it appears then that we were debating different things. I was talking about the electrification of the Valleys lines - what were you talking about?

I have asked many times what the economic benefits of electrifying the Valleys lines were and was told by yourself and others that the economic benefits had been well documented. The best efforts that could be mustered were references to other projects that can be described as similar because they relate to trains and thats about it. The Welsh context is very important as our base to grow is much different from London, surely you appreciate that?

It transpires that I was correct, there is no evidence (as of yet) to suggest any economic benefits will come to Wales - only post hoc rationalisation.

let me ask you a question, but before I do, will provide some background information: an observed tree falls in a forest and is observed to make a noise.

Q does an unobserved tree make a noise when it falls in a forest?

what you need to consider is whether observed and unobserved trees behave in the same way? Do we know the behaviour patterns of unobserved trees? Can we know the behaviour patterns or do we have to make assumptions?

A few thoughts.

I think that the electrification of the Valleys Lines would give more people more opportunity to take or look for jobs further afield than they do at present - most obviously in Cardiff. Most people have a rough idea of how far they would be willing to commute in relation to their salary. Generally, I'd travel up to an hour for a job, but it would need to be markedly better than my current role (e.g.better pay or better prospects or better firm to work for etc)for me to travel that far.

Making travel from Merthyr (for example) to Cardiff easier, more pleasant and quicker, even if only by ten minutes (which could be significant in relative terms), will give more people more opportunities to travel to employment.

Having a wider area of potential workforce will probably encourage some companies to locate here.

Improving access to Cardiff (and indeed destinations further afield whether Newport, Swansea, the Airport or Bristol) by making public transport quicker, cleaner and more pleasant may also encourage more people to live in the Valleys and trigger more housing development, and its associated economic stimumlus. Electrification could also be the first step towards a metro-style network, which would be likely to trigger development in other parts of Cardiff.

There is a degree of speculation in this admittedly, but I'm sure there would be economic benefits arising from electrification compared with a do-nothing scenario.

Barden, the resident troll will just switch tack or introduce yet another pointless and irrelevant angle from which to "argue". Banging one's head against a brick wall would be a more fulfilling and enjoyable way of passing the time than "debating" with Jack o' Manchestra

This makes a lot of sense to me, it is surprising to someone from cardiff or.Newport how insular some parts of the valleys can be.
I have a colleague who used to work in penrhiwceiber, and used to commute from cardiff. The local workers couldn't comprehend this, and Would ask her if there weren't any jobs in cardiff.
Anything that improves access to jobs has got to be good news for the valleys.

Funnily enough, this was Jackomanchestra's first post on this thread, and the first reply to Hypercelt's initial post on March 17th 2012. I hope he asks himself why he has been arguing against his own stated point-of-view ever since? Maybe he is the proverbial man who could start an argument in a phone box?

Jackomanchestra's second post on this thread!!!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha aaahahahahahahaha ha ha.
What an absolute farce

I think that explains my position. could being an important modal verb in this context suggesting it is not definite and that the infrastructure development may result in economic regeneration. at no poiint have I said that infrstructure will being benefits. all i have done in this thread (time and again) is asked for someone to quantify what those benefits are. We have found at that at present those benefits have not been quantified and that there has been no analysis completed.

in other words, it is not possible to say what, if any, the economic benefits will be.

can you please explain where in the above post that you have quoted that I reference any sort of economic benefits? are you just adopting a contrary position to whatever I write?

I stated, quite clearly, that I thought it would be better if the valleys were electrified rather than electrifying to swansea. the reason is that it brings more people on to the electric network. i have not alluded to any economic benefits in any way so i'm not sure why you are suggesting that I have. Anyone who can read will see that there is no mention. Perhaps you can explain how you have arrived at this conclusion?

Where you say " I would have thought biggest bang for buck would have been to spend the money on the valley lines and Cardiff metro." You are a laughing stock. Maybe you should diversify into clowning. Very postmodern, a clowning accountant. You wouldn't even need to practice

Jackomanchestra, your first post on this thread said and I quote:" this really is good news - lets hope it goes ahead as it could kick start some sort of economic regeneration."

i did say that. see my response earlier - it is self explanatory. if you did not read it the first time round and missed the message, then perhaps a forum that is based on the written word is not for you.

so you misunderstood the term 'biggest bang for buck'. its no biggie

"Biggest bang for buck" means "best return on investment". So unless YOU didn't understand what you meant (which is a possiblity) you were saying, in the fourth post on this thread, that electrifying Valley Lines would produce some return on investment. Then you subsequently questioned this point for a month. Arguing with yourself? A symptom of mental problems, or maybe an indicator that you are a complete f*¤+?=g w@=+!r

that return happens to be more people on the electric network.



Mr Ad hominem is back, oh how you have been missed. is that all you can muster, can't you have some originality in your name calling?

I've never called you a f*¤+?=g w@=+!r before, so it was original. Yes, I believe you, "bigger bang for buck" means "carry more people". And maybe when you opined "it could kick start some sort of economic regeneration" you actually meant "the trains will be able to carry more people"! You can argue with yourself for a while now. Hoist on your own petard, Jackomanchestra! Pip pip

yes...and no.

yes - you have never actually said that about me before

no - its not really original


bigger bang for buck tends to mean to focus on what returns the greatest outcome for a given resource. it can be (and usually is) measured financially, but not always so.


no, I meant exactly what I said. that it may kick start economic regeneration. that is not to say that electrifying the rail network will bring economic benefits.

I have asked several times in this thread if anyone can quantify what those benefits are and lo and behold the answer is that there has been no analysis undertaken yet.

so whilst there may be benefits, we just do not know.


nothing to add to the really

Sort of off topic but still to do with trains. I was in Palermo recently and the city has an underground metro system which starts overground in the central station and then goes underground serving the local community and tourists. How feasible would this be in Cardiff? By say connecting the systems up electrically but having the trains from the valleys submerge and enter into a metro system. The trains in Cardiff hold up a lot of land, look at Cathays and Queens Street for example, and then expansion could be done under the river connecting east and west, north and south. I know that Cardiff as an incredibly high water board but it's something to think about.

SP - mentioned tunnels to some Network Rail engineers on a different project and hugely expensive and never really considered for cardiff as the demand etc is not there.

Jantra _ I try so hard to help you out, answer questions, assist you in your deliberations, but your all over the place as MR A has shown. I have never said the evidence is there for the valleys line elctrification, not having looked has anyone else, but we have inferred the benefist from other similair schemes, I presume as you did from the posts Mr A quotes.
Sit back a bit, don't bite, read whats said, deliberate and respoind with considered thought. when you do, you come up with good points, but like i said its wheat and chaff

It is pie in the sky, but as a reaction to Palermo's underground it's rival city of Catania has a built one, it is the world's smallest metro but still it's there. On the mainland it is the done thing for cities to have undergrounds and an extensive public transport system. Even Bilbao has an underground.

Eric

good morning to you

I do read your posts and get the general gist of what is being stated. In this thread I asked what the economic benefits were, because as far as I could see, there were none (thus quantified).

Rather than suggesting that we have no idea if there are any benefits because the analysis hasn't yet been undertaken, I was told there has to be benefits because similar schemes say so. I refer to my post about unobserved trees. The point being that each project is different and has its own parameters and metrics. Valleys electrification is an entirely different project to cross rail (as an example). Thus to cite cross rail as evidence that valleys electrification will deliver commensurate benefits in my opinion is absurd. they are about as far apart as can possibly be. the only similarity is they deliver a form of travel on tracks. everything else about it is different.

you will see through this thread I have agreed that such schemes may improve quality of life - I'd agree with that statement on the basis that its common sense. What I will not do is accept that there are other benefits without evidence, without analysis, just because there have been projects that have delivered benefits (or are forecast to deliver benefits) - projects which are almost entirely different in nature and scope.

I do hope they valley lines go ahead, I do hope they bring economic benefits to Wales - really genuinely want that to happen - but saying it is going to happen on the back of projects happening in other areas is my view is very short-sighted and lacks any form of credibility.

so you do now agree that some infrastructuire projects can have productivity benefits and that was my aim. Bring it back to the valleys which we all agree on as much as you want, my point was the productivity point. The case rests.
Small steps, but you are coming along, well done old chum. By Xmas we may have some positivity out of the old dog.

UK government spends more on Tottenham Court Road station upgrade than on electrification of Welsh Railways shock! Whoda thunk it?
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2012/05/26/uk-government-spends-more-on-tottenham-court-road-tube-station-upgrade-than-wales-electrification-91466-31048014/

How much was spent on king's X station, Euston, St Pancras?
Its fucking unbelievable.
The catastrophe of having weak politicians in Wales

St Pancras station redevelopment £800 million
Kings Cross redevelopment £500 million
(London Bridge Station redevlopment) part of Thameslink upgrade which is £6 billion!
Crossrail £15.9 billion
HS1 (excluding St Pancras redevelopment) £5 billion
(Euston Station redevlopment) part of HS2 phase 1 £17.4 billion
Paddington Station redevelopment 1998 £65 million
Waterloo international £170 million

So that's £28.44 BILLION already spent/allocated in the last 20 years on rail lines and stations for London. This excludes all tube,DLR,tramlink and local train service infrastructure spending,which has been considerable and also the £17.4 billion earmarked for HS2.
If one assumes that about 20 million people live in the London area, compared to about 2 million in South Wales, we should have had about £3 billion spent on our lines and stations over the last 20 years,if we were being treated fairly.We have had/will have:
Queen st and other proposed upgrade £30 million
Cardiff Central upgrade 1999 £12 million
Newport Station upgrade £22 million
The EV line £33 million
The VOG line £17 million
Total £114 million
We have had £400 million spent on a signalling upgrade, but London (and the rest of the UK) have had far bigger amounts spent on the same programme. So in terms of station redevelopment and new lines we have had £114 million spent in about the last 20 years, which is 0.4% of the total spent in and around London, even though we have 10% of their numbers of people. Not fair.

Interesting article from "Click on Wales" regarding the possible electrification of the S. wales rail network:

http://www.clickonwales.org/2012/05/critical-moment-for-the-cardiff-and-valleys-metro/

Apologies if posted eleswhere.

On the train to Paddington recently I was struck by massive rail/station construction going on at Reading station. They seem to be doubling the station width (already bigger and busier than Cardiff Central) and laying what looked like possibly up to ten lines of new track for what seemed about a mile and a half on the western approach to the station with somewhat less (but still major work by South Wales standards) on the eastern approach. Anyone know what's going on there? Western terminus of Crossrail, perhaps? It obviously takes more than a few bus-shelter type platforms to keep Royal Berkshire happy!

This £850 million(!!!!!) development is to increase capacity. Crossrail ends in Maidenhead but this work will allow it to be extended to Reading in the future. So, Reading station alone has had 8 times as much spent on intrastructure improvement in the last 10 years as the whole of south Wales has had in the last 20 years. I wonder why?.......Reading station handles 14 million passengers per annum, Cardiff Central handles 11 million, Queen St handles 2.5 million. So between our two stations, they deal with roughly the same number of people every year. I can't really understand why we haven't had similar levels of investment. The shameful fact is that our stations hace had 6% of the investment Reading station has received

I'm grateful for that information, Mr Appeasement. It's going to take more than a few more plastic shelters on lonely platforms to match that kind of investment! We appear to be at the outer limit of the scattering of crumbs from the high table. Cardiff General's last real increase in capacity was in the 30's. Since then they've cut out the Riverside platforms, added a silly Platform "0" and a few dabs of paint for Cup Final crowds. For a capital city the station's an embarrassment - from the south side it could be any minor London suburban station. Why didn't they invest in an overall glass roof at the height of the huge railway activity which went on in Cardiff back in the early 20th century? I know that such roofs are no longer necessary these days but at least we'd have offered newcomers the residual grandeur of a busy major city station. Central handles more passengers than Temple Meads but there's no comparison between the impact of the two stations. Even York, Darlington, Carlisle and Hull stations make stronger statements than Cardiff Central. If Taff Vale and GWR hadn't been separate companies maybe we'd have had a great combined station serving all directions with a dignity worthy of our city.

An interesting question even if it does take us slightly off topic! There are a few reasons for the station's relative modesty I think.

The first is the one that you note - that Cardiff was served by a number of different companies - not just the TVR and GWR, but also the Rhymney, the Barry & the Cardiff Rail companies. Not all these companies ran trains into Cardiff General / Central and apart from GWR their primary business was freight. Passengers were very much a secondary concern.

The other reason was that Cardiff General wasn't a Terminus station for any of these lines. Unlike Bristol Cardiff was an intermediate, albeit an important intermediate stop.

Add to all that the way the UK's public and private investment was - and still is - skewed towards London and the south east of England and you have your explanation.

@MrAppeasement

thats a very good overview and does bring how the inequality in terms of rail. to give the argument balance, I think we should also look at the GVA/GDP of London compared to Wales on a per capita basis as well as look at what spend Wales gets in other areas such as say welfare and benefits compared to London.

My gut feel is that we get a far higher percentage in benefits and welfare (as an example) thus we're not being hard done by, we are just spending it on other things. I think the funding per capita under Barnett would go some way in proving this.

One solution then is for us to request less is spent on welfare and benefits and more on infrastructure. good luck to the politician who suggests that in Wales.

Leaving aside the structural economic issues and the fact that benefit payments in London are proportionately huge because of housing benefit, rail infrastructure spending and welfare policy are not devolved areas.

it is shocking that Cardiff as one of the busiest UK stations outside of london does so badly in terms on overall infrastructure development. I don't really buy into the reason that it is because we are Welsh. Temple meads doesn't really have that much in the way of investment (although IIRC there is scope for significant investment in the pipeline).

I think the real reason is that there just isn't the money to create a world class rail network in the UK. Any world class infrastructure we are going to have is going to be based in and around London first and foremost. Fair - probably not, but it is financial common sense.

How many would be prepared to pay higher London/SE fares on the appalling ATW trains if it meant we would see an increase in the network comfort and capability? My opinion is that I doubt few in Wales would really want to pay more for a better service.

i'm not saying they are. i'm saying that if there is a pot of money for each area of the UK then only so much can be done with that pot of money. If we need it to be spent on welfare in Wales then it means perhaps we get less spending on other things.

I am not talking about WG/Westminster in this, i am talking about the funding in general. we in Wales have a certain amount of public money that we can use for investment, whether it is spent by the Senedd or whitehall (or any of its agencies). Whilst it would be nice to have shiny new ice trains or the shinkansen between Merthyr and Cardiff, the fact is we have serious economic problems that mean our allocated funds are spent on other things.

The issue as you say is structural. we need jobs here in Wales but we need jobs that bring long term wealth to help us become far more sustainable. Public sector jobs don't do this hence why I am against an increase in the state in Wales. The only reason is because it places an ever increasing reliance on English money from Westminster, which is something I am against. i'd much prefer to see a Wales than could afford to look after itself entirely rather than rely on the Barnett subsidy.

when we get to that point (if we get to that point) then perhaps we can't start thinking about these infrastructure projects, but until that time, the Welsh share of public funds is spent on other things. We cannot have our cake and eat it.

You do understand the difference between a revenue and a capital budget, yes? Are you sure you're an accountant?

Westminster does not adjust our Capital Budget to take account of the amount of benefits paid out in Wales. For starters, they almost certainly don't know what that figure is. Secondly, perhaps you've heard of the Barnett Formula?

he's off again.

the UK has a set amount of cash to spend on public services. it matters not if you call it capital or revenue, whatever the split, the total cash is the same. Wales will be allocated a certain amount of this cash, it will be allocated directly through WG (via Barnett) or indirectly through (via Westminster). Whatever the size of this cash pot is, the more that is spent on revenue (welfare, benefits etc) then less is available for capital (ie infrastructure).

reading redevelopment will have benefits to soth wales though, increasing travel time to london and reducing bottlenecks etc so not all bad for us - think WG were actually asked to pay for some of it!!

and without doubt london and gets a lot more, but those london stations deal in people volumes that cardiff can only dream of, Tottenham court road 200k plus a day. All that investment is good, but it needs to ensure other areas benfit too through consequential payments which currently are not dealt with properly.

is that really a benefit

I'm going to take issue with that.

Over £500 million was spent by Network Rail on a bling redevelopment of King's Cross - which handled 28.4 million passengers a year in 2010-11. In the same year Cardiff Central dealt with 11.5 million.

Surely Central deserves better than a cheap and nasty entrance on the southern forecourt which is all Network Rail is planning.

The way public money is poured into vanity projects in London is a disgrace and unbalances the whole of the UK economy.

fair point, decreasing!
some 4 - 6 minutes i recall reading somewhere

damn you Jantra and your eagle eyedness

@Eric
I'm only pulling your chain, I knew what you meant (although some might say that taking longer to get to the smoke was actually a benefit )

@Ash
It may also have something to do with the number of operators out of the station. I do empathise with the claim that Welsh Rail is very much the poor relation, but we do need to remember that we have money spent on other things and we don't really contribute anywhere near as much to the pot as London. Is it correct that we expect the same type of train station that London can afford?

I do however agree that we do need to see a major structural change in the UK economy. The government could start by say locating the courts to M/cr, the MoD to Birmingham, HMT to Cardiff ....basically, wherever the government departments are, the industry will also be. There really is no need to have everything centralised in this day and age

ash, i agree, we get the short end of the stick, but the scale is on a different level, you pick one station Kings CRoss, and that is one of numerous in london, next door to Kings is ST Pancreas, and i'm pretty sure that with underground etc etc KIngs is well over 40 million pasengers a year? It needed doing and i again think the 500 million was part of a much larger regeneration project that included large private sector invoilvement in offices, retail and housing schemes.......cardiff could have that i presume but the latest farce in the CBD programme would put most developers off. Its all about the consequentials for me!!

Jantra, again agree

You're right about the wider redevelopment and the larger passenger figures if you include the Underground.

The figures I used were the Network Rail passenger numbers and the Network Rail share of the investment. I think its a fair comparison. You only need to look at pictures of the new King's Cross Western concourse to see that is was designed as a 'statement building' not as a cost-effective solution to congestion.

According to latest rumours, electrification of GWR from Paddington to Swansea and the core Valleys network (Barry - Cardiff-Pontypridd - Merthyr & Rhondda) will be announced by end of July.

EU funding is in place for Paddington-Cardiff with WG throwing in extra funding to Swansea. There is a big argument going on between DfT & WG about who is actually responsible for this - DfT saying that transport is devloved and WG should be paying - WG saying that rail infrastructure is not devolved and DfT shoudl be paying.

WG wants all Valley lines electrified at the saem time, but cash not available from DfT.

One outcome of this is that rail infrastructure is now likley to be devolved.

Bottlenecks is an interesting one. I'm sure the last few times I've gone to Brum it's only taken about 1hr45 to get into the city and then we've spent 15 minutes either stationary or just strolling in to New Street. Producing faster trains is difficult on our narrow tracks (so engineers tell me) but there are of course other ways to speed things up.

I've read that the DfT is holding back on funding the main line to Swansea and the Vale of Glamorgan and Ebbw Vale lines, it'll still be good news with the core lines electrified anyway but they may as well go for every line. Where is the money coming from the to develop the Metro concept after electrification?

I dont see the Ebbw, Maesteg & VoG lines as being essential for electrification, and would be satisfied if we can get the core valley network electrified.

But there is no justification for not completing the GWR to Swansea. It would be qute a small marginal cost, which would probably be more than offset by reducing the umber of dual-mode trains required. I hope that WG are standing firn on this.

If the SWML is electrified to Swansea, then VoG would be essential as a diversionary route.

If would probably include diversionary routes from Swindon to Gloucester and on towards Caldicot too (when the Severn Tunnel is shut). Electrifying the Maesteg branch would provide (near enough) an electrified route between Cheltenham and Maesteg and probably bring a future Cardiff-Birmingham electrified route much closer.

Looks pretty likely electrification to Swansea will take place, with the bidders for the new Greater Western franchise putting forward their bids taking this as given.

Valleys lines less certain.

Welsh Govt is right on the funding situation though. Don't know DfT thinks it can get away with saying otherwise?!

Agreed Random Comment, unless they have something else up their sleeve. Could we, finally, see the devolution of rail infrastructure to Wales? If so, I presume, that the money raised from the electrifications, Swansea's rate is apparently something like a £2.50 return on every £1 spent

The Swindon - Kemble line is being redoubled as part of the diversionary route



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-12832259

Presumably electrification to Swansea would mean the end of the daily direct service from Carmarthen to Paddington.

I think the signs are pretty good for electrication of the valley lines - excluding Ebbw Vale & Maesteg.

I'm wondering if the electrification of the valley services will end at the present termini or extend on to moth-balled freight routes like Hirwaun, the Nelson branch, Beddau etc.

The Beddau line in particular could be very useful. I seem to remember that it's a capacity problem on the main line west of Cardiff that's the stumbling block.