GBR – WISP Consultation. My response…Jan 2022

The nascent Great British Railways and their transition team are/will be responsible for the new “Whole Industry Strategic Plan”. They are are currently consulting on that and have a call for evidence open until Feb 2022.

I submitted my response to that “call for evidence” which is as set out below…

PS I also submitted this paper in June 2002, to the UK2070 Commission Integrated Rail Plan Inquiry – Call for Evidence

Context

I was going to answer the questions in the manner set out. However, on reflection, I thought it better to submit some general points, some of which go beyond the likely remit of Great British Railways (GBR), but which I think are relevant and important to state.

Firstly, I would point out the primary issue we all face is the Climate Emergency – this was not really manifest in the consultation – and our urgent need to decarbonise everything we do; our economy, our mobility choices and to address the unconstrained consumerism which has and continues to do, so much environmental damage across the globe.

From a Welsh perspective, aside from the decarbonisation challenge, the primary issue is the need to address the legacy of underinvestment in Wales rail network, which is directly associated with the suboptimal constitutional arrangements where rail infrastructure investment decisions and funding thereof, are non-devolved.

I also observe that this consultation is, perhaps, just a further exercise in asking some, yes important, but oft repeated industry questions that have probably been covered in whole, or in part, in earlier reviews and studies. In the last twenty years we have had McNulty (Rail industry efficiency)^[1], Laidlaw (WCML franchise failure)[2], Brown (post Laidlaw rail franchising and risk)[3] & Shaw (The Future of Network Rail)^[4]; before that the now archived Edington Transport Study[5], took a more holistic look at UK Transport and produced a very good report which stressed the economic important of intra-city/region connectivity. There are probably others. We also have the framework for rail in the UK set out by the DfT in their vision paper in 2017[6]. Then we had Williams/Shapps review ^[7] leading to last year’s White Paper[8] whose perhaps narrower remit focussed on organisational and commercial frameworks but not planning, infrastructure & services and so overlooked a more important issue for us in Wales, integration with wider transport and economic policy and enhancement investment or lack thereof[9]. Welsh Government have also set out their policy priorities – see below.

Whilst I have no doubt there are weakness in the current rail eco system and the White Paper does bring forward some very sensible proposals which GBR can take forward (esp. re vertical integration), the biggest problem that I can see have been failings in execution; specifically: specification, procurement and contract management. Unless we address the underlying causes of this phenomena, we will still have a problem no matter how we are organised and incentivised via GBR (or alternative thereof). I think Brown touched upon this in his 2012 report.

It is also worth restating one of the priority findings of the 2006 Eddington transport study in that most of our mobility challenges and issues are intra-regional…

“…On this basis, the strategic economic priorities for long-term transport policy should be growing and congested urban areas and their catchments….”[10]

So yes, we certainly know how to ask questions in the rail industry. It seems less clear and obvious if we can actually apply and/or implement any of the answers to those questions.

Finally, any role for GBR in respect of Wales has to reflect the issues and challenges I set out below. The current arrangements are not fit for purpose.

The Constitutional Dysfunction

Firstly, questions re: strategic objectives, policy, sustainability, economic development, etc and how they should influence transport policy, including rail, from a Welsh perspective are or should be the responsibility of the Welsh Government. The fact that matters relating the NR rail asset in Wales are primarily dictated by Westminster with little or no recourse to wider Welsh policy priorities and/or objectives (especially as regards decarbonisation policy) is part of our problem and a constitutional dysfunction which needs to be addressed.

It is a sub-optimal constitutional arrangement (and certainly not how you run a business) where a party has responsibility for the operational costs (and subsidy), but not for investing in the underlying capital equipment (the track) upon which efficient operations are dependent. This is the situation Welsh Government finds itself in as regard rail infrastructure and services.

At this stage I would also like to head off the spurious and oft used assertion that because of the degree of cross border interaction and cross border infrastructure between England Wales it makes no sense to “devolve rail powers to Wales”. On that, three points:

There is a constitutional issue here, Wales voted for devolution in 1997. This is an anomaly that has resulted in Wales rail investment falling “between the cracks” at the DfT and which has cost Wales £Bns in rail investment over the last 30 years[11] I re-emphasised this fact in a more recent blog which highlights the current, unjustifiable 200:1 ratio between UK Gov forward rail enhancement “commitments” in England Vs those in Wales.

Plenty of other countries manage cross border infrastructure in an equitable and even-handed way; in fact, this is normal. For example, Aachen, Liege and Maastricht – three cities in three countries less than 40km apart – all with high levels of cross border movements; similarly, Malmo and Copenhagen and between Dublin and Belfast. Each country has an equitable involvement in how cross border infrastructure and services are managed and/or enhanced. In contrast, Wales has limited influence on decisions related to investment of the rail asset in Wales (apart now from the Core Valley Lines)

From a Welsh perspective the biggest challenge is to decarbonise intra city and intra-regional movements which from commuting stats[12] (pre-covid) made up over 80% of trips in Wales. Cross border trips whilst important (and esp. SWML into Bristol and NWML to Chester/Cheshire) are LT 10% of the total.

So, the rail industry ecosystem which only formally recognised the Wales Route (which includes significant sections in England like the Marches Lines and the Severn Tunnel) in 2010, has and continues to fail Wales re: enhancement investment. As an example, in 2012/13 work on the CASR project in/around Cardiff de-scoped the important requirement to enhance the “Cardiff West junction” to enable 4tph on the City Line in Cardiff. This is a problem that today inhibits the potential impact of the South Wales Metro. Similarly, the welcome relief line upgrade proposals now underway by NR is only one part of the bigger package of measure required along the SWML; in North Wales calls for measures on the Borderlands Line and at Chester Station are not new but still seem low priorities from an England/Wales rail industry perspective. These matters are peripheral issues when viewed on an England and Wales basis – but are priorities from a Welsh perspective.

Although rail investment decisions are ultimately taken by politicians in Westminster, systematic underinvestment is also built into, and magnified, not only into the scheme prioritisation process, but also by the analytical framework which the UK Government rely upon to produce business cases and value for money assessments . The industry’s forecasting approach (vid PDFH) has significantly overestimated demand for schemes in London (by as much as 50%) and underestimated demand for those elsewhere in the UK (by over 50%), including Wales. Higher passenger forecasts mean more time savings (bigger benefits), increased revenue forecasts (lower costs), and better value for money cases. The fact that public spending per head in the UK is highest in London (current and capital) is relevant in this regard[13]. The figures for capital spending alone are also illuminating with Wales (on £1,333 per person) being the 2nd lowest of the four nations just above Northern Ireland (on £1,325). PS – I also suspect that in terms of capital spend on things like HS2 and NR, because they are not devolved and deemed by HMT as “England and Wales” spend, then Wales probably gets allocated a population proportion (6% of England and Wales) of these capital costs. In 2021 this spend was approx £17Bn (See Fig 1 below), so Wales is probably allocated £1Bn (or about £300/per capita). So, if my assumption is correct then the real figure for Wales below is more like £1,000 per person (LT half that of London). Happy to correct if this is in error?

To re-iterate, and this is important; Wales voted for devolution in 1997; the current failed institutional arrangements for investing in and managing the rail network in Wales have not been amended to reflect that democratic decision. Why? The rail network is a fundamental part of Wales’ economic infrastructure and should have been treated like the road network and included in the devolution settlement. I think many in the rail industry are subconsciously not well disposed to and have a rather dismissive attitude (and often ill-informed in respect of Wales’ rail priorities) toward the reality of constitutional devolution and what that means for how the rail industry should be organised on this island. The Wales and West division of NR, and a Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline (RNEP) ecosystem that has systematically overlooked Wales, are suboptimal manifestations of this mindset.

I also want to set out some of the “issues” related to the transfer of the Core Valley Lines from Network Rail to Welsh Government and Transport for Wales earlier in 2020. Remember the CVL network was and is already a publicly owned asset….in Wales. When similar transfers have been transacted in the past (eg when Manchester Metrolink or Tyne and Wear Metro were established) a nominal charge of £1 was levied to transfer them from BR.

However, the NR/DfT price tag for the CVL of ~£400M ( I dont know the exact figure) reflects a bizarre and frankly challengeable valuation based on Network Rail’s Regulatory Asset Base(RAB).

The RAB was established in the 1990s post privatisation, to allow Railtrack to issue bonds to fund further rail enhancement – primarily the £9BN WCML upgrade. However, whilst the debt related to the RAB was spread evenly across the network to “value” the asset, the funds generated through the bond sales were not (and Wales has received very little of that despite its network being apportioned the debt via the RAB ). In 2014/15 all NR debt was in effect taken back onto UK Government’s balance sheet.

This “suspect” accounting practice still survives and is very crudely: network valuation = last year’s network value -depreciation of asset + apportioned enhancement spend (irrespective of where those enhancement actually were); discounted cash flows for income received from the asset (eg Track Access charges) are also used in valuations.

If one looks at the details and notes of NR’s 2018 accounts for example, one can see that the practice was really retained to support valuation of NR asset that could be sold to private companies. It should not have been applied to transfer of a public asset between governments.

In reality, WG should have paid (as had been done in the past) £1 and perhaps been in receipt of a large capital sum to reflect its depreciated state Vs rest of the UK network and long-term liabilities. Whilst I understand WG were held harmless financially by UK Treasury, we now have a precedent set for such asset valuations which I think merit challenge – especially as regard potential future transfers in Wales.

I am not sighted on the details or other matters and/or considerations that will have influenced this process. So, I am happy to be corrected on any of the above in respect of RAB valuation.

We are talking about a national government in Cardiff, not a parish council; WG already manages significant issues and liabilities(e.g., the road network in Wales). To suggest that Wales “was or is unable” to manage the issues related to rail infrastructure is frankly patronising given how poorly those responsibilities in Wales have been discharged by Westminster for the last 25 years. I would make the same case more broadly in terms of energy infrastructure, the role of Crown Estates, etc. The issue is really a Whitehall one, in that it struggles to see how it could work more collaboratively where interests align, with a devolved nation with full responsibility over such matters.

I am not saying the DfT, NR or the ORR don’t have the capability to properly act as custodians for Wales’ rail network (they clearly have a huge amount of capability). It’s just that they have not been organised or remitted in any way that could be described as effective from a Welsh perspective – nor could they, viewing Wales as they do, through a Whitehall lens. Wales is and has always been, at the periphery of Whitehall thinking. That is why devolution was and is even more required.

I think one could make the same argument vis a vis Transport for the North, etc. The UK is too centralised and the recent decision by DfT to take control of NPR from TfN is a manifestation of this problem. GBR needs to deal with this inequity in its organisation, funding and governance, else it will do nothing in respect of Wales’ major issues.

I have presented evidence to Westminster Committees on multiple occasions over the last ten years on this subject[14], and am adamant that rail powers and funding need to be devolved to WG if we want to see more investment in Wales’ rail network.

Figure 1 Barnet DfT attribution factors from UK Gov Budget 2021 – Statement of Funding Policy
Statement of Funding Policy 2021 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

The perversity of HS2 (let alone NR Enhancements) being defined by HM Treasury as an “England and Wales” scheme[15] Figure 1 really pains me. Some argue that it benefits Wales. I am clear (as is the data and evidence) that in totality it does not in any significant way[16], except perhaps in the margins and through some potential future (and not guaranteed) pathways into north Wales. So, perhaps 0.5% (being generous) of the transport user benefits do benefit Wales; but 5% of the costs are in effect allocated to Wales; and we know from the DfT’s own analysis, HS2 (even the now reduced scope version via the Integrated Rail Plan[17]) will negatively impact Wales’ economy.

I prepared a short video to explain how badly the current Barnet arrangements re HS2 impact Wales.

I am convinced that if Wales did have full rail powers, Welsh Government would have worked with colleagues in Chester, Cheshire and Merseyside to bring forward measure to enhance both Borderlands and NWML services a long time ago. Similarly, a properly empowered and funded sub national transport body in the southwest of England would have worked with Welsh Government a long time ago to deliver enhanced rail connectivity between Bristol/SW England and Cardiff/ South Wales.

The “easy answer” is to fully devolve rail powers and funding to WG and ensure that projects like HS2, NPR, IRP, Network Rail enhancements in England etc. are designated as England only projects by HM Treasury rather the “England and Wales”. Even the Welsh Affairs Select Committee came to the same conclusion re: the designation of HS2[18]. If this is good enough for Scotland and Northern Ireland there should be no issues in making the same provisions for Wales.

Strategic Welsh Objectives

Wales is NOT a region and via the Welsh Government has set out key objectives for transport and rail in recent years, The fact that rail powers are not devolved is a hindrance to developing and delivering rail schemes in Wales consistent with Welsh Government objectives and especially in way that integrated with wider transport proposal – especially bus and active travel.

The recent publication the Wales Transport Strategy [19] and more recently of Net Zero Wales [20] set out challenging mode shift targets with reduced car mode share of just 60% by 2030. These should, must be applied to how all decision re: transport infrastructure investment decisions are made in Wales – this is not the case today. In fact, DfT/NR have no legal duty to apply such policy or reflect WG rail investment priorities in their plans for the rail network in Wales! This situation is not defendable in any way.

In respect of rail, Welsh Government has also set out its objectives and ambitions, for example: A railway for Wales: the case for devolution (gov.wales)[21], mainline-railway-enhancement-requirements.pdf (gov.wales)[22] and The Rail Network in Wales (gov.wales)[23]. I helped prepare these papers and also led the Metro Impact Study in 2013 [36] which collectively provided a significant input to the work of Burns and Hendy in respect priorities in South East Wales.

More recently Lord Burns’ South-East Wales Transport Commission[24] and Sir Peter Hendy via the Union Connectivity Review Report[25] have reflected earlier WG work and both identified the need for more public transport investment by the UK Government in Wales – especially the SWML and NWML.

The deputy minister for Climate Change, Lee Waters, set out WG ambition for Metro through detailed work now being undertaken across Wales by TfW, as illustrated in a series of Metro maps[26]. In the Cardiff Capital Region (CCR) the nascent regional body has also set outs its Passenger Rail Vision[27] CCR-passenger-rail-vision-final.pdf (cardiffcapitalregion.wales) and local authorities like Cardiff Council have set out ambitions for schemes like the Cardiff Crossrail in its Transport White Paper[28]. Again, I helped contribute to both of these papers.

The obvious question is, why is that NR/DfT over the last 20 years were never able to bring forward some of the positive schemes that WG/TfW have in the last 5~10 years? For, me this is a manifestation of the systemic failure of the UK rail industry eco system as regards Wales I mentioned above. I also think that a more substantive constitutional and democratic dysfunction at Westminster and Whitehall is a major enabling factor that needs to be addressed coherently and strategically and with due regard to the constituent nations of this island and the need for some form of federation for England.[37]

Transport for Wales, which was set up to procure the Wales and Borders franchise, has developed its capacity and capability and, aside from operating rail services and leading the implementation of the South Wales Metro, is now leading the development of future Metro schemes and the SWML Programme across Wales (and in doing so is engaging cross border on schemes that impact Bristol/SW England and Chester, Cheshire and the Wirral). TfW is ideally placed to be the lead organisation for transport systems and service development and operation of services and infrastructure in Wales – and now has more strategic development capacity and focus than both the DfT or NR are able to devote to Wales. So, I see GBR working closely and collaboratively with TfW where there are cross border matters (as TfW is already trying to do – by for example helping to shape and then supporting the strategic advocacy of the Western Gateway and Growth Track 360 ). I would hope/expect there is more devolution in England with sub national transport bodies having some of the powers that are discharged by Transport Scotland and the further powers that should be made available to Welsh Government and Transport for Wales.

Alignment with Local Planning (Land Use and Transport)

More generally across the UK, it also seems to me, decisions on rail investment in enhancements and services (which is the important thing as far as the passenger is concerned – not how we organise the industry) are often completely divorced from wider planning considerations. How many Local Development Plans are really considered at the heart of rail planning – or vice versa for that matter. I would argue not; rail planning has become a bit of a centralised ivory tower exercise. The traditional industry “five year” soviet style plan and the 7 or 15 year franchise, which has been the norm, has not helped and changes to that approach are to be welcomed (without damaging the need for strategic and longer-term thinking).

This is not just a rail industry issue; it is a UK planning issues (including in Wales). Too often we see major developments (houses, retail, schools and hospitals) built in locations with poor public transport access (rail and/or bus) and with no refence to rail planning. We need some thought applied to address this issue; climate change and sustainability means we need to plan and build better places that reduce our dependency on cars and reduce barriers to public transport. We are trying to break that mould in Wales through the work of Transport for Wales and the Office for Future Generations. I covered this subject in my evidence to the Senedd Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee in May 2022 [38]

Transport planning (including rail) also needs to be more localised and better integrated with local bus services (as TfW are beginning to do in Wales). Apart from some key UK intercity routes therefore, rail planning needs to be more locally integrated as we are tying in Wales via the Metro Programmes.

The rail industry makes a great play of the ability to buy a ticket between any two points on the network…as if that was of primary importance. In reality, it will be far more useful to passengers to better integrate local rail and bus services (more like TfL where buses were never de-regulated as they were in the rest of the UK in the 1980s). For example, how many people want to travel between say Aberdare and Hartlepool by train vs say Aberdare and Talbot Green (which requires both rail and bus)! The former ticket exists….the latter not (yet!). This is the primary issue Transport for Wales is dealing with… to the extent the Rail White Paper acknowledges this challenge, that is welcome.

So I think we need to change how we plan transport across the UK so that it is better integrated with wider local planning processes; I would go further and say that aside from planning and maintaining the main lines in the UK (which GBR & NR should perhaps lead in England) that local rail planning and development in England should be much more aligned (and perhaps integrated) with city region and local authority transport planning – and in Wales led by WG (and TfW) in partnership with the emerging Welsh regions and primary local authorities– this theme that emerged from more than one of the recent rail industry reviews over the last 15 years. I also support in principle the suggestion from the UCR of a UK Net (strategic UK rail routes and corridors) – but only if WG has a “seat at the table” re strategy and planning – which is not the case today.

The need for more local decision making and integration with local planning and economic development it seems to me is a fundamental requirement and something GBR needs to consider.

Financial Sustainability

As I am sure WG will, the DfT for England needs to acknowledge that many of the externalities of public transport are positive whilst those for car use are negative – in fact government heavily subsidise car use[29]. The failure to properly reflect this reality in transport planning has led to £Bns of investment in roads for decades and the high rail prices experienced by rail users in the UK. This is not sustainable and certainly not consistent with our decarbonisation obligations.

We need to broaden financial appraisal and look to substantive road pricing and other means to fiscally penalise environmentally damaging mobility choices to help fund, build and operate more PT and AT infrastructure and services. In fact the “elephant in the room” is that the most cost effective means of dealing with road congestion is to price road use – not build more road space which just induces more demand as the DfT itself found in its review of the academic literature[30]; and in congested urban aeras with an elasticity of new capacity V induced demand of over 1 in some circumstances.

Long Term (and sustainable?) Economic Growth

We all need to collectively ask what kind of long-term economic growth is truly sustainable….the evidence is overwhelming we can’t continue to ignore the environmental external costs of our economic activities to the extent we have for the last 50 years and that includes transport. Something needs to change. In an earlier discussion with HMRC re updates to the green book I asserted that we are afflicted by the reality that governments in appraisal and business cases, typically “overvalue that which we can count easily” and undervalue “that which we can’t count easily”. Fifty years of road building and depreciated public transport in some part of the UK (esp. Wales) with higher costs to passengers, is one of the legacies of a failed system.

We need to change and this needs, as a minimum:

Need to address the power and influence of the fossil fuel and car industry “distracting” the public and governments the world over. The idea we can solve the climate emergency by replacing 1.5Bn petrol cars with 1.5Bn EVs is dangerous

Proper and effective quantification of negative externalities – and a means to more directly apportion such costs to the consumer

Recovery of those externalities through regulatory and/or fiscal means if options to recover direct from the consumer are more difficult – in particular road pricing

Focus on town and city centres for development – through planning – to reduce need for car based out of town offices, retail, public services, etc…. These need to be accessible via PT/AT in our towns and communities. Not like today where many such activities are based in “out of town” car-based developments.

Welsh Government have now acknowledged[31] that much of the damage to our high streets has been caused by the vast amount of car based low density sprawl, especially housing, offices and retail that over the last 50 years have sprung up at the edges of, or between our towns and cities. Local authorities need to take seriously and focus their energies on the need to encourage much more development in/around public transport hubs and corridors and away from car dependent green field sites. This must include the gradual relocation of existing developments.

Levelling Up

The UK is constitutionally compromised and too centralised. One of the problems for the UK it seems to me, is that major investment decisions are made by a small number of senior officials and politicians in and around Number 10, Whitehall and The Treasury.

This impacts the regions of England as much as Scotland and Wales. The recent decision of DfT to take back control of NPR from TfN is symptomatic of the “colonial” command and control mindset at the heart of Whitehall bureaucracy.

As I have stated elsewhere[32], the current “levelling up “mantra can only be realised with a major constitutional overhaul; it will never work if based on a little more cash being dispensed though politically compromised Westminster largesse. A handout economy and a handout constitution based entirely around Westminster and Whitehall, has not and can never really work for everyone and every place on this island, especially in Wales.

I think “levelling up” also has to reflect that much of the benefit and value the UK economy has enjoyed for 200 years has not only left us with environmental obligations, but was based on the efforts and resources from many older smaller communities right across the UK. The post-industrial decline that has afflicted many such communities for decades has left us with issues and liabilities re: skills, access to jobs, scarred landscapes, etc that need to be acknowledged by UK Gov. For example, the suggestion that the Welsh Government should be responsible for the risks and liabilities associated with 200 years of coal mining that benefited the whole UK and clearly pre-dates the Welsh Government, reflects a completely out of touch Westminster/Whitehall mindset.

I am not looking for or expecting a perfect utopian solution in Wales for future rail development. I just want and expect that the officials tasked with the responsibility for strategic rail planning and investment in Wales, have Wales as their top priority. This is clearly not the case in the current UK rail industry ecosystem. As stated earlier this argument also applies in some measure to the north of England, the midlands of England and south-west England, etc. Although I would note that constitutionally whilst Wales did vote FOR devolution, the regions of England actually voted against more devolved regional powers. That question I feel needs to be revisited.

For me “Levelling Up” raises some serious constitutional questions and goes way beyond the shallow populist rhetoric we have become accustomed to over the last few years. We need to ask the “What sort of Britain do we want?” question if we are to take “Levelling Up” seriously.

Environmental Sustainability

Again, briefly there are five key areas that I feel need intervention (and not all will be in the gift of GBR and so need broader governmental action) and which I think reflect the WG’s priorities and targets:

To deliver CCC[33] surface transport carbon reductions and the commitments in Net Zero Wales, we need to reduce car use by perhaps 30% by 2030 and this implies at least a doubling of PT capacity– if not more

We need to accelerate decarbonisation of our transport systems. More OLE, battery tech innovation and Hydrogen, etc; NRs decarbonisation plans needs funding and implementation. In Wales this means early measures for OLE on SWML to Swansea, VoG Line, NWML, to Bristol Temple Meads, etc

Road Pricing is an inevitable reality, let’s get on with it in Wales – my rationale set out here Climate Change, Cars & Challenges – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)

A much greater focus on Transit Oriented Development – integrated with more holistic approach to integrated transport planning Wales, Transport Planning & Choices… – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog)

Reduced public transport fares – including cross subsidy from road pricing schemes; we currently subsidise car use and over-price the passenger (given the positive externalities) for public transport.

What Wales needs…

Based on work undertaken by Welsh Government over the last five or more years (as referenced above) there is emerging clarity on Wales rail investment priorities and increasing acknowledgement of some of the tough choices[34] ahead of us. Much of that work and the priorities were referenced and reflected in the UCR Final Report in November 2021 (esp. as regards SWML and NWML) which is most welcome.

However, as stated above, the current constitutional failings re: rail investment in Wales needs addressing if we collectively want to see the emerging scheme progress.

It seems clear to me, that there is little point in hoping current industry processes will progress these schemes; especially via RNEP whose Wales and West pipeline is already full of projects and now facing a reducing enhancement budget. The idea that some of the “English” projects already in the ”pipeline” will “step aside” to let more Welsh enhancements join the conveyor is naïve.

In the absence of the full devolution of rail powers and funding to Welsh Government (which is the optimal solution), I am of the view that we need a political agreement between Welsh Government and UK Gov, perhaps on the back of the UCR, for a comprehensive decarbonisation, levelling up and transport investment programme. Perhaps along the lines of that set out here: Levelling Up, Working Together? A Transport Enhancement Programme for Wales – Mark Barry (swalesmetroprof.blog) [35]. The roles of Growth Track 360 and the Western Gateway could be important in providing support for this approach as well as support from the Cardiff Capital Region and North Wales City and Growth Deals.

And to note, it was a similar but perhaps smaller scale “deal” in 2014/5 that allowed the UK Gov and WG to progress the current South Wales Metro programme.

As ever happy to help progress!

Also – some video narrative re Wales investment priorities and the different types of rail spending.