Swansea isn't the end of the line

Tweet

A promise by a politician is rarely worth the paper on which it often isn’t even written, and there is no reason why a promise to electrify a railway should be any different.  Breaking the promise to electrify the line to Swansea will not exactly enhance the reputation of those who’ve done it, but in all fairness, they are currently hard at work breaking much bigger promises than that one.

I’d give them almost full marks for inventiveness in selling this as an advantage because we won’t have the disruption of all the engineering works in carrying out the upgrade, but I do wonder where that line of argument will lead.  It could easily become an argument for not doing a lot of other things.  There is, after all, quite a lot of disruption involved in building hospitals, schools, roads …

They are right in arguing that it will give us better more modern rolling stock with more seats more rapidly than waiting for electrification all the way to Swansea with electric-only trains, and they’re also right in arguing that it won’t make any difference to journey times between Cardiff and Swansea because the restriction there is the track, not the source of power or the rolling stock.  That does, though, rather gloss over the fact that the new trains will be heavier, more expensive to buy and run, and less environmentally friendly than the all-electric ones we could have had if the project had gone ahead.  I’m not particularly convinced either about some of the arguments put forward about this being a huge blow to the image of Swansea in trying to attract investment.  I would have thought that the quality and reliability of the transportation would be more important than the source of power.

There is another advantage (in the sense of it being an ill-wind which has none) to the decision taken yesterday which few seem to have even realised let alone commented on, and that is its impact on those of us who live even further west of Swansea (although I entirely understand that people in London might not be fully aware of our existence).  That advantage is that bi-modal trains don’t have to terminate their journey at Swansea; like the existing aged beasts they will be perfectly capable of travelling past the end of what seems to be regarded as civilised Wales and out into the sticks where some of us insist on residing. 

One of my concerns from the outset has been that the electrification project would take away the few through trains which we currently enjoy.  As a short term expedient that might have been something up with which we might have had to put, but the problem with the electrification project has long been that it has been seen as a single one-off project rather than part of a longer term vision to electrify the whole network.  We still need that longer term vision of an all-electric railway; all that’s really changed is that the section of line from Cardiff to Swansea has been added to that part of the network for which that vision is required.  I hope that those who so far seem to be mostly interested in making political capital out of the decision will also take that on board and not restrict their arguments to one short stretch of line.

Off the line

Tweet

As was widely-trailed in advance, common sense has prevailed on the issue of rail electrification, and the project will now terminate at Swansea rather than Cardiff, and include the Valleys lines.  It’s good news, as far as it goes (pun intended).

Transport expert, Mark Berry, was quoted as saying that “Without electrification [Swansea] would have been perceived as being off the end of the line”.  True, of course.  And, even with electrification, what will be the perception of Llanelli, Carmarthen, and Pembrokeshire?  The statement, surely, is just as applicable.  And the additional danger is that the need to change train at Swansea will increase as the proportion of electric services to Swansea increases, thereby also increasing the perception that we are somewhere beyond the end of the line.

It would have been unreasonable and unrealistic, of course, to expect today’s announcement to have included the electrification of our lines down here in the far west.  It would have been nice, though, to have seen today’s announcement placed in the context of a wider ambition to electrify the whole network, and to see some sort of outline timetable for achieving that.  It isn’t just West Wales that’s left out; the north is largely ignored as well.  And nor are the forgotten or ignored limited to Wales either.

I accept that it would be some years before the work could be carried out, and that there are real opportunities for us to get more, and improved, rolling stock as the hand-me-downs from those areas lucky enough to be electrified are redeployed.  Existing diesel rolling stock has probably got up to 30, maybe 40 years of useful life; so the timescale that I’d like to have seen put on completing the electrification of the network would be one which enabled the government to proclaim that ‘all new rolling stock will be electric’.  That lack of a strategic view of rail investment is one which has dogged the UK for decades, and it’s still lacking today.

I’m still unconvinced by the claim that saving 15-20 minutes off journey times to London will make a huge difference to the economic prospects of Wales.  The benefits of electrification as I see them are more around increased reliability, lower cost, and the environmental benefits (provided that the electricity is generated from ‘clean’ sources).  In that context, the announcement that it will be partly paid for by above inflation fare increases is rather less welcome.  The idea of investment in rail as a way of encouraging a switch from road to rail for environmental reasons still doesn’t seem to have been fully understood.

It's all one railway line

Tweet

In saying that there must be a ‘business case’ for extending electrification to Swansea this week, the Secretary of State has not really said anything new.  The question needs to be asked however – how long does it take to produce one, and why hasn’t it been done yet?  After all, they’ve been in power for two years now, and as I recall, there have been some sort of figures produced before.  Does it really take two years just to review and update work done previously?

Personally, I’m not a huge fan of the vogue for producing ‘business cases’ in any event.  There’s nothing wrong with the concept, but as someone who’s produced more than a few of them over the years, I’m well aware that they have more to do with justifying why the preferred option is the right one than with an objective analysis of the options.  I wouldn’t say that creative writing is the most important skill in drawing up such a document, but it’s up there somewhere.

Figures in themselves are an important part of any story; but they rarely tell the whole story.  And many figures are the result of estimates, which themselves depend on assumptions, which in turn depend on prejudices and preconceptions.  In this case, it seems to me that the government is using the current absence of a business case as a fig leaf behind which to hide whilst they continue to delay.

Another way in which the use of business cases can be used to obfuscate rather than clarify is in the definition of a project.  In the case of rail electrification, the requirement to produce a separate case for Cardiff -Swansea electrification will produce a different answer than if that section were included in a single case for the whole route from Paddington – Swansea.  So the person who decides where to draw the line between projects has a great deal of influence on the final outcome.

It might be argued that splitting the project up into a number of smaller sections is a valid way of determining which bits are or are not viable, but to take that to extremes, a mile by mile analysis would almost certainly conclude that no individual mile was worth electrifying.  And even if the route is split more rationally into station-station sections, the viability of each section will also to an extent depend on what decision is taken in regard to other sections.

The real decision which Gillan and the Government need to justify is the arbitrary one they took to electrify only part of a major route in the first place.  There is a difference between seeing individual projects as part of a wider project to electrify the whole system and seeing it as just a series of projects each of which must be individually justified, and the latter seems to be the view of the government.  It’s a short-sighted way of looking at the question.

Resurrect the WDA?

Tweet

I wonder what the reaction would be if the Assembly set up a committee to look into the war in Afghanistan, and then, when it published its report, criticised William Hague for declining to attend to give evidence.  Actually, I don’t wonder at all – I’ve got a pretty good idea what the reaction would be.

But how different is it really from a position where a committee of the House of Commons decides to look at a devolved issue – economic development – and then criticises the minister responsible for not agreeing to be grilled by the MPs?

I can understand the irritation in Cardiff at the uninvited interference.  I hope, though, that such natural and justifiable irritation will not lead to a too hasty rejection of the report.  The fact that much of what the MPs have to say is none of their business doesn’t mean that they aren’t making some very valid points.

Their call for the UK Government to extend electrification of the railways – a matter for which they still have responsibility – to Swansea and the Valleys lines is one with which many of us would agree, although I’d like them to have gone further and declared that those were merely the next two steps on a programme to electrify the entire network in Wales.  There is life west of Swansea.

Their message about the loss of the WDA echoes what many in Wales have been saying for some years.  It was a mistake at the time – both for the Government of the day and for the main opposition at the time in supporting it, as Elin Jones recently highlighted.  And there were plenty of people saying at the time that it was a mistake.

I never understood why the baby – the WDA – was being thrown out with the bathwater – the system of appointed members of the great and the good to run quangos.  The latter could have been done without carving the WDA up and incorporating it into the civil service.  Getting back the ethos and culture of that body will not be easy at this stage, but it’s disappointing to see such a lack of will to try.

Longer term view needed

Tweet

Clearly, the electrification of the main line to Cardiff is good news.  But the decision not to continue on to Swansea is bad news for those of us in West Wales.  And the worst news of all (despite apologists for the current UK coalition government trying to claim it as good news) is the decision to go ahead with hybrid rolling stock, having both electric and diesel power.

I understand why clutching at the straw of not having to change trains at Cardiff may appear to be good news, but the choice of hybrid rolling stock has two major disadvantages, in my view.  The first is that it undermines many of the advantages of electric stock – it reduces the cost savings, the extra weight undermines the reduction in wear and tear on the line itself, and the extra complexity means that it loses the advantages of improved reliability and reduced maintenance costs which accompany the move to electric power.

But it is the second disadvantage which concerns me more.  That is that this is inherently a decision with long term consequences.  The new rolling stock is likely to have at least a forty year lifespan, and that reduces the incentive for extension of electrification to Swansea and beyond at an early future date. 

Although it would obviously be preferable to have made the decision on the whole line to Swansea now, the electrification project has such a lengthy timescale that that there is still a window of several years to enable the project to be extended, without incurring the extra costs of a whole new and separate project.  And the environmental, reliability, and cost advantages of electric power are such that I, even as a resident of West Wales, would have preferred to put up with a (comparatively, when looking at a 40 years lifespan) short term change of train at Cardiff in the hope of getting that extension.

The underlying problem is that this government, like its predecessor, is taking decisions on a case by case basis, rather than having a master plan for electrification of the whole network, which is where any government which is serious about reducing the environmental impact of transport would start.

I’m not entirely sure what to make of the announcement of a willingness to look at a comprehensive electrification of the Valleys.  It’s a bit of a mixed blessing, I fear. 

On the one hand, it is clearly a significant investment in transport infrastructure and emissions reduction in a heavily trafficked part of Wales’ rail network, and that has to be welcomed.  On the other hand – and I accept that this is very much said from a West Wales perspective – it emphasises once again a Cardiff-centric approach.

This again underlines the piecemeal approach being taken – if it were just the next step in an overall programme to electrify the whole network, I might grumble a bit about why it has to start in Cardiff, but I’d have to accept that there would be a certain logic to that.  But as a step on its own with no promise of follow-up, coupled with the limitation on the main-line announcement, those of us in the West can surely be forgiven for feeling that we are being left behind with a second class rail network.

And this is more than just a question of transport infrastructure.  It sometimes looks as though the UK policy of development concentrated in the South East whilst the rest is left behind – a policy which has been so damaging to Wales over the decades – is being repeated on a smaller scale in Wales.  I’ve commented before on the apparent emphasis in the Economic Renewal Plan on developing the major conurbation around Cardiff as a significant economic driver.  Concentrating investment in transport infrastructure on that area will serve only to reinforce that trend.

Carts and Horses

Tweet

The decision by the UK Government to put the electrification of the line to Swansea ‘on hold’ is hugely disappointing.  The Government’s argument that “it needs to decide whether to replace the intercity fleet with electric trains, or electric-diesel hybrids beforehand” looks like a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.

The fact that the rolling stock needs replacement is not new, nor is it a surprise.  Part of the justification for doing the electrification as early as possible should surely have been to enable the purchase of electric rolling stock, which would be faster, cheaper, more reliable, and environmentally preferable.  Taking the decision as to which trains to buy first looks like committing us to another 40 years of diesel operation.

Having said that, I’m not convinced about the sincerity of Labour’s response either.  It is increasingly clear that the ‘immediate’ start to preparatory work promised by Gordon Brown never actually happened, and in that context, it is hard to argue that his announcement was not a rather cynical pre-election ploy.

And, hand on heart, how many can people honestly and truly say that they are convinced that a CSR undertaken by a Labour Government would not have reached a similar conclusion?  After all, the difference in the total level of cuts proposed wasn’t that great.

Electrification - let's get on with it

Tweet My initial reaction when I read the part of today's story about the electrification of the mainline was a degree of outrage at the idea that the UK Government would ask the Assembly Government to pay part of the costs.  But then I asked myself whether this expenditure is Barnettised or not - and I have to admit that I don't actually know the answer to that.  If this is additional UK expenditure, over and above the existing transport budget, then the reaction stands; but if the expenditure is coming out of the English transport budget for which Wales has already had, or will be receiving, a Barnett share, then it it not entirely unreasonable for the UK Government to start talking to the Welsh Government about a contribution.

What is absolutely clear, though, is that asking the Welsh Government to pay a proportion is not a way of delivering the project for "less than the £1bn initially estimated", which seems to be the UK Government's starting point.  Paying out of different pots is simply not the same thing as reducing the cost - and disingenuous is an understatement for the suggestion that it is.

I'm clear that there is a good case for electrification - greater reliability, lower maintenance costs, less pollution.  It helps meet emissions targets (depending on how the electricity is generated), and it helps the switch from road to rail.  And there's a good case for the timing; with the rolling stock needing replacement in the next few years, failure to electrify now condemns us to another 40 years of diesel powered railways.  Electrifying the whole railway network as rapidly as possible is something which deserves support.

I'm not entirely convinced that 20 minutes off the journey time makes as much difference as some seem to suggest.  Certainly I, like most other people, like to get from A to B as rapidly as possible, but when I was travelling fairly regularly from South Wales to London it was the lack of certainty about the arrival time which was much more of a concern to me.  Having to catch a train an hour earlier 'just in case' is a real deterrent.

And I'd like to see research which indicates that this will have the massive impact on economic growth which some seem to imply - particularly if the Welsh Government is serious about switching its economic strategy to development of indigenous companies.  I'm not suggesting that it won't have an impact, merely that the impact may have been somewhat exaggerated.

And we simply don't need to exaggerate or play the victim; the project stands up without that.

Staying on the rails

Tweet There were quite a few blog posts about the announcement a week or so ago that the main railway line through South Wales is to be electrified – and quite a robust debate took place as a result of a post by Alwyn. Clearly not everyone thinks it was a good decision.

Fundamentally, there are three reasons why I thought, and still think, that electrification is the right thing to do. The first is that electric trains have a lower carbon footprint overall than the diesel alternative. The second is that they are more reliable - and reliability of public transport is one of the key issues in persuading more people to make the switch from car to train. And the third is that, over the long tem, an electric railway is cheaper to run than a diesel railway.

The main counter argument seems to have been that, if we have money to invest in the transport infrastructure in Wales, then the main east-west link in the south is the wrong place to invest it. It's not an argument against electrifying the railways; it's more an argument about transport priorities for Wales. I understand the argument; but disagree.

Part of the problem is that the announcement is very much a 'stand-alone' announcement; not really placed in the context of a wider strategy for rail in Wales. The strategic context itself is not as clear as it could be, at either UK or Wales level. Even the National Transport Plan for Wales published a couple of weeks ago, for all the very positive aspects of it, seems to me to be based on an opportunistic, incremental approach to developing the rail network in Wales, rather than on a vision of where we want to be and how we get there.

In terms of what is achievable within likely budgets, that makes it a realistic, deliverable plan – but I'd still like to see a wider strategy behind that. There's nothing at all wrong with an opportunistic approach to developing the network, as long as those opportunities take us towards the realisation of an overall strategy.

Plaid in this constituency has tabled a motion to this year's annual conference on the issue, where we will debate that wider strategy for the longer term future. Some of the main elements of that strategy should be, in our view:

• Electrification of the whole network in Wales
• High-speed links from both the South and the North to join with the European network of high speed railways, including a new crossing of the Severn estuary
• A high-speed link direct from North to South

This is neither a cheap nor a short term strategy; high speed links in particular require planning well ahead, but we are calling for the UK and Welsh governments to at least start the process of designating clear routes which can be protected. (And, incidentally, there are those who seem confused about the difference between electrification and high-speed links, mistakenly referring to the former as being a step towards the latter.)

In the context of this sort of strategy, electrification of the line between Swansea and the Severn Tunnel is probably the best place to start on realising the first of those objectives. Rejecting the idea primarily because the line then extends on to London is to ignore two key facts – firstly, that a great deal of use is made of the line for internal traffic within Wales, and secondly, that it is precisely because it can be seen as an extension to the work on the London to Bristol line that it becomes a more cost-effective proposal from the point of view of the funding body – in this case, the UK government.

Far from being an alternative to the electrification and further development of Wales' internal network, I think it can be – and should be – a spur to doing precisely that.

Electric rail

Tweet Today's formal announcement that the main railway line from London is to be electrified as far as Swansea is good news, as others have already noted. It's something for which Plaid have been campaigning for many years, and given that not so long ago there was considerable doubt as to whether the scheme to electrify the line would go any further than Bristol, there can be little doubt that having a Plaid minister in charge of transport has been a major factor in extending the project to Swansea. I know that Ieuan has done a tremendous amount of lobbying for this decision, and am pleased that it's paid off.

Following on from last week's announcement that the M4 relief road will not be built, it demonstrates a clear commitment both to a lower carbon footprint for transport, and a switch in emphasis to public transport.

It's important, however, that things don't stop there, and that we continue to campaign on a number of fronts, and there are two things in particular which I'd like to see.

Firstly, a clear forward plan for electrification of the line further west than Swansea. Not all the trains from London stop at Cardiff or Swansea - some come to Carmarthen as well, and an electrification programme which stops at Swansea is likely to lead to a requirement to change trains there for travel further west.

That's acceptable as an interim measure while the work continues – it would be wholly unrealistic to expect the whole job to be completed before starting to replace diesel rolling stock with electric trains – but I wouldn't want to see it used as a reason for ending the service to Carmarthen on a permanent basis.

Secondly, a commitment to a high speed link. Electrification of the existing line is not at all the same thing as linking Wales to the High-speed network; that would require the construction of a new line to the required standard – including a new crossing of the Severn. It's an ambitious and expensive project, but it's a key part of switching at least some short haul air traffic to the railways.

We need a route to be designated and protected, and we need a clear plan to be developed, for the delivery of this link, and we need the Welsh government and the UK Government to be undertaking preliminary work now.

It's excellent news that we are seeing a more strategic approach to transport planning, but we mustn't stop there.