail Information service should also have the Central Wales Line written into their software programmes, so that the Central Wales Route comes up as a travel option when one enquires about a destination west of Swansea (e.g. Aberystwyth - Shrewsbury – Carmarthen / Wrexham – Shrewsbury – Milford Haven etc).

Such an innovative and strategic programme requires that the current policy of ‘Predict and Provide’ is replaced with a deliberate strategy of ‘Providing and Promoting’.

Spending on the Regulatory Asset Base

It is essential that Wales gets its fair share of spending on its rail infrastructure.

This is a time when UK plc is engaging in huge rail infrastructure projects, such as Crossrail and Thameslink not to mention High Speed 2, the first stage of which may well materialise and at a cost of £34 billion.

None of these projects is in Wales, and it is questionable to what extent they benefit Wales directly. Of the £1 billion allocated to the electrification of the South Wales main line, only a small part of that spend is in Wales itself.

This spending has to be set against the background that the Regulatory Asset Base (the UK’s rail infrastructure) is divided into two parts, namely

A Scotland (under the control of Scottish ministers)21

B England and Wales as a unit, controlled by the Department for Transport in London

Of the total being spent in the second of these units (England and Wales) - and this is tens of billions of pounds – Wales should be receiving no less than what is regarded as its fair share according to the Barnett Formula22.

But of course, this is not happening. Nor should this situation be allowed to persist. Significant rail openings could be achieved in Wales were we to receive our fair share of this investment. Welsh politicians and civil servants need to fight this corner and consistently argue the case that Wales is due its Barnett Formula % of England-Wales rail spending.

21Transfer of rail power to the Scottish Executive took place on 17 10 2005. 22 See Appendix A Major rail projects funded during Control Period 4. NR claimed to be unable to verify for R4W in less than ten days that these costs are currently correct and up to date, nor able to provide costings for 5 other big infrastructure projects concerning which information was sought.

143

Based on an increasing body of data, concerns are now materialising that a political deal has been struck between the Welsh Government and NR which will advantage South Wales to the disadvantage of north and mid-Wales.

NR’s decisions inevitably take regard of its UK priorities. It is ‘swings and roundabouts’. Any money that could be spent on increasing the line-speed on the Central Wales Line, for example, would render that spend not being available elsewhere.

Conclusion

NR’s priorities are not necessarily Wales’ priorities or what is of greatest benefit to Wales or – for the purpose of the present Committee’s investigations – what best serves England-Wales rail connectivity, and there is a crucial role for both the Westminster and Welsh Government to call NR to account and to ensure that NR is made to serve Welsh interests in the best way possible23.

In particular, a close eye should be kept on the Welsh Government’s input into the HLOS to ensure that Wales’ rail interests are being well served by Welsh ministers,24 and all potential rail infrastructure change, sale and loss in Wales should be scrutinised and when appropriate, challenged.25

______

Appendix A

Major rail projects funded during Control Period 4

Peterborough – Nuneaton route : £80.0 million to enhance loading gauge and capacity, providing a crucial alternative to the busy rail routes via London Southampton – Nuneaton corridor: £42.8 million to enhance the loading gauge to W10 Humber Ports to the East Coast Main Line: £8.0 million to increase capacity on the rail link with the port West Coast Main Line to Liverpool Docks : £1.7 million to improve rail access to the port

Gospel Oak to Barking line in London: £18.5 million for gauge clearance and freight capacity work

23 See Appendix B The relationship between WG / ORR / NR 24 See Appendix C High Level Output Specification 25 See Appendix D Network Changes

144

Strategic Rail Freight Network projects funded for delivery in Control Period 4 (2009-10 to 2013-14)

Ipswich to Nuneaton capacity enhancement: £50 million for capacity and signalling enhancements – some planned for early CP5 to tie in with Leicester re-signalling

W10 Gauge clearance: £55 million for Southampton to Basingstoke diversionary route via Laverstock and Andover

In-fill gauge schemes: £40 million for schemes to be identified by the industry

Train lengthening : £40 million for schemes to be identified by the industry

Channel Tunnel route : £10 million for signalling modifications to allow trains hauled by Channel Tunnel electric freight locomotives to use the route to the south of London via Redhill

Development studies: £5 million for work to develop Strategic Rail Freight Network next stage investment proposals

[Britain’s Transport Infrastructure Strategic Rail Freight Network: The Longer Term Vision (Department for Transport, September 2009 Annex B & Annex C Page 22)

Productivity Transport Innovation Fund projects for delivery in Control Period 4 (2009-10 to 2013-14) Strategic Rail Freight Network projects funded for delivery in Control Period 4 (2009-10 to 2013-14)]

These are in addition to the following big projects:

HS2 (phase 1) £34 billion Crossrail £15.9 billion project Thameslink £5 billion is committed Reading station £515 million for the upgrade of lines throughout and to the west of the station

______

Appendix B

The relationship between WG / ORR / NR

145

Some questions that pertain to the relation between the Welsh Government, the Office of Rail Regulation and Network Rail are noted in this Appendix.

ORR enforces - but in a sort of passive, appellate way – i.e. through investigating complaints of license breach or determining a disputed Network Change application.

In the past, the SRA (Strategic Rail Authority) took an active interest in the condition of the network, and the Scottish Government has been doing so and progressing major rail infrastructure projects. So it seems that NR have learned to bounce ideas off them, to listen to opinions, to be guided (within reason) by what was said. So, for example, NR might say it had plans to downgrade a line. Ultimately that would be a decision governed by the formal processes overseen by ORR. However if SRA had said it would prefer a different outcome, NR might have decided to look elsewhere for savings.

Or, in the past, the SRA might have said it would be prepared to fund retention of existing capability against a future strategic need.

Thus, essentially by developing a relationship with NR, the SRA - as funder of the network - would have known what was going on, and where necessary, could try to influence outcomes, if necessary with finance. If all is left to the ORR, passivity is substituted for involvement.

In spite of NR’s formal obligation to maintain the network to the standard it was in May 2001, it is clear that it has not managed to do so in a number of areas. This may be due to management failures or to difficulty in interpreting the impact of obligations as they relate to particular route sections. In Wales, NR’s failure to maintain a line to its stated Route Availability (RA) has been found to be true on the Conwy Valley Line.

Ultimately ORR can decide on and enforce the formal obligation, but this is a time- consuming activity and in the meantime valuable opportunities may be delayed or lost.

In view of the fact that, as we understand it, the SRA had started to take, and the Scottish Government now is taking, an active interest in the condition of the infrastructure so that NR is aware of the views of funders, difficulties can be spotted and resolved currently, opportunities identified at an early stage, funding can be negotiated where necessary and the need for use of post hoc enforcement powers is reduced.

Given the importance of the rail network to Wales it is obvious that WG – in spite of having fewer powers with regard to rail than the Scottish Government - should be similarly involved in a very proactive way for example in issues such as the capability of the rail system in Wales, and in proposing major rail construction projects such as can be seen in Scotland. In the case of the Conwy Valley Line – to quote an example – all the evidence is that since Devolution, Welsh Ministers have been compliant to NR.

______

Appendix C

146

HLOS

( High Level Output Specification)

The Railways Act (2005) gives the state a major role in specifying the outputs it requires of the rail network - services and network. This is to be done through the High Level Output Specification (HLOS) which will be produced every few years.26

For this purpose the Regulatory Asset Base has been split into two - one for Scotland, the other for England and Wales.  In Scotland the Scottish Government – funding and controlling the track through NR, as it does - will produce its HLOS.  South of the Scottish border, the Secretary of State for Transport does so for both England and Wales.

Both the Scottish Government and the Secretary of State for Transport will also state what they can afford to pay. ORR prices up the specification and a process of iteration takes place out of which comes agreement on the eventual specification - in terms such as ‘we want a railway capable of running X passenger trains an hour of the following types and capacity for Y freight trains of the following types + punctuality of 99% etc etc and we all agree this will cost £mmmm.’

Wales is obviously in a different position because of the different powers of WG and the Scottish Government, and one can't now change the Railways Act.

However, at least 2 questions arise:

1. Is Wales effective in establishing and feeding its requirements into the Secretary of State's HLOS? 27

Civil society and the rail industry (private operators - passenger and freight) need to scrutinise Wales’ input carefully, and the issue cannot fail to be of interest to the Welsh

26 HLOS is ‘a key feature of an access charges review. Under Schedule 4 of the 2005 Railways Act, the Secretary of State for Transport (for England and Wales) and Scottish Ministers (for Scotland) are obliged to send to ORR a high level output specification (HLOS) and a statement of funds available (SoFA), to ensure the railway industry has clear and timely information about the strategic outputs that Governments want the railway to deliver for the public funds they are prepared to make available. ORR must then determine the outputs that Network Rail must deliver to achieve the HLOS, the cost of delivering them in the most efficient way, and the implications for the charges payable by train operators to Network Rail for using the railway network’. http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/conGlossary.100

27 See Policy framework for investments: conclusions October 2005 (Published by the ORR) Section 2:5 on page 14 is particularly relevant in connection with the questions that are raised in this submission: ‘In advance of future periodic reviews, the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers will set out high-level output specifications [HLOS] describing the extent and quality of the railway activities that they want to buy, and the funds that they have available).

147

Affairs Select Committee as rail infrastructure in Wales remains part of the English-Welsh section of the Regulatory Asset Base and is controlled not by Welsh Ministers, but by DfT.

2. If Wales subsequently wants to change/enhance its specification because it wants to buy more benefits, has it been doing so, and if so, does it do so via the Secretary of State or directly?

 In either event WG needs to have its own considered view

 It may be particularly material to ascertain to what extent the WG has been undertaking the duty to consider the appropriateness of Welsh rail infrastructure for the good of Wales and for WG objectives, to promote change where appropriate and to use funds where justifiable. This is clearly so with regard to the topic being currently examined by the Welsh Affairs Committee as with other rail issues. It is a question raised, for instance, by the lack of investment by NR or WG in the Central Wales Line which is a significant cross-border route and by NR’s virtually non- existent ‘aspirations’ for the line as documented earlier in this Submission.

______

Appendix D

Network Changes

This appendix relates to Network Changes that NR plans. Such changes are the disconnection or removal of sidings or the sale of railway land. We do not know whether The Welsh Affairs Select Committee is regarded by Network Rail as a consultee on Network Changes within Wales. If the Committee is not, there is no doubt that it should be.

Rails4Wales recommends that Members keep a close eye on any changes in the network that NR may propose. This is more difficult now than it was before, as NR’s current web-site makes such proposals much more difficult to find. They are, effectively more ‘hidden’.

June 2012

148

Further written evidence from Rails4Wales

Below is the relevant content of an e-mail received from Network Rail to some questions I had asked. You may have noticed that I had commented in the briefing document I sent you that Network Rail had been unable to verify certain figures in time for me to confirm their current accuracy. Mr Robin Basu, Network Rail Community Relations Manager kindly provided the requisite updates and I have pleasure in forwarding this data to you in case you wish to distribute it to the Committee Members before next Tuesday.

I have highlighted (blue and bold) the individual schemes listed by Mr Basu for ease of identification and have highlighted the updated costs in green. My original enquiries are in light blue (not italicised).

The figures confirm my point that very large rail infrastructure projects are happening in England. Three of the figures (Peterborough – Nuneaton / W10 Gauge clearance / the Crossrail project) are less than I quoted; others are higher (significantly higher in the case of the train lengthening schemes for example), some projects are not expected to go ahead.

Mr Basu’s reply is very helpful and represents the costs at the time of writing.

I hope this update is useful.

Please find below a summary of the costs for the projects you have detailed, with additional comments:

Peterborough – Nuneaton route: £80.0 million to enhance loading gauge and capacity, providing a crucial alternative to the busy rail routes via London. The current estimated cost for this project is £68million

Southampton – Nuneaton corridor: £42.8 million to enhance the loading gauge to W10. The total cost for this project is £62.5million; £42.8million of this is government funding, with the remaining funding being provided by Associated British Ports (ABP), the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) and Network Rail

Humber Ports to the East Coast Main Line: £8.0 million to increase capacity on the rail link with the port This project is unlikely to go ahead

West Coast Main Line to Liverpool Docks: £1.7 million to improve rail access to the port This figure is correct

Gospel Oak to Barking line in London: £18.5 million for gauge clearance and freight capacity work This figure is correct

149

Ipswich to Nuneaton capacity enhancement: £50 million for capacity and signalling enhancements – some planned for early CP5 to tie in with Leicester re-signalling.

The current figure for this project is £62million; the project will provide capacity and signalling enhancements from Ipswich to Peterborough, including the Ipswich Chord - formerly the Bacon Factory Curve. Peterborough to Nuneaton will be provided through the tie in with the Leicester re-signalling project in CP5

W10 Gauge clearance: £55 million for Southampton to Basingstoke diversionary route via Laverstock and Andover.

The current costs for this project are £34 million. There are 3 more bridges to heighten and one more track lower to undertake; we anticipate that this project will be finished by Jan 2013

In-fill gauge schemes: £40 million for schemes to be identified by the industry.

The current figure for this project is £55 million

Train lengthening: £40 million for schemes to be identified by the industry.

There are three separate projects being undertaken in relation to train lengthening, detailed below: • Ipswich to Nuneaton - £14million • Peak Forest to London - £35 million • Southampton to Nuneaton - £55 million

Channel Tunnel route : £10 million for signalling modifications to allow trains hauled by Channel Tunnel electric freight locomotives to use the route to the south of London via Redhill.

This project is unlikely to go ahead

Development studies: £5 million for work to develop Strategic Rail Freight Network next stage investment proposals.

This figure is correct

There are other schemes taking place which benefit freight (such as GN/GE Joint Line development, North London Line enhancement, Doncaster North flyover etc) but their business cases are based on passenger benefits so these are not included in the SFN list.

The cost of the Crossrail project is currently estimated at £14.8bn and Crossrail’s website link is shown below:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/railway/funding

150

The Thameslink programme website confirms that government funding for the scheme is £6 billion and is provided below: http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk/

For HS2, our role is purely consultative at this point; we are providing analysis on the development of the route options and therefore I recommend that you visit the HS2 website to make enquiries directly to their communities and stakeholder teams: http://www.hs2.org.uk/

The current cost for the Reading project is £850 million; all costs that I have provided today are accurate at present but, as I’m sure you are fully aware, are subject to change.

July 2012

151

Written evidence from M&G Barry Consulting Ltd

This paper to be read in conjunction with Mark Barry’s submission to the Transport Select Committee in July 2011 on behalf of the Cardiff Business Partnership (CBP).

This is an update to reflect announcements and developments since July 2011.

Summary of the original Submission in July 2011  £32Bn HS2 linking London, The Midlands, The North of England and Scotland could, according to DfT, generate economic benefits of £40Bn and 40,000 new jobs from Phase 1  HS2 would bring most major English and Scottish cities >30 minutes closer to London.  As a result, Cardiff would be further away in travel time to London than every major English city apart from Newcastle  Greengauge21/KPMG economic analysis of HSR network found that Wales and SW England would have 21,000 and 48,000 fewer jobs respectively than would be the case if HS2 not developed. That analysis assumed GWML would be electrified. (See Figure 1)

Figure 1 - Economic Impact of HS2 on Wales

152

Figure 2 - Illustration of journey times to London from Cardiff and Manchester

CBP’s primary argument was that a corresponding investment along the GWML was required to improve services and especially journey times, so that Cardiff and South Wales are not economically disadvantage by HS2.

Relevant Developments and Announcements since July 2011  DfT confirm funds available for GWML Heathrow link from the west (detail tbc) to be complete by ~2021  DfT confirmed the electrification of the GWML all the way to Swansea and the procurement of new Hitachi IEP intercity express trains for the route - Stated journey time improvements suggest Cardiff to London in 1hr 45 mins. This was the journey time in the 1980s and is still >30 minutes slower than the London Manchester journey once HS2 is complete (See Figure2).  Tender documents for new GW Franchise published  The Great Western Partnership in conjunction with Greengauge21 have published a “Conditional Output Statement” (COS) calling for a series of incremental enhancements to the GWML (as Mark Barry had done in the original Transcom Submission) that would, by the time HS2 is complete, deliver: - Cardiff to London journey times of 1hour 15 minutes - Direct access/services to Heathrow from South Wales - A Direct link from the GWML to HS1 to enable through services to Europe - A more integrated Severnside Metro service to link Swansea, Cardiff and Bristol  DfT confirm HS2 will go ahead and not on a direct route via Heathrow  The lack of clarity in UK airport policy – esp. as regards Heathrow and 3rd runway. - Alternate plans for airports have also been presented (Thames Estuary & Oxfordshire)  Plans for a Severn Barrage have re-emerged which could enable alternate rail corridor

153

Figure 3 - Illustration of possible enhancements to GWML

Given the above, Mark Barry’s believes the following should be undertaken:  That the Greengauge21/GWP COS is incorporated into DfT planning for the development of the GWML out to 2030  That work to link the GWML from the west with Heathrow is clarified and accelerated and developed to be consistent with HS2 Heathrow Spur and HS2 links  That the development of the HS2 Heathrow Spur and HS1 connection include GWML connections  If a new airport is developed to augment/replace Heathrow, then high speed rail access from Wales/SW England to a new airport location is addressed  That the potential for a rail link across a possible Severn Barrage is explored

September 2012

154

Written evidence from Greengauge 21

1. Greengauge 21 is a not for profit organisation that has led the debate on high-speed rail (HSR) in Britain. It is funded by a Public Interest Group and (since September 2012) by a parallel Industry Leaders Group. 2. Greengauge 21 has published several key documents of relevance to the question of cross border connectivity and of potential interest to the Committee. These are28: a. Fast Forward – a report published in September 2009, showing in outline, and based on a cost benefit appraisal of the alternatives, how a national HSR network for Britain might be developed b. Capturing the benefits of HS2 on existing lines – a report published in February 2011, which included an explanation of how the first phase of HS2 could be used to develop new direct rail services (not high-speed) between Mid Wales and London c. Great Western Main Line Conditional Output Statement - a report prepared for the Great Western Partnership and published by them in June 2012, which explained how the GWML could be progressively upgraded and made a part of the national HSR network. 3. Much of this work has been commissioned from specialist consultants and experts in the relevant fields.

National HSR Network

4. The network developed and published in Fast Forward remains the only evaluated plan for a national HSR system. It anticipates a HSR service operating over the GWML – suitably upgraded – between the major cities of South Wales and Heathrow Airport, central London and potentially (using HS1) major cities on the near continent, such as Paris and Brussels. The concept is illustrated overleaf. 5. HS2 forms a critical part of the national HSR network but even in its extended form (as a Y-shaped network to Leeds and Manchester) does not provide a truly national capability, a point shared and recognised by HS2 Ltd.

28 All of these reports are available for download at the website: www.greengauge21.net

155

Potential benefits from HS2 for cross border rail services

6. The examination of capacity released by HS2 in its first phase, in 2026, was examined in depth through a timetabling/operational planning study. This concluded, as shown in the following extract from p18-19 of the report together with Figure 4.3 (see overleaf), that the release of capacity on the West Coast Main Line could be used for a number of purposes including the provision of services that are ‘crowded out’ by today’s high frequency Intercity trains that will, from its opening in 2026, switch to HS2. These new direct services could be trains running from Aberystwyth and from Wrexham via Birmingham and the West Coast Main Line direct to London. They would operate at today’s operating speeds of 125 mile/h, providing connections to key intermediate places such as Coventry, Rugby and Milton Keynes.

156

Black Country, Shropshire, Mid and North Wales

With HS2 in operation, there would be a continuing need to operate ‘fast’ services between the West Midlands and London over the West Coast Main Line. To improve connectivity, such services are likely to make an extra station call en route, as shown in the service plan in Chapter 2. But demand would be lower than today, with most of the traffic to/from the West Midlands expected to switch to HS2 services.

The value of these retained services could be enhanced by their extension westwards from Birmingham. In today’s service plans, two out of every three trains terminate at Birmingham New Street. Since the capacity requirements on such services will be reduced following the opening of HS2, it would be feasible to operate such trains with lower capacity Class 221 units (which are approximately half the length of Pendolino trains) or other suitable 200 km/hour trains, and extend their operation to locations such as Shrewsbury, Aberystwyth and Wrexham. This will either create long sought after direct services to the capital (in the case of Mid Wales) or provide a sound basis for through London services following the demise of the open access operator (in the case of Telford, Shrewsbury and Wrexham).

The timetable described in Chapter 2 has the two fast WCML services to Birmingham, with one serving Walsall, offering the latter a direct London service. Either of these services could be extended further, as well as providing Wolverhampton with a doubling of London train frequency.

157

Source: Greengauge 21 ‘Capturing the benefits of HS2 on existing lines February 2011’

Great Western Main Line HSR services

7. Greengauge 21’s report for the Great Western Partnership envisaged: a. A progressive improvement in the frequency and speed of the GWML services between South Wales and London, exploiting in the first instance the capabilities of the IEP fleet b. Provision of direct services between South Wales and Heathrow Airport via a new Western Rail access c. Partnership working to create a long term strategy for the corridor that would build on these and other developments so that South Wales could be served by the national HSR network of services.

Conclusion

8. While HS2 will not serve Wales directly, Greengauge 21’s studies have shown that Mid and North East Wales could get major benefits in the form of improved cross border rail services from 2026 when HS2 (Phase 1) opens. 9. South Wales cross-border rail services can become, in time, part of a national HSR network, and this could include the provision of direct European services too. 10. HS2 also opens up the possibility of services between North Wales (the Holyhead – Chester line) and London being operated as a through high-speed service, using the planned ‘hybrid’ trainsets. These trains could make station calls at (say) Chester and Crewe and at Birmingham Interchange on the HS2 line en route to London over HS2. A prerequisite would be electrification of the line across North Wales. Given recent

158

decision on trans-Pennine electrification, this would potentially bring other synergistic benefits.

August 2012

159

Written evidence from David T Williams, Chairman, Llandudno Hospitality Association

I understand your Committee is looking into cross-border road and rail connectivity. North Wales has always had strong links with both Merseyside and Manchester and transportation is vital to the economies of these regions. Whilst welcoming the improvements to be made to the South Wales rail network, we now hope you will turn your attention to North Wales.

My Association have been pressing for some time for work to be undertaken on the Halton Curve. This would speed up rail connections between Liverpool and north Wales and allow through trains without the now necessary delay and change in Chester. Tourists arriving in Liverpool Airport require a swift transfer to Llandudno and other areas of North Wales. Short breaks are now very important to our industry as are short journey times. Traditionally Lancashire has been a strong market for Llandudno, but in the last few years there has been an increase in visitor numbers from Yorkshire. If we are to encourage more guests to travel by public transport better connections are required.

There also needs to be improvement in our road system for travel to South Wales. This is where cross border co-operation could come into play. There is dual carriageway beyond Wrexham, some near Shrewsbury and of course again at Ross on Wye and beyond. How can we persuade the English counties to upgrade their poor sections?

Large parts of North Wales qualify for European structural funding. This may be a way of improving the area signalling from Chester to Holyhead allowing the trains to travel at greater speeds.

I trust your Committee will look into the above.

October 2012

160

Further written evidence from the Rt. Hon. Simon Burns MP, Minister of State, Department for Transport

During the evidence session on 16 October Stephen Hammond and I undertook to provide two further pieces of information, one relating to signalling work on the North Wales main line, the other to modelling of the debt and tolls for the Severn bridges.

I understand there were also some questions which the Committee had intended to ask during the oral evidence session but which were not reached as a result of the session unfortunately being cut short by the Committee members’ wish to be in the Chamber for a statement. This letter responds to the Committee’s further questions, and to the commitments given during the session. I would also ask that you take note of two corrections to the evidence given.

In response to a question from Guto Bebb MP (Q191 in the transcript), I undertook to provide an update of work on resignalling/improvements to signalling along the North Wales Main Line. I have responded separately to Mr Bebb’s Parliamentary Question on the same issue.

Work on signalling/resignalling is of course an operational matter for Network Rail. The Government has provided funding to Network Rail and the rail industry up to 2019 to purchase the infrastructure enhancement that best improves passenger and freight journeys in Wales and England. Much of the signalling on the North Wales route is due for renewal from the 2013/14, providing opportunities for low cost change that could improve the speed of journeys and the number of trains that can be accommodated.

HLOS 1 (covering the Control Period 09/10 to 13/14) provided £325m to the Network Rail Discretionary Fund for the best value infrastructure improvements on the network not directly specified in the HLOS. HLOS 2 has provided £300m for passenger journey improvements in Control Period 5 (14/15 to 2018/19). Beyond this, the Welsh Government works in partnership with Network Rail to enhance and improve rail infrastructure in Wales and can develop and fund schemes in addition to any funding obtained from the Westminster Government. The Welsh Government did not identify the North Wales coast route as a priority for investment in HLOS 2.

Network Rail is expected to examine opportunities to improve journeys along the North Wales coast route as part of its preparation for re-signalling and will inform the industry and the two Governments of its findings.

You asked for responses to three further questions. First, what efforts are being made to ensure that Network Rail maintains lines in Wales to the correct route availability standards? Network Rail is required by the Office of the Rail regulator (ORR) to maintain the network to the correct availability standards as part of its Network License and the ORR monitors this. This role is part of ORR’s statutory duties and the Department does not normally involve itself in this area it would be inefficient to do so.

161

Second, you asked what reassurances can be given that the TEN-T proposals brought forward by the European Commission adequately recognise regional needs? We have worked closely with all the Devolved Administrations – Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland – to take account of their suggestions and concerns in developing a UK position for our negotiations with the European Commission and the respective Presidencies. This includes the proposed Core and Comprehensive Networks and the proposals in the draft TEN-T Regulation.

And finally, you asked about the Department’s position on how the improvements required by the TEN-T proposals will be funded, and how this might affect other investment? The UK’s approach for negotiations on TEN-T has focussed on three overarching objectives: - Binding deadlines for the Comprehensive and Core Networks to be replaced with indicative targets and refer to the development of the TEN-T Core and Comprehensive Networks instead of their completion - Decisions on which projects should be developed and invested in on national networks to remain with the Member States concerned and Private Sector transport operators within them. - No additional financial or administrative burdens on Member States or Private Sector transport operators

We believe that the General Approach text agreed at the March 2012 Transport Council contained sufficient flexibility to address these concerns. The draft TEN-T Regulation is now being considered by the European Parliament, and is due to be voted on in Plenary in January 2013. In the meantime we will continue to lobby to maintain the General Approach text.

In response to Q186, Stephen Hammond undertook to provide information on the work that has been undertaken relating to the modelling of debt/tolls for the Severn bridges. Subsequently you asked that we clarify the level of debt that will need to be recovered through tolling, how and when it was incurred and why it was not covered by the concession agreement. You further asked why there are no plans to reduce the toll at the end of the Concession, when it will no longer subject to VAT.

When the concession period ends, the crossings will revert back to public ownership. The Severn Bridges Act 1992 allows for Government to continue tolling for up to a further 5 years to recover its own costs. These are costs that fall outside of the scope of the current concession including for professional advice, works associated with latent defects such as the main cable corrosion on the Severn Bridge, and £4m of the £126m pre-concession debt from 1992. These amounts are reported each year in the Severn Bridge Accounts. As at 31 March 2012, the accumulated deficit was £112m.

There is significant uncertainty around what the accumulated deficit will be at the end of the concession period because this will depend on the costs of any additional work that may need to be carried out on the Crossings, including mitigation of latent defects. However, with the concession period currently predicted to end in 2018, it is estimated that the deficit will be well over 100 million pounds, and be recovered by the early 2020s, (not several hundred millions to be repaid by the mid-2020s, as stated in response to Mrs James (Qs 178 and 179)).

162

The Government has not undertaken any decision on the level of the tolls when the commercial concessions ends. VAT would not apply to a publicly-run toll. However prices did not rise when VAT was first included in the toll, so it would be wrong to assume prices would automatically go down once VAT was removed. There may be valid reasons to try to repay the outstanding debts as quickly as possible, for example to open the way for new arrangements for the Crossing.

I would also wish to take the opportunity to make a small correction to a statement I made in response to Question 196. Having read the transcript I realise in my response I incorrectly referred to Swansea port as being on the Comprehensive Network. Swansea port is not in fact on the Comprehensive Network as it did not meet the European Commission’s threshold of 0.1% of EU throughput for passengers or freight. I apologise for that error. The point made that neither Swansea port or Port Talbot are part of the Core Network is however correct.

I trust this follows through on the commitments given during the evidence session, and addresses the Committee’s supplementary questions.

November 2012

163

Further written evidence from the Welsh Government

The Welsh Government continues to engage with the UK Government to ensure that Wales receives all of the consequentials to which we are entitled.

In relation to the recent HS2 announcement, no budget allocations have been made for the construction of either phase in the current Spending Review period.

Rail infrastructure is not devolved and as such we would not expect to receive consequentials.

An exception is in relation to transport projects in London where the Welsh Government can receive consequentials, an example of this is the Crossrail project for which a consequential was paid to the Welsh Government.

February 2013

164