South Wales 'Metro' updates

[Domh245]

Er, why? CAF can build regular DMUs and EMUs at a good price as well, ask Northern. I think the chance of whatever it is being CAF built is high, but they offer a wide range of different types of rolling stock. The only thing they don't appear to do is a bi-mode.

Because that depot plan has a very light-rail looking layout, and the rolling stock indicated on it seems to have 9 segments - that definitely doesn't look a conventional EMU or DMU to me.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Piecing together the snippets is like solving a mystery. So looking at the Taff's Well plans, it's trams.

25 x 50m births. Anyone care to work out the expected frequencies based on the potential availability, assuming this is the only depot and they aren't going to be using Canton?

assuming a 50 minute journey time from the heads to downtown Cardiff - let sbe generous and assume they improve speed a bit. You have 4 lines getting 4 tph Treherbert/Aberdare/Merthyr/Rhymney. Lets assume they turn around quick at either end so you need 7 diagrams per line that's 28 diagrams without spares/ maintenance, extensions, Coryton branch or doubling up for peak periods...........

25 berths?

 

[Dai Corner]

assuming a 50 minute journey time from the heads to downtown Cardiff - let sbe generous and assume they improve speed a bit. You have 4 lines getting 4 tph Treherbert/Aberdare/Merthyr/Rhymney. Lets assume they turn around quick at either end so you need 7 diagrams per line that's 28 diagrams without spares/ maintenance, extensions, Coryton branch or doubling up for peak periods...........

25 berths?

Presumably some trams would spend the night at Rhymney, Treherbert, Aberdare, Merthyr, Queen Street etc. Not all the DMUs get back to Canton every night.

 

[MarkyT]

Presumably some trams would spend the night at Rhymney, Treherbert, Aberdare, Merthyr, Queen Street etc. Not all the DMUs get back to Canton every night.

2 over-nighting at each of those valley head termini would add 8 to the operational fleet.

 

[Del1977]

Agree. It's just that all the signs seem to point to it being trams, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Gareth Marston]

Presumably some trams would spend the night at Rhymney, Treherbert, Aberdare, Merthyr, Queen Street etc. Not all the DMUs get back to Canton every night.

Theirs no sidings/stabling facilitates at Aberdare, Merthyr, Queen Street and none planned in the documents.

 

[Dai Corner]

Theirs no sidings/stabling facilitates at Aberdare, Merthyr, Queen Street and none planned in the documents.

How much servicing does an electric tram with no toilets need every night? The crew could empty the bins, sweep the floor and leave the tram in the platform after the last service of the night. Anything else could probably wait until it gets to the depot the following day in between the peaks.

 

[YorkshireBear]

How much servicing does an electric tram with no toilets need every night? The crew could empty the bins, sweep the floor and leave the tram in the platform after the last service of the night. Anything else could probably wait until it gets to the depot the following day in between the peaks.

And wait for the locals to come along?

Not a dig at the people at South Wales the same would apply wherever in the country.

 

[Gareth Marston]

And wait for the locals to come along?

Not a dig at the people at South Wales the same would apply wherever in the country.

I remember being at a meeting around 15 years ago when the late Tom Cliff proposed third rail electrification as the solution to anti social behavior in the valleys!

 

[gareth950]

Tram-Train is the only way to keep the Valleys and Vale of Glamorgan lines working together. And here we come up against the complexities of devolution playing out on the railways.
Infrastructure north of Queen St will be owned and controlled by Welsh Govt and the private ODP. Infrastructure west of Cardiff Queen St & Central to Cogan, Barry and the Vale will be owned by Network Rail and controlled the DfT.
Unless NR & the DfT agree to HR electrify the Vale lines, even if Tram-Trains are chosen, they won't be able to run beyond Queen St. Currently there's no money for, and no plans to electrify or upgrade the Vale lines, as to quote Ken Skates himself, "the Metro is all about the Valleys".
So the hundreds of millions spent on CASR was wasted. And because the political opposition and media in Wales are a joke, Ken & Carwyn will be able to brush it under the carpet.
I'd love to know what bung the unions have been given to shut up about all this, as trams on the Valleys will be DOO and drivers will face a significant pay cut and will face de-skilling as well. Welsh Labour are privatising the Valley lines, which goes completely against comrade Corbyn's policies.

 

[MarkyT]

And wait for the locals to come along?
Not a dig at the people at South Wales the same would apply wherever in the country.

Surely an unmanned terminus used as a stabling facility would need to be fully closed off to the public at night, and securely monitored and patrolled, just as any remote stabling sidings would be. Whether such stations designs can be closed and locked like this could be be a clue as to out-berthing strategy.
Don't forget to include at least some of the maintenance shed capacity in the fleet size as it can be thought of as a number of stabling roads on which maintenance is possible. Once all maintenance is finished then the last units treated in the shed can stay there until called for duty again. The depot layout allows units to be looped around easily between storage and maintenance areas as space becomes available, hence all units requiring attention can be shuffled around in turn over the course of the night.

 

[Dai Corner]

Surely an unmanned terminus used as a stabling facility would need to be fully closed off to the public at night, and securely monitored and patrolled, just as any remote stabling sidings would be. Whether such stations designs can be closed and locked like this could be be a clue as to out-berthing strategy.
Don't forget to include at least some of the maintenance shed capacity in the fleet size as it can be thought of as a number of stabling roads on which maintenance is possible. Once all maintenance is finished then the last units treated in the shed can stay there until called for duty again. The depot layout allows units to be looped around easily between storage and maintenance areas as space becomes available, hence all units requiring attention can be shuffled around in turn over the course of the night.

Looking at RTT, it appears five trains stable overnight at each of Rhymney and Treherbert.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/TRB/2018/01/18/0200-0159?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt


http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...18/01/18/0200-0159?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

 

[Bletchleyite]

So given what we know about CAF opting to select Newport for a rolling stock factory, we can expect something like this:

http://www.caf.net/en/productos-servicios/proyectos/proyecto-lrvs.php

It's already all been decided!

Looking at that, at least it has a Sheffield style layout and is not purely a "standee tram" like the Metrolink ones.

 

[MarkyT]

From the CAS Urbos publicity linked upthread:

The floor height can vary in the Urbos TT and Urbos AXL versions

My bet is an approx 50m long high floor Urbos TT capable of working in pairs for the core valley lines, which could interrun with other heavy rail traffic on the heavy rail segments under conventional signalling, and with other lighter low floor trams on tramway sections (where they would need their own platforms). An Urbos variant with tram-train approvals could be a formidable offer for future Manchester Metrolink expansion too.

 

[PHILIPE]

Looking at RTT, it appears five trains stable overnight at each of Rhymney and Treherbert.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/TRB/2018/01/18/0200-0159?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt


http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...18/01/18/0200-0159?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

Add about 4 more because some are doubled up.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The Welsh Assembly is not entirely elected via PR. 40 of the seats are on a constituency basis, roughly the same constituencies as at Westminster. The remaining 20 are by the Additional Member System which is proportional representation but only after factoring in the initial constituency results. The long and short of this is that Labour have never held more than 30 seats or fewer than 26 seats. Their position is under no jeopardy whatsoever. There's no scrutiny from the media and I suspect the public will not become aware of the full details of what this involves until we're already well down the line with the project. I don't believe people will ever fully realise just how damaging this is until 10, 20 years down the line, by which time the current Welsh Labour leadership will be long gone

There is absolutely no risk for the likes of Carwyn Jones and Ken Skates with a project like this - it's only positive political capital in the short term, and if there are any issues with the construction, they can shift that on the private contractors they have handed the lines onto. It's exactly what the Major government did in privatising the railways to begin with - they can shift all the media and public scrutiny onto a private company while still retaining control of the railways

I know the Welsh Assembly is elected with AMS. It is a form of PR, since the additional members are assigned to try to balance out the FPTP seats. The point is that Labour, nor any other party, have an insurmountable position at election time. People can safely vote for not-Labour without supporting the party they really don't want.

The problems you've described couldn't be blamed on the contractor. You're saying that the whole network design would be totally broken. How well the contractor builds the network can't change how good the design is in the first place. The contractors aren't going to sit there being blamed for building the thing the Welsh government asked them to.

If the network design is inherently bad, there's going to be a short term impact. The transport and policy wonks are going to come out and point out all of these flaws, and there's going to be big public opposition. It's simply impossible for the government to actually build this thing without everyone knowing what's going to be delivered at the end of it.

Tram-Train is the only way to keep the Valleys and Vale of Glamorgan lines working together. And here we come up against the complexities of devolution playing out on the railways.
Infrastructure north of Queen St will be owned and controlled by Welsh Govt and the private ODP. Infrastructure west of Cardiff Queen St & Central to Cogan, Barry and the Vale will be owned by Network Rail and controlled the DfT.
Unless NR & the DfT agree to HR electrify the Vale lines, even if Tram-Trains are chosen, they won't be able to run beyond Queen St. Currently there's no money for, and no plans to electrify or upgrade the Vale lines, as to quote Ken Skates himself, "the Metro is all about the Valleys".
So the hundreds of millions spent on CASR was wasted. And because the political opposition and media in Wales are a joke, Ken & Carwyn will be able to brush it under the carpet.
I'd love to know what bung the unions have been given to shut up about all this, as trams on the Valleys will be DOO and drivers will face a significant pay cut and will face de-skilling as well. Welsh Labour are privatising the Valley lines, which goes completely against comrade Corbyn's policies.

If the remaining Cardiff local lines aren't electrified and metro-ified, then someone is going to need to provide a local DMU service. I can't really see this happening in the long term. Yes, you save a little bit of upfront capital expenditure, but in return the government will have to fund a less economically efficient way of running these services. Metro-ification, even when running on NR-owned infrastructure, is a good way to reduce costs and make certain sorts of journeys more competitive.

750V DC OHLE electrification of NR tracks is perfectly possible and would save a significant amount of money, without having any real negative impact on the operation of Cardiff local routes. If the metro trains are dual-voltage, then they can use the DfT funded 25kV wherever available. Until there's mainline electrification to Swansea, there's no real point worrying about the use of a lower voltage on the Vale of Glamorgan line. Anything less than metro conversion means that full 25kV AC would be needed to run an electrified service.

From the CAS Urbos publicity linked upthread:

My bet is an approx 50m long high floor Urbos TT capable of working in pairs for the core valley lines, which could interrun with other heavy rail traffic on the heavy rail segments under conventional signalling, and with other lighter low floor trams on tramway sections (where they would need their own platforms). An Urbos variant with tram-train approvals could be a formidable offer for future Manchester Metrolink expansion too.

50m is about as long as a tram can be. Urban regions comparable to Cardiff and the Valleys don't tend to have metro rolling stock that much longer than it. One thing it demonstrates is that the minimum train capacity can't be that much lower than it is today. Sure, there might be more standing capacity and less seating, but it's not like we're going to see 4-car 150s replaced with single-unit M5000 trams like some people are suggesting.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I know the Welsh Assembly is elected with AMS. It is a form of PR, since the additional members are assigned to try to balance out the FPTP seats. The point is that Labour, nor any other party, have an insurmountable position at election time. People can safely vote for not-Labour without supporting the party they really don't want.

The problems you've described couldn't be blamed on the contractor. You're saying that the whole network design would be totally broken. How well the contractor builds the network can't change how good the design is in the first place. The contractors aren't going to sit there being blamed for building the thing the Welsh government asked them to.

If the network design is inherently bad, there's going to be a short term impact. The transport and policy wonks are going to come out and point out all of these flaws, and there's going to be big public opposition. It's simply impossible for the government to actually build this thing without everyone knowing what's going to be delivered at the end of it.



If the remaining Cardiff local lines aren't electrified and metro-ified, then someone is going to need to provide a local DMU service. I can't really see this happening in the long term. Yes, you save a little bit of upfront capital expenditure, but in return the government will have to fund a less economically efficient way of running these services. Metro-ification, even when running on NR-owned infrastructure, is a good way to reduce costs and make certain sorts of journeys more competitive.

750V DC OHLE electrification of NR tracks is perfectly possible and would save a significant amount of money, without having any real negative impact on the operation of Cardiff local routes. If the metro trains are dual-voltage, then they can use the DfT funded 25kV wherever available. Until there's mainline electrification to Swansea, there's no real point worrying about the use of a lower voltage on the Vale of Glamorgan line. Anything less than metro conversion means that full 25kV AC would be needed to run an electrified service.



50m is about as long as a tram can be. Urban regions comparable to Cardiff and the Valleys don't tend to have metro rolling stock that much longer than it. One thing it demonstrates is that the minimum train capacity can't be that much lower than it is today. Sure, there might be more standing capacity and less seating, but it's not like we're going to see 4-car 150s replaced with single-unit M5000 trams like some people are suggesting.

Just to reiterate the biggest complaint of current users is the ability to get a seat at peak times, the Welsh Government Minister in charge of transport has made noises "promising" this will be addressed, there is also the predictions of a huge increase in rail usage driven by Cardiff commuting as job opportunities are increasingly concentrated in downtown Cardiff for South Walians.

To exceed the capacity of the current set up on the key Pontypridd to Cardiff corridor where three routes merge from the Head of the Valleys (Treherbert/Aberdare/Merthyr) every tram will have to be doubled up in the peak and running at 4 tph to the Heads means that there's 12 tph from Pontypridd to Cardiff running at 5 minute headway's. There is little scope to increase that frequency as its over a long section approximately 12 miles.

Today's Pacer/150 combos provide c 1000 seats per hour in the peak each direction.
Doubled Trams @ 12 tph will provide c1200 seats per hour in the peak each direction which will soak up a chunk of today standers but not allow for any of the planned growth.

The original heavy rail plan was 2 tph to the Heads and utilizing the turnback at Pontypridd to run 2 tph in the peak down to Cardiff.
As 3 car EMU's this will provide c1700 seats per hour in the peak each direction.
As 4 car EMU's this will provide c2250 seats per hour in the peak each direction.

It really boils down to how much capacity you think you need. If it does grow as predicted then the novelty of the new shiny trams will soon wear off....

The capacity for the Rhymney Valley is not so critical but I think its been really poorly thought out for Pontypridd to Cardiff.

 

[Solaris]

Today's Pacer/150 combos provide c 1000 seats per hour in the peak each direction.
Doubled Trams @ 12 tph will provide c1200 seats per hour in the peak each direction which will soak up a chunk of today standers but not allow for any of the planned growth.

Really...a Manchester tram can hold over ~200 people (about 80 seated), doubled up that makes ~400.....*12 is more like ~5000 capacity (~2000 seated). That seems sensible and affordable and in vehicles that are designed to accommodate standing (unlike current fleet).... and I am sure LR can get even higher frequencies than 12tph if needed (LoS signalling - not fixed blocks). To expect that everyone using an urban mass transit systems can get a seat is not realistic or affordable (look at London Tube, Metrolink, anywhere in fact, etc). As with these systems the further away from the core you get on the more likely you'll get a seat; if you get on a few stops from the core then standing for 15-20 mins is not really an issue- I'd be more concerned that there was sufficient capacity for me to actually get on a vehicle (which often you cant today at peak times) - the higher frequencies offered by LR enable this... My gut feel is that LR will deliver far more and affordable capacity than HR.

 

[Del1977]

Just to reiterate the biggest complaint of current users is the ability to get a seat at peak times, the Welsh Government Minister in charge of transport has made noises "promising" this will be addressed, there is also the predictions of a huge increase in rail usage driven by Cardiff commuting as job opportunities are increasingly concentrated in downtown Cardiff for South Walians.

To exceed the capacity of the current set up on the key Pontypridd to Cardiff corridor where three routes merge from the Head of the Valleys (Treherbert/Aberdare/Merthyr) every tram will have to be doubled up in the peak and running at 4 tph to the Heads means that there's 12 tph from Pontypridd to Cardiff running at 5 minute headway's. There is little scope to increase that frequency as its over a long section approximately 12 miles.

Today's Pacer/150 combos provide c 1000 seats per hour in the peak each direction.
Doubled Trams @ 12 tph will provide c1200 seats per hour in the peak each direction which will soak up a chunk of today standers but not allow for any of the planned growth.

The original heavy rail plan was 2 tph to the Heads and utilizing the turnback at Pontypridd to run 2 tph in the peak down to Cardiff.
As 3 car EMU's this will provide c1700 seats per hour in the peak each direction.
As 4 car EMU's this will provide c2250 seats per hour in the peak each direction.

It really boils down to how much capacity you think you need. If it does grow as predicted then the novelty of the new shiny trams will soon wear off....

The capacity for the Rhymney Valley is not so critical but I think its been really poorly thought out for Pontypridd to Cardiff.

Well we still don't know what sort of seating arrangements any trams or tram/trains will actually have, nor their frequency.

They don't necessarily have to be designed as 'standing room' only with a few perch seats. The CAF tram train, for example has more than 50 seats. If it had 70 seats in each unit, then that would immediately take the seating capacity to 1,680 per hour at your 12tph frequency.

On the actual flows and getting a seat at peak periods, while there is a lot more traffic on the section Cardiff- Pontypridd than Cardiff - Caerphilly overall, I would point out that there's a university in Treforest which is the busiest station after Cathays, north of Queen Street in the Pontypridd direction. I'd suggest that a lot of the passenger traffic there is not peak traffic.

It would be interesting to see overcrowding per train / line, but I don't think that's available, though am sure that the franchise bidders / Transport for Wales know.

On the overall seat availability being the biggest complaint - I'm sceptical that "not getting a seat" is worse than "not able to board the train at all" which is the current situation in places like Llandaff.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Really...a Manchester tram can hold over ~200 people (about 80 seated), doubled up that makes ~400.....*12 is more like ~5000 capacity (~2000 seated). That seems sensible and affordable and in vehicles that are designed to accommodate standing (unlike current fleet).... and I am sure LR can get even higher frequencies than 12tph if needed (LoS signalling - not fixed blocks). To expect that everyone using an urban mass transit systems can get a seat is not realistic or affordable (look at London Tube, Metrolink, anywhere in fact, etc). As with these systems the further away from the core you get on the more likely you'll get a seat; if you get on a few stops from the core then standing for 15-20 mins is not really an issue- I'd be more concerned that there was sufficient capacity for me to actually get on a vehicle (which often you cant today at peak times) - the higher frequencies offered by LR enable this... My gut feel is that LR will deliver far more and affordable capacity than HR.

That's the point though the Minster is on record as saying hes addressing peoples concerns about getting a seat - whilst planing an urban mass transit system designed for people to stand on.......

The Manchester Metrolink operates at 6 minute headways at its most frequent away from some very short sections in the centre of the city. South Wales Metro will have to be more frequent (5 minute headways) to get the 4 tph to the heads on the Taff corridor.

The M5000's that Metrolink currently use are officially 60 or 66 seats and 146 standing. As I said above if they operate from the get go as doubled up then the seating on them will be capable of soaking up most of today's standers but not accommodate any growth - the funding for the redevelopment of Cardiff station announced earlier this week is based on footfall doubling by the late 2030's. Its clear that this growth on the Taff Corridor will have be accommodated by standing room only using LRT - where the openness and honesty about this?

Heavy Rail electrification using cascaded 3 car EMU's as per the original plans would soak up all the current standers and allow for growth and longer EMU's can be ordered new in the 2030's.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Well we still don't know what sort of seating arrangements any trams or tram/trains will actually have, nor their frequency.

They don't necessarily have to be designed as 'standing room' only with a few perch seats. The CAF tram train, for example has more than 50 seats. If it had 70 seats in each unit, then that would immediately take the seating capacity to 1,680 per hour at your 12tph frequency.

On the actual flows and getting a seat at peak periods, while there is a lot more traffic on the section Cardiff- Pontypridd than Cardiff - Caerphilly overall, I would point out that there's a university in Treforest which is the busiest station after Cathays, north of Queen Street in the Pontypridd direction. I'd suggest that a lot of the passenger traffic there is not peak traffic.

It would be interesting to see overcrowding per train / line, but I don't think that's available, though am sure that the franchise bidders / Transport for Wales know.

On the overall seat availability being the biggest complaint - I'm sceptical that "not getting a seat" is worse than "not able to board the train at all" which is the current situation in places like Llandaff.

Peak overcrowding stretches into the Rhondda beyond Pontypridd. The turnback at Pontypridd is designed to help Llandaf etc as the Merthyr services will skip out the lower stations in the valley and the peak short distance stoppers will give the lower stations a service without the longer distance commuters.

 

[MarkyT]

The Metrolink M5000s are approx 26m long so a double formation comes to 56m. The Taffs Well depot plan shows the station platform on the up (away from Cardiff) being extended to 100m which implies two coupled 50m units and that looks right in terms of the unit lengths illustrated that the depot is designed for. Fundamentally, I see no reason why a wider bodied, heavier end of the scale tram shouldn't carry a similar quantity of people as a similar length 'conventional' train under the same conditions and seating arrangements. If CAF or others can get a tram-derived vehicle down in whole life cost per passenger carried to compare well with an equivalent capacity EMU solution, then as long as journey times aren't significantly affected for the core routes then that could be a major breakthrough as far as rolling stock evolution is concerned. If those same vehicles can be certified to interrun with other heavy rail traffic where required, then we may have reached a watershed; the tram-train revolution could be upon us!

 

[WelshBluebird]

The Metrolink M5000s are approx 26m long so a double formation comes to 56m. The Taffs Well depot plan shows the station platform on the up (away from Cardiff) being extended to 100m which implies two coupled 50m units and that looks right in terms of the unit lengths illustrated that the depot is designed for. Fundamentally, I see no reason why a wider bodied, heavier end of the scale tram shouldn't carry a similar quantity of people as a similar length 'conventional' train under the same conditions and seating arrangements. If CAF or others can get a tram-derived vehicle down in whole life cost per passenger carried to compare well with an equivalent capacity EMU solution, then as long as journey times aren't significantly affected for the core routes then that could be a major breakthrough as far as rolling stock evolution is concerned. If those same vehicles can be certified to interrun with other heavy rail traffic where required, then we may have reached a watershed; the tram-train revolution could be upon us!

There are a lot of "if's" there though!

 

[Solaris]

The Manchester Metrolink operates at 6 minute headways at its most frequent away from some very short sections in the centre of the city. South Wales Metro will have to be more frequent (5 minute headways) to get the 4 tph to the heads on the Taff corridor.

The M5000's that Metrolink currently use are officially 60 or 66 seats and 146 standing. As I said above if they operate from the get go as doubled up then the seating on them will be capable of soaking up most of today's standers but not accommodate any growth - the funding for the redevelopment of Cardiff station announced earlier this week is based on footfall doubling by the late 2030's. Its clear that this growth on the Taff Corridor will have be accommodated by standing room only using LRT - where the openness and honesty about this?

Heavy Rail electrification using cascaded 3 car EMU's as per the original plans would soak up all the current standers and allow for growth and longer EMU's can be ordered new in the 2030's.

Something else to consider....

Even post CASR the max realistic number of HR paths through QS to Central is prob about 16tph .... In LR you could prob get (I guess) quite a few more ~say 23/24 tph through there. As in Manchester with the 2nd City Crossing if you need more network capacity you could run a new LR route across the city centre to by-pass that point of congestion and in effect double the pathways available to the network. This is just not remotely possible with HR.

We also have no idea yet on what vehicles (if LR ) will be run - size, capacity, seating, standing, etc. I am sure all such matters have been given serious consideration by all the bidders.
One final thought given the experience of the GWML - it seems likely the a HR electrification of the valleys has become prohibitively expensive (LR wires are much less costly/disruptive).

...and to be fair to WG they did set out some of these possibilities on their metro website a while back

I think we should give the process a little more credit and let it run its course.

 

[Envoy]

I am not sure as to where you could run a new route across the city centre. The original bridge over Newport Road by Queen Street station was I believe for four tracks. I wonder if a new single track bridge can be squeezed in to take the Rhymney line?

If we are going to get tram-trains with a substantial amount of people standing, then this whole project is going to be seen as a failure. It is a considerable distance from the heads of the valleys down to Cardiff let alone continuing further to the coast. The whole idea of the Metro is surely to improve public transport and hopefully reduce road congestion? If the tram-trains or whatever are not able to seat and shift large numbers of people as & when required in air conditioned comfort and to time, then I am sure that many people will stick to their cars. Unfortunately, it would appear that they are already planning new ‘stations’ for short tram-trains and leaving no room for expansion.

 

[gareth950]

Something else to consider....

Even post CASR the max realistic number of HR paths through QS to Central is prob about 16tph .... In LR you could prob get (I guess) quite a few more ~say 23/24 tph through there. As in Manchester with the 2nd City Crossing if you need more network capacity you could run a new LR route across the city centre to by-pass that point of congestion and in effect double the pathways available to the network. This is just not remotely possible with HR.

We also have no idea yet on what vehicles (if LR ) will be run - size, capacity, seating, standing, etc. I am sure all such matters have been given serious consideration by all the bidders.
One final thought given the experience of the GWML - it seems likely the a HR electrification of the valleys has become prohibitively expensive (LR wires are much less costly/disruptive).

...and to be fair to WG they did set out some of these possibilities on their metro website a while back

I think we should give the process a little more credit and let it run its course.

Yes, CASR, about that.....

Welsh Govt agreed and specified with Network Rail on CASR in 2011-12. Welsh Govt specified the extra turn back platforms across the network at Pontypridd, Barry, Caerphilly, the new station at Energlyn & Churchill Park.
The 3 new platforms at Queen St, Platform 8 at Central. Linking P4 up to Queen St at Central.
Doubling the City line around Canton.
Platform lengthening (many Valleys platforms are ready now for 6 car trains and 'Stop' markers are in place on platforms).
Welsh Govt specified that capacity between Queen St - Central be increased to 16tph + freight paths.
Widespread renewal of signalling across the Valleys and the Vale and in the City line.
Transfer of all Valleys signalling to NR's Cardiff ROC.

But mid-way through CASR being undertaken, Welsh Govt started to change their minds.

Now all the CASR upgrade work is complete, can you defend all of that work and hundreds of millions spent by NR 'future proofing' and upgrading the Valleys and Cardiff local network, getting it ready for what was assumed would be HR electrification, never being used and being torn up? I'd love to hear a defence of that.

There is more than one way into Cardiff Central. Trains starting from Aberdare / Merthyr / Treherbert could run via the City line from Radyr, easing congestion into Queen St, with stoppers starting at Pontypridd or Radyr going via Cathays and Queen St.

I concur with everything Gareth Marston has said regarding seating. The number one compliant from Valleys and local Cardiff commuters is getting a seat. Even from Radyr or Llandaff, people want a seat. ATW introduced peak AM trains starting from Radyr last year to give more people getting on there a seat!

 

[Del1977]

On Cardiff Queen Street, I don't think there's the space anymore for expanding that bridge. From the QS side of the bridge, you might do it, but not the north side, buildings were stuck up in the 80s on the west side, on Dumfries Place. Though could be demolished...

Actually looking at the Google 3D satellite images, it's all pretty packed in around Cardiff Central too, though there are a few car parks to its south that could be lost. It's going to be quite a challenge restructuring public transport operations around the core of Cardiff.

 

[gareth950]

It's going to be quite a challenge restructuring public transport operations around the core of Cardiff.

Which is why if you lived in or near Cardiff now, you'd realise that talking about forcing trams onto Cardiff's streets, when the existing HR connections between Cardiff's main stations take 3-4 minutes with a clear run, is lunacy.

 

[NotATrainspott]

That's the point though the Minster is on record as saying hes addressing peoples concerns about getting a seat - whilst planing an urban mass transit system designed for people to stand on.......

The Manchester Metrolink operates at 6 minute headways at its most frequent away from some very short sections in the centre of the city. South Wales Metro will have to be more frequent (5 minute headways) to get the 4 tph to the heads on the Taff corridor.

The M5000's that Metrolink currently use are officially 60 or 66 seats and 146 standing. As I said above if they operate from the get go as doubled up then the seating on them will be capable of soaking up most of today's standers but not accommodate any growth - the funding for the redevelopment of Cardiff station announced earlier this week is based on footfall doubling by the late 2030's. Its clear that this growth on the Taff Corridor will have be accommodated by standing room only using LRT - where the openness and honesty about this?

Heavy Rail electrification using cascaded 3 car EMU's as per the original plans would soak up all the current standers and allow for growth and longer EMU's can be ordered new in the 2030's.

Why would the Taffs corridor be limited to the branch frequency of the Metrolink service? If the Metrolink core has a higher frequency than that, why wouldn't Cardiff's? All of the trams/trains along this corridor would have the same stopping pattern.

Ignoring street running in Cardiff for a moment, the switch to LR technology and line-of-sight running means maximum capacity on a standard twin-track section. Street running can be a capacity limitation if there are too many conflicts with other road users (e.g. in busy pedestrian areas, it might not be safe or practical to run too many trams). Dedicated lines are essentially the best case scenario.

The plans show 50m single-unit vehicles. That means the very minimum per-vehicle capacity is going to be about twice that of a M5000, so 130 seats. Since they're going to the effort of keeping Taffs Well station platforms 100m long, it looks like there will be 100m doubled-up units. 50m is about as long as you can practically have doing street running. If 100m trains run, they're almost certainly going to stay on dedicated tracks, as a sort of direct replacement for the current DMUs. A 100m metro train is equivalent in length to a 4-5 car modern EMU and is about the length of a Jubilee line train.

The 50m single unit lengths and 100m capability of the stations really does point towards the South Wales Metro being a train-tram as much as a tram-train or a traditional tram. A 100m doubled-up unit would be too long to live alongside pedestrians, buses and bikes in the middle of Cardiff, but it could get away without that expensive grade-separation. There would be no need to worry about level crossings, and stations can be sited nearer where people are and want to go rather than where a normal station can be fit.

 

[Del1977]

I'm back often enough to know the geography/traffic. I was actually on the Valley Lines less than a month ago.

I don't support or think shunting the existing Valley Lines on-street through the city centre is a good idea. New lines in Cardiff only with on-street running might be okay (e.g. East/West, or North West), as they'll hopefully mitigate or displace existing traffic.

I agree that the current 3-4 minute link between Queen St and Cardiff Central is valuable and should be maintained. But that's also why I think light rail is an opportunity as it'll allow more paths than heavy rail. What I'm not wholly opposed to is the idea that *some* of the VL terminate at Cardiff Queen Street, and that you may need to change there, but this negative aspect would have to be mitigated by wider improvements overall.