In an effort to try and get this topic back on track and prevent the forum hitting the buffers...

"The Railways Act 2005 gave the Welsh Assembly Government responsibility for passenger rail services in Wales and Borders from April 2006, with the power to specify the services and regulated fares for all trains that run within Wales, or to and from Wales, under the Wales and Borders franchise. The Act also gives the Assembly Government powers to fund the improvement of rail services where this is to the benefit of Wales. In addition, the Welsh Assembly Government has powers to fund rail freight schemes that transfer freight from road to rail and deliver environmental benefits, under the Freight Facilities Grant scheme. However, the Welsh Assembly Government is not responsible for the operation, maintenance or renewal of the railway infrastructure. This is the responsibility of Network Rail which is funded largely through access charges and DfT grants in England and Wales."

http://wales.gov.uk/docs/det/publications/070715wrpaexsumen.pdf

Mr Ad Hominem

M/cr University receives the 2nd highest research grant funding in the UK after Oxford. It comes ahead of Cambridge and UCL. I have no idea how your list is compiled or what is being measured - however I am basing my assertion on research grants and endowments.

As others say, this is off topic. you dislike M/cr, you seem to think that Cardiff is comprable or even better. I disagree, lets leave it there.

Barden

how does WG go about transferring freight from road to rail (even light rail), if it cannot develop infrastructure. It seems as if with that statement WG are caught between a rock and a hard place?

also, if NR are responsible for the network, how did WG manage to open up the Ebbw Vale and Rhoose lines?

NR are still responsible for all UK track/maint, etc. How this is specified and funded differs across the UK though.

The 2005 act did enable the WG to fund enhancement schemes. However this is still a non devolved matter and no block grant transfer for the responsibility was put in place. So the VoG line and EV line was funded from block grant funds that would otherwise be spent on Health, Education, etc. So whilst £20~£50M schemes are in theory possible to fund by WG; schemese like the £300M VLE are really only affordable from a DfT purse - and will stay as such until powers and funding for this are devolved to WG ( as they were to Scotland in 2005)

You asked this question months ago and I answered it. The EV line was paid for by Obj.1 EU funding and CORUS legacy funding, matched by WAG funding. The VOG line was paid for by WAG and the VOG council out of the VOG's transport budget and the WAG's devolved GENERAL transport budget that through parsimony they were able to use to fund these SMALL schemes. Rail infrastructure has not been devolved to the WG. Network Rail's operations for Wales were hived off in the autumn to complement the slightly less recent creation of an all-Wales franchise. We have NEVER had a proportion of the England and Wales rail infrastructure budget devolved.

M you beat me to it

Mr Ad hominem

firstly, if I asked it months ago then I don't remember it. This does not infer in any way that you did not answer it, just that i don't remember it.

Secondly, I have asked several times in this thread for someone to clarify what 'infrastructure' actually meant, given the EV, CWL line being opened by WG.

Rather than just answer the question, we ge your usual responses which includes ad hominem attacks, vitriol, bile, bilge...all of which are emetic and quite frankly necrotic.

finally, thanks for finally taking the time out to answer my question.

just out of curiosity, how many miles of electrified rail does Devon, Cornwall, Dorest or Cumbria have?

Cumbria has the West coast mainline. Dorset has the line electrified to Bournemouth and Weymouth. There are no major conurbations or metro areas in devon and cornwall, and the existing rail infrastructure (and even the historical one) is nowhere near as extensive as in South Wales. Look at a map of Britain's network pre-Beeching.
http://www.joyce.whitchurch.btinternet.co.uk/maps/BR1961c.jpg

cumbria only has the mainline because its on the mainline. surely you can see that.

the point was that when you are on the periphary, as we are in Wales, then we cannot expect as much infrastructure expenditure compared to the more populous areas of the UK.

I wonder whether those in the highlands and islands look at Wales with envy with our one motorway and international airport?


it is all relative.

another question if i may...what benefits will be garnered by electrifying the valleys lines or the GWR line, other than kudos?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/5892821/Electrified-rail-network-the-benefits.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_electrification_system

Scroll down to.the World Electrification section in the Wiki.article for a list of the benefits. A quarter of the world's rail network is electrified, and half of all rail traffic is powered by.electricity. Considering Wales had the world's first passenger rail line:
http://www.welshwales.co.uk/mumbles_railway_swansea.htm
And the world's first steam locomotion railway:
http://www.irsociety.co.uk/Archives/59/Penydarren.htm

we are lagging somewhat, and Westminster is to blame.

Knowing what I know, the BCR for electrifying the entire SW Rail network (VLE and GWML to Swansea) has a BCR well in excess of that calculated for HS2 - which, according to the FT this AM, has been adjusted down by the DfT to just 1.2:1

Not just Kudos( of which there will be some to dish out!) but real measurable operational and economic benefits.

fancy that, Mr A reads the right of centre telegraph.

The whole left/right paradigm is designed to enslave people, just like capitalism and socialism are. Political parties are always infiltrated by military or economic interest groups. There is no perfect way to run or inhabit the world given that today's world is already history by tomorrow. Anyone who thinks that they have the answer is kidding themselves. I just try to be mindful and live in the now.

The main benefits of electrification are;

* The trains are cheaper to run - there is no heavy fuel tank to cart around
* Lighter trains = less damage to rails, therefore cheaper maintenance costs
* Faster acceleration which makes for quicker journey times (this is important where stations are close together like the Valley lines)
* No local pollution

New trains which aren't 30 year old bus bodies on wheels would also be a massive step forward

It's reckoned that the GWML electrification will pay for itself in costs savings in 40 years so I guess a similar story for the Valleys.

you are either organ morgan or hovis presley. no one else writes with such eloquence - or such left of field thinking

Jantra, I am not one of your CCMB adversaries. If I followed you onto that board or vice versa that would make me a Stalker (incidentally one of the few decent people in the public eye to come out of Manchester). I am happy to stick to Cardiff stuff BUT there is a story in the Daily Fail today about the problems the precious BBC staff are having with crime at Media City in Salford. I want to move to Pembrokeshire and feel safe. UK cities are rough, violent places.

Cardiff is in the UK, Cardiff is a city. do you feel safe in Cardiff?

I am concerned for you, i'd not want to think of you feeling vulnerable

Sorry to go off topic but i think while the BBC cardiff bay maybe bigger then BBC at MediaCity in Manchester. MediaCity Manchester offers alot more then just the BBC.
The current development is only 36 acre's of the 200 acre site with future expantion depending on something to do with the railway i think. But there is also ITV there ( coronation street ) and about 40 other smaller media companies i believe.
Also in 2010 the BBC announced the breakfast program would move there. It's claimed this will create 10k of jobs and cost £1 billion for the move.
Anyway back on subject.
I can't remember much about the last time i traveled by rail or the diffrence's between electric and diesel engines. But i presume electric engines would reduce both air and noise pollution? If so with the valley services travelling so close to homes and buisnesses it could benefit atleast 1 million people.

Unless the electricity is generated by "green" methods eg wind hydro or tidal then the pollution is displaced to where the electricity is generated. However removing diesel pollution in urban areas is definitly a big plus and should have medical/cost benefits in itself.

I would also expect a reduction in noise pollution, no diesel thud when stationery but the electric trains do have higher pitch whine when accelerating. But as the diesel has a deeper note I would expect the noise will not be carried as far.

Like you I think the benefits to over a million people should be considerable and should be apparent in any cost benefit analysis.

I work for a company based in Port Talbot that exports millions of pounds worth of freight by rail every week.
Tata would become more efficient and competitive with electrified line.
As would all rail services in Wales.
We need an agreement like the Scots.

the cynic in me says tata would become more competitive if they moved to poland

anyway, thanks one and all for providing me with reasons why trains are good for the economy. i'm not sure I agree with all of them, as really an economy only grows when you are productive....needing less fuel means the fuel companies lose out by an equal amount to the gains made by the train operators so its zero sum. the only real benefit would be shorter journey times but in this day of laptops and mobile telephony being on a train in no longer lost business.

are there any other ways electrified trains add productivity to the economy?

Quicker journey times will make the area accessible to a greater number of people which can only be a good thing in terms of attracting investment to the area. Also, I think perception and image play a significant role - if we have modern infrastructure this should improve the perception/image of south Wales.

I really doubt knocking ten minutes off the journey time (from Paddington) will add any increase to inward investment - not in this day of communication.

Its all about kudos (the perception/image), there's not much else to it.

I agree, its all about perceptions. 10 min is nothing. But an electric train! Gosh - Golly!

If a train company can carry additional passengers, with faster journey times at a lower cost than previously that would seem to be productive.

Any arguement you have against investing in rail would seem to be the same arguement against investing in roads such as the M4 which Jantra has supported.

But if you really believe it is not productive to invest in rail HS2 would be a better target.

The rail infrastructure on the Great Western is at the terminal end of its working life, it has to be replaced. Any replacement infrastructure will have a life of 50 years, would you like to take a punt on the cost of diesel even 10 years hence or worse whether it will even be as available. Of course if time is not an issue lets go back to steam! That will improve the travellers enviroment in the Severn Tunnel.

PS if you commute to Bristol on the train from Cardiff you spend over 1 whole day (24 hours) in the Severn Tunnel.

From reading up on the plan to electrify The northern Hub.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/6472.aspx

It shows not only would there be a reduction in travel times but also an increase in the amount of trains availble.
Replacing diesel trains would cut carbon emissions by 75,000 tonnes a year. Although from somewhere else i read electric trains use more energy then diesel but any polution generated could be hundreds of miles away.

However reading this story i find concerning.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241318/BREAKING-NEWS-Hundreds-stranded-Eurostar-train-breaks-Channel-Tunnel-again.html

Is the snow in the valley's the right type!!!

Jefferson

Thanks for the links. I still don't (fully) buy in to the economic benefits argument - perhaps Cambo/Jeremy can assess the following and explain if my thought processes are incorrect:-

Lower train carbon emissions, whilst good for the environment, results in the exhausts of fuel combustion increasing at the electricity power stations. I am not sure whether this is a zero sum game or not.

Lower fuel costs for the train companies since they are buying less fuel. The benefit for the train company is offset by the lack of turnover from the fuel supplier so again this is a zero sum affair. Since most petrochemicals are based offshore, the actual impact is going to be negative in this respect as the turnover may not be subject to UK corporation tax but the cost to the train operator may be subject to corporation tax relief! The same applies to maintenance costs: lower costs for the train operators means lost business for the maintenance contractors.

The journey times may decrease from say Cardiff - Paddington by ten minutes but given the connectivity we have today will this really mean more business opportunities? Businesses are cutting their travel costs considerably. 10 years ago a well known UK high street bank used to apply a standard rate of 15% for Travel to all projects, nowadays this is more like 5% with travel only being permitted in two of the four weeks of each month and even then only if telecommunication cannot be used. I truly doubt whether saying we are 10 minutes nearer Paddington will have any impact. What may have an impact is a direct link to Heathrow!

Noise pollution - or lack thereof - is obviously a win. But having lived next to a train line, I'd say most poeple would just get used to it after living there for a short period of time.

My concern is that some people see electrification of the Valleys and GWR lines as going to provide some major economic impetus but outside of the initial investment I cannot see how, in today's world, such investment will provide long term economic benefits. This does not mean we should not do it as infrastructure should be upgraded, just that it may not be the panacea some are hoping for. I view the following

GDP = private consumption + investment + government spending + (exports - imports)

if we assume all other things being equal in the Welsh context, then investment should see a rise in GDP. However, my concern is that the investment will create jobs which will then create a rise in "imports" from England for goods and services that we Welsh require but do not produce our self. So whilst the Welsh economy may have a shot in the arm with the investment in infrastructure, we need to make sure that money stays in Wales by spending that money on Welsh product further stimulating demand in the Welsh economy. Given the nature of how our economy is so intrinsically linked with England's', this is going to be a difficult task to achieve.

Currently First Great Western. Rolling stock has 117 British Rail Class 43 (HST) or intercity 125. These were built by BREL from 1975 to 1982.
In December 2005, First Great Western. announced that all its Class 43 power cars would receive the new MTU V16 4000 engine. The MTU engine offers improvements over the existing Paxman 12RP200 'Valenta' engines, with reduced noise, smoke and exhaust emissions, improved reliability and fuel efficiency.
But i wonder with the advancements in regenerative braking within the last few years if any of the services First great Western or the Valley lines use this technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_brake
There may well be other energy saveing or other reasons to convert to electricity i don't know.

The benefits of rail electrification have been listed in other posts above. Electrification has been adopted by most countries in the world as soon as they could afford it, many in the 19th century. All of the world's great cities have one or more of these:
A monorail/driverless overhead train system
A tram system
An underground rail network
An overground metro rail network serving suburbia
An overground express commuter network
Connection to an inter-city rail network, connecting it with the other major cities within the nation.
A super High-speed continental rail station.

London has all of the above, all electrified. Most cities in western Europe have at least one of the above, including much smaller cities like Grenoble, which opened a tram system in 1987, and the city of Jaen in southern Spain which completed a tram system last year. Electrification of railways is a "no brainer", so anyone questioning its value would do well to consider why every rich city and nation has invested heavily in this technology for the past 150 years.

I'd say kudos more than anything Mr Appeasement, not a lot more than that really. a modern vibrant city will have an electric transport infrastructure. its about perception...


edit: i suppose even if the economic benefit is shifted from the fuel suppliers to the train operators by lower fuel bills, this benefits the customer by (hopefully) lower ticket costs. however, this is not an economic benefit as its simply taking money that would have gone to the fuel supplier and passing it to the consumer / train operator.

still, better in the hands of the consumer than the fuel oligarchs

They'll charge what ever they want unfortunately. Fuel costs have nothing to do with it. Compare metro prices for Rome, Barcelona and London for example.

Single ticket in Rome 1€
Single ticket in Barcelona 80€
Single ticket in London £1

London has more tourists and it has a bigger population catchment than Barcelona and Rome combined.

Take the news that the track from Queens Street station to the Bay is the most expensive in Wales gives the impression that they will charge what ever the hell they want. Although Queens Street - Bay line is diesel and the above metros are all electric.

I'm not sure which single ticket in London is £1, if you're talking tube the cheapest Oyster fare is £2.20 single, £4.30 cash. Trains vary but nothing is £1!

not a bad article that sums up a few key issues, an imagikne if anything costs are the same if not widening to favour electric;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/5892821/Electrified-rail-network-the-benefits.html

on the valleys line the increased acceleration of electric trains will make a big difference in a variety of ways. Its not about perception unless you want to continue a stupid debate, cost beenefit ratio maybe, but not perception.

Eric

Why so terse? I'm asking a genuine question about what the economic benefits are? this far all that has been stated are lower fuel costs which transfer value from fuel suppliers to train operators and customers, lower train emissions transferred to power statiOns, lower noise and shorter times. The last is debatable whether it truly adds value given today's communication.

There must be some real tangible benefits otherwise why would governments do it?

Have you bothered to read the articles linked to, above? They list the many benefits. Quicker, cleaner,less noisy, less expensive to maintain, more reliable,greater capacity. Is that now clear? Or will you insist that cities and nations spend billions mainly to impress other....what? To impress other cities? Well I am not a city, and while I am impressed by Grenoble's tram system, I don't particularly care about it. I would care if the train service in Cardiff was improved by being electrified, because all of the abovementioned benefits would benefit ME! And benefit every one else round here, including you, Jantra! It's called p r o g r e s s. Get it?

Mr Appeasement

I have read the articles. The question was what are the economic benefits. You seem to think what you have stated are economic benefits, I disagree. Again, I ask what are the benefits to the economy of electrification? Before you answer again Mr A consider what has already been written:-

1. any cost savings for the customer/train operator is lost revenue for the fuel suppliers/maintenance companies

2. cleaner trains mean a corresponding increase in pollution from the power stations

3. is 10 minutes on a journey from Cardiff to Paddington or Merthyr to Cardiff really going to impact peoples lives such that the economy actually grows as a result. ditto for punctuality

4 . Noise pollution - having lived next to a train line I will say from experience that you get used to it and it becomes background noise.

other than being able to say we have a modern electric train/tram system, I can't see any real tangible economic benefits.

You may argue that having a more content workforce will make them more productive but I personally don't think how you travel to work would impact how you perform at work.

In my opinion, the only real economic benefit will be the initial investment and if this is spent on non welsh 'imports' the cash will leave the economy as quick as it arrived.

Rather than bluster and taking an immediate contrarius opposite I'd rather listen to someone such as Cambo Dai who'll provide a little bit more useful insight and analysis than just trying to gain oneupmanship, as it your modus operandi

Jantra, all of those ten minutes saved add up to.a lot of productivity gains. If 100,000 people use an improved valley lines per day, that's 16,666 hours per day. FACT. Multiply that day by the minmum wage, £100,000 per day, or about £30 million per working year. More reliable trains mean that more people are confident to use the network and business and leisure activity increase. Look at the parts of south Wales with no train station: Ely. St.Mellons, New Tredegar and until recently Ebbw Vale. House prices are more depressed in these areas than surrounding areas with train lines because people don't bid the price up because there is less demand to live there. Not everyone can drive. An electrified train line means that people can live further away from where they work, confident that they can get to work on time. The present diesel trains do not inspire confidence and put people off commuting. Hundreds of cities, including Santo Domingo, capital of third-world Dominican Republic, have recently developed electrified metros because they see the economic benefits. If you can't see it, it's just tough luck, you obviously haven't got brilliant vision

Mr Appeasement

Your argument, whilst I'm sure took you all of five minutes to think up, is flawed. Those extra ten minutes a day will not be spent in work but will be spent on the individual. The individual will spend ten minutes more in bed, or have ten minutes more free time at the end of the day.

I also find it absurd that you claim that people in Merthyr will start commuting to Cardiff because triain journeys are now five minutes less.

Whilst there may be some merit in your argument that house prices may rise in certain areas that have train lines, I can't see how this will increase the economy directly? all it will do is increase house prices which means more funds for the individual to buy bigger houses with.

notwithstanding that, Cardiff is relatively small and has a decent public transport provision in Cardiff Bus. But if you really want to get people commuting, you need to break the UKs love affair with the car. Any development in hte UK is almost always met with the derisory 'more traffic' from the naysayers and harbingers of doom. The car is centric to almost all peoples commute. The train is not.

NB apologies for the typos, it is not because I am mentally ill

Jantra, all over the world, electrified rail systems are being built because they have the aforementioned economic benefits. You are Trolling, aren't you? Why don't you go and look in the mirror and say these words: "Why am I Trolling?" You might find your life, and productivity improving if you can find the answer.
Just one little thing to think about: Very often, people are late for work because of the old, unreliable Valley Lines trains. This causes problems for their employer. If electrification occurs this particular problem will diminish. Understand?

Mr Appeasement

if someone is late for work surely they make up that time at the end of the day - thats how it normally works. There is no lost productivity for the employer.

I'll say it again, other than saying there are economic benefits, can you try and quantify what they are? diverting productivity away from the fuel providers/maintenance companies is not increasing economic output. Diverting pollution away from the trains to the power stations in not improving the environment. I am looking at the macro picture and i am asking in that context. What are the benefits to the whole economy? i do not see how eletrifying trains will increase economic output. I am not against train electrification - i am for it - but it just means we get a more more effiicient train which is cheaper for the consumer, it doesn't necesarily mean we increase our economic output overall.

As for the comment regardin troll, sometimes you're funny, this is not one of those times. I am asking a question - hence why I asked for a comment from more learned posters such as CamboDai, our resident economist, who perhaps can explain how train electrification increase productivity and economic output overall.

I happen to know one of the major financial services organisations in Cardiff maintains data on staff retention and churn rates Vs home location. There is a clear correlation between commuting experience and the retention rates. The better, easier, etc. the journey the higher the retention and lower the churn. A better, faster and more efficient local rail network will reduce HR costs of many organisations whose staff commute to work from across the wider region. From this data the places with highest churn include most of the upper valleys away from the rail network and also places like St Mellons.

I also have plenty of other data on this and know that one aspect of the valley line electrification business case included a quantified economic contribution using standard DfT models and assumptions

thats interesting. could there also be a correlation between the demographic who live in these areas as well as their mode of transportation?



so electrification will have no impact on these areas.


is this new economic output or just a shifting of economic output (as in the fuel example)? The reason I ask is that - whilst I appreciate it is an exmaple only - anyone who has worked at the (mainly call centre) FS businesses in Cardiff will appreciate that there is a stampede at 4pm, 5pm or 6pm (or whenver a call centre shift is leaving). I can't see how having faster cleaner trains is going to encourage workers to work longer during the day.

I do appreciate the cost of training, but this is simply increasing/decreaing the costs and decreasing/increasing the profits and doesn't necessarily reduce or increase output.

perhaps one obvious economic example is that a modern network is likely to attract visitors to the area from outside the area. visitors who have generated their wealth away from the area bringing wealth to the area. shifting costs/profits around are wooden dollars, bringing new wealth into an economy is not.

Jantra, I've copied this from citytransport.info.
Electric railways have the potential to be the least environmentally damaging form of traction. Although this depends on how the power is sourced, even the dirtiest emissions are easier to reduce at a few power stations compared to many hundreds of moving trains.

Electrification is also a more efficient way of transmitting power, especially on the busiest and most heavily trafficked routes where any additional capacity (either through longer trains or more frequent services) will require proportionally less additional energy when it comes from a common source rather than on each train. Electric locomotives can deliver as much as 2½ times the tractive power output of an equivalent diesel.

With electric traction it is also possible to further increase efficiency through regenerative braking, which means that a slowing-down train can use its electric motors as generators and recycle energy back into the system for other electric trains to use. Electric traction offers significantly improved performance when ascending gradients, plus the possibility of using regenerative braking to cost efficiently maintain safety whilst descending..

For passengers the advantages of electric traction includes improved overall performance and less vibration which results in faster, more comfortable, smoother and quieter journeys. The improved acceleration also means that extra stations can be served with less time penalty - this is especially beneficial to users of minor stations which might otherwise have a less frequent service. Experience has shown that the very act of investing in railway electrification also gives passengers greater confidence that the line is 'valued' by the railway operators and therefore has a secure future. The sparks effect is a well proven phenomena whereby passenger numbers significantly increases when a line is electrified.

Transport operators usually find that thanks to the fewer moving parts and the 'slide out / slot in' modularity of the traction packages electric trains are simpler and cheaper to maintain. As with trolleybuses the reduced vibration and sheer ruggedness of the electric traction system means that although they are more expensive to initially purchase their operational lives will be far longer than their fossil fuel counterparts, so in the longer term they will be more cost efficient.

Critics of electric traction often allege that when the necessary electricity is sourced from fossil fuels all that is really happening is that the pollution is being shifted up the energy chain to the power station. However, following extensive research in the University of California it has been found that even with low grade coal that produces a lot of carbon dioxide (as is used in Germany) electric traction offers an almost complete elimination of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, resulting in a significant global air quality benefit. Of course if the fuel used is high grade coal or natural gas (or another so called 'cleaner' fossil fuel) the benefits are even admirable. Experience in Sweden has shown that when a type of coal-burning power station known as 'pressurised fluidised-bed' is used then the emission of sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides are also considerably reduced; furthermore, when these facilities are linked in with combined heat and power facilities (ie: provides both electricity and hot water which can be made available to industrial and domestic consumers alike) then they are about 40% more efficient than their traditional large coal burning equivalents, (75% efficient opposed to 35% efficient) and are so clean that they can even be located within cities.

Of course where the electricity is sourced from renewable sources (eg: hydro, wind, waves, solar, geothermal and tides) it will be 100% non-polluting, it is to be very much regretted that despite the potential benefits (and the globally recognised need for humankind to adopt more environmentally sound policies - anyone remember Rio 1992??) only the first two of these are used to any extent.

People who live near rail lines have found that electric trains are also quieter than diesel trains (both locomotives and multiple-unit passenger carriages) and therefore are better neighbours.

Mr Appeasement

I really enjoyed reading that and it confirmed pretty much what we already know.

however, the report fails to identify any economic benefits, which is the question i keep asking.

Do electric trains increase a nations economic output?
do electric trains make workers want to stay in work for longer hours?

i think the answer to both questions is a resounding no.

my opinion is that electric trains provide a better quality of life, but do not increase economic output. no evidence has been presented to show that an economy increases production due to using electric trains

You are mining a somewhat narrow seam there.

I think the key thing here has already been touched upon - perception. If south Wales is perceived to have a modern, clean and comprehensive train system that can carry large numbers of people in relatively short times then it becomes a more attractive place. Maybe initially its more attractive for residents only (which justifies the cost alone in my view) but its not a great leap to think that it becomes more attractive for business. The alternative is to do nothing and risk being perceived as poorly connected, having crumbling infrastructure and falling behind other regions. It then becomes not a question of how an improved transport system increases economic output but how an existing one works towards decreasing economic output.

On the your reasoning what infrastructure improvements (and you have called on WAG to make them time and time again) will increase economic output?

Isn't this obvious? The more time people spend in transit, the less time they have to be productive in work or at home.

Karl

I have said several times its about perception or kudos. you are also correct that it improves the quality of life of the residents. i have already said that i am for it on this basis.

All I am saying is that I don't buy into the argument that electrifying the trains increases economic output directly. That is not to say I disagree with your view that having a modern infrastructure is more likely to bring new business longer term, but that reverts back to perception rather than any direct benefit.

productive at home - how exactly does that impact economic output? what exactly does it mean? washing the dishes faster? mowing the lawn thrice a week instead of twice?

if a worker has to be in work 9-5, do these hours change because he comes to work on an electric train - of course not. it is up to the worker to get to work on time or make up the time he is not in work due to being late. As Karl has stated, electrification is about improving quality of life with the hope that there will be an improvement in perception of (south) wales leading to businesses wanting to come here longer term.

there is no direct improvement to productivity though. none at all. I wish our politicians would stop going on about it.

creating all new infrastructure is different. if you said create new train lines to S'mell or the college of knowledge up in the valleys that currently do not have a train link, then I can see very real tangible benefits to that area.

But thats the same as any infrastructure improvement isn't it? You widen the M4 for example. It makes people journey time less. They still spend 8 hours in work. They might not be late as often but it doesn't improve economic output.

The alternative is to do nothing and the people have longer to travel. They are late more often. They are late going home. Their quality of life suffers. The perception is that south Wales is a motoring hell hole. Who wants to relocate or grow a business there?

I don't think that the benefit of these type of projects can be calculated in the way you are seeking. Its always going to be some form of guesswork based on predictions of what might happen which are supported by examples of what may have happened elsewhere in the past.

Karl

if you don't mind me saying its quite refreshing debating with you.

i accept all that you say - I agree with all that you say. So why then are we continuously told that without electrification our economy will suffer. I don't think it will, i just think the quality of life won't be as great due to spending more time on a train rather than in front of the TV.

i do think that new infrastructure can improve economic output as it brings people together that otherwise could not do business with each other. changing infrastrucutre (such as the M4 widening) only improves life quality. There is nothing wrong with that at all and is to be commended as a worthwhile goal.

i just think politicians citing upgrading our infrastrucutre as being the panacea for our economic ills is masking the real structural problems we have here in Wales. i don't see any long term benefits to wales by electrifying unless we can attract new business at the same time.