Carmarthen to Aberystwyth Reopening?

[Del1977]

Why exactly would the Westminster Government want to force the Welsh Assembly to build a motorway in Wales?

 

[Gareth Marston]

Why exactly would the Westminster Government want to force the Welsh Assembly to build a motorway in Wales?

Well given that Westminster have given the Welsh Government borrowing powers to fund the said motorway with the condition they cant use it on anything else....

 

[Del1977]

Well, I still don't see that it follows that Westminster would necessarily want or care whether the WAG used their borrowing powers or not for this road. Borrow and build or don't borrow and don't build - not really sure why Westminster would care either way.

If the Severn Tolls abolition increases economic development in South Wales, so much the better.


Notwithstanding the above, I do think there should be better / more frequent regional trains between Swansea, Cardiff and central Bristol.


But on the Carmarthen to Aberystwyth reopening - from reading that report, it's economic lunacy. There are far better ways of spending that sort of money on public transport in Wales.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Well, I still don't see that it follows that Westminster would necessarily want or care whether the WAG used their borrowing powers or not for this road. Borrow and build or don't borrow and don't build - not really sure why Westminster would care either way.

If the Severn Tolls abolition increases economic development in South Wales, so much the better.


Notwithstanding the above, I do think there should be better / more frequent regional trains between Swansea, Cardiff and central Bristol.

Its something the CBI and the Welsh Secretary are very keen on though Tory's in Wales are somewhat split, the ones in the north don't really give a toss as its South Wales and would rather the money spent on roads in their areas and the ones in the south are influenced by the Small Business's who are against it.

Any perceived benefit from not paying tolls will soon be lost in the increased costs of congestion caused by not having the tolls. The UKs GDP has managed to increase (apart from the 2007 world crash) since Roads to Prosperity was canned in the early 90's. There's truly no linkage between road schemes and economic development when theirs 35 million vehicles on the roads- nothing you can do is transformational. A lorry driver in one part of the country saving a minute is inconsequential when theirs thousands times more of them not. Portugal spent its European funding covering itself in dual carriageways to no effect.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Time to bump this forum thread - the scoping report has been published with a "cost" of £750 million and crushingly a BCR of 0.43.

(meanwhile , in the rest of the world , the project to build Titanic 2 has apparently restarted. Maybe the 2 projects could be linked with a Fishguard to New York connection - change at Carmarthen)

£750m?

And how much would it cost to bring the Swansea District line up to 90 mph, build a new Parkway north of Swansea and fund a fast Carmarthen - Cardiff - Bristol hourly service for 12 months (something which, IIRC, was more or less suggested by your good self up thread)? Far, far better use of any monies available, and probably far, far better value even for the folks betwixt Carmarthen and Aberystwyth.

 

[MarkyT]

I suggest at Carmarthen, instead of the expensive rerouting of the A484, the new river bridge might penetrate the flood protection wall, and have a watertight base and sidewalls built up like a maritime hull to the same level and sealed by some means into the wall opening. It'd have to be solidly anchored down to prevent it floating away in heavy current, but could that even be possible?

As to the issue of level crossings, while I wholeheartedly agree with the general network policy to reduce the number of these wherever possible, especially on fast heavy traffic railways, I think new examples should be allowed where demonstrated adequately safe on more minor routes under certain circumstances, specifically where approach speed of rail traffic is controlled so local monitoring by trains is practical. Local monitoring, for established ABCL (Automatic half Barrier Crossing Locally monitored) and the brand new AFBCL (Automatic Full Barrier Crossing Locally monitored), can allow much shorter road closed time than a traditional MCB fully interlocked with protecting signals, including those equipped with auto-lower capability and the latest obstruction detection (OD) technology. The AFBCL type is particularly interesting for rural line re-openings as it incorporates very safe full barriers that close the road entirely, intersection area obstacle detection by means of LIDAR or RADAR scanning, AND train driver observance of the crossing operation and road clearance, together with a short road closed time. Once barriers are down with red road lights flashing, the train driver's flashing white light shows after a final OD check has been made, then the train driver is responsible for looking out for further obstructions while crossing. Road intersection area lighting is provided to allow this at night. As for MCB, barriers are continuity monitored by a fracture strip, so if they are damaged by a road vehicle impact while a train approaches, the drivers flashing white light would immediately change to red, conveying an immediate emergency stop indication which can be given right up until the train actually passes over the road, not always possible with MCB. In that respects AFBCL is likely to be demonstrably safer than even MCB-OD in many circumstances, even safer perhaps than open signalled tramway intersections which can be used fairy freely on light rail developments at similar rail approach speeds, albeit with better brakes. Fast express crossings are not possible with the AFBCL with an absolute maximum limit of 55mph in cases of excellent approach visibility, but the type could be an excellent and very safe choice on branch lines in the vicinity of stations where all trains are starting away from rest or are already slowing for a call, and where grade separation is impractical at reasonable expense.

 

[JohnR]

Time to bump this forum thread - the scoping report has been published with a "cost" of £750 million and crushingly a BCR of 0.43.

Wasnt the Borders Railway only supposed to have a BCR of 0.5?? I suspect that a fair bit could be cut from those costs, partly by not following the formation all the way.

 

[squizzler]

Wasnt the Borders Railway only supposed to have a BCR of 0.5?? I suspect that a fair bit could be cut from those costs, partly by not following the formation all the way.

As I understand it, recent new railways such as the Borders, Ebbw vale, etc, have all carried over twice their projected traffic. I suspect that in practice this project would more-or-less break even!

WE may only break even on paper, but of course BCR is only a tool and is unable to put a value on every benefit a new railway would bring to to communities en route.

 

[Gareth Marston]

As I understand it, recent new railways such as the Borders, Ebbw vale, etc, have all carried over twice their projected traffic. I suspect that in practice this project would more-or-less break even!

WE may only break even on paper, but of course BCR is only a tool and is unable to put a value on every benefit a new railway would bring to to communities en route.

The Welsh Government has ploughed ahead with duelling the A465 despite its poor BCR justifying the decision by saying the BCR method doesn't capture all the benefits it claims the new road will bring.

 

[edwin_m]

I suggest at Carmarthen, instead of the expensive rerouting of the A484, the new river bridge might penetrate the flood protection wall, and have a watertight base and sidewalls built up like a maritime hull to the same level and sealed by some means into the wall opening. It'd have to be solidly anchored down to prevent it floating away in heavy current, but could that even be possible?

As to the issue of level crossings, while I wholeheartedly agree with the general network policy to reduce the number of these wherever possible, especially on fast heavy traffic railways, I think new examples should be allowed where demonstrated adequately safe on more minor routes under certain circumstances, specifically where approach speed of rail traffic is controlled so local monitoring by trains is practical. Local monitoring, for established ABCL (Automatic half Barrier Crossing Locally monitored) and the brand new AFBCL (Automatic Full Barrier Crossing Locally monitored), can allow much shorter road closed time than a traditional MCB fully interlocked with protecting signals, including those equipped with auto-lower capability and the latest obstruction detection (OD) technology. The AFBCL type is particularly interesting for rural line re-openings as it incorporates very safe full barriers that close the road entirely, intersection area obstacle detection by means of LIDAR or RADAR scanning, AND train driver observance of the crossing operation and road clearance, together with a short road closed time. Once barriers are down with red road lights flashing, the train driver's flashing white light shows after a final OD check has been made, then the train driver is responsible for looking out for further obstructions while crossing. Road intersection area lighting is provided to allow this at night. As for MCB, barriers are continuity monitored by a fracture strip, so if they are damaged by a road vehicle impact while a train approaches, the drivers flashing white light would immediately change to red, conveying an immediate emergency stop indication which can be given right up until the train actually passes over the road, not always possible with MCB. In that respects AFBCL is likely to be demonstrably safer than even MCB-OD in many circumstances, even safer perhaps than open signalled tramway intersections which can be used fairy freely on light rail developments at similar rail approach speeds, albeit with better brakes. Fast express crossings are not possible with the AFBCL with an absolute maximum limit of 55mph in cases of excellent approach visibility, but the type could be an excellent and very safe choice on branch lines in the vicinity of stations where all trains are starting away from rest or are already slowing for a call, and where grade separation is impractical at reasonable expense.

Don't the environment people require that all bridges are clear of maximum foreseeable flood levels, because of the risks that arise if the water reaches bridge level (backing up causing flooding upstream, impact from trees etc floating in the flood)?

I've thought for a long time that track brake fitted units would be of benefit for highly rural railways. The better emergency braking capability could allow a faster approach speed to locally monitored crossings as well as reducing risks in general.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

£750m?

And how much would it cost to bring the Swansea District line up to 90 mph, build a new Parkway north of Swansea and fund a fast Carmarthen - Cardiff - Bristol hourly service for 12 months (something which, IIRC, was more or less suggested by your good self up thread)? Far, far better use of any monies available, and probably far, far better value even for the folks betwixt Carmarthen and Aberystwyth.

I agree - the SDL is (I believe) in fair condition , as NR let the High Output renewal train play on it some years back , losing the 8.6 W8 gauge in the process (for any container traffic) , this I spotted and objected to the Network change wanting the loss of gauge normalised. There is a commitment to replace it , should any traffic materialise in the future

The line is fairly well engineered of course , and was built for "high speed" access to the West , and a far better route (yes - it has some gradients) , compared to the grind out of Swansea High Street towards and through Cocket. A wasted piece of engineering from the GWR.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

As I understand it, recent new railways such as the Borders, Ebbw vale, etc, have all carried over twice their projected traffic. I suspect that in practice this project would more-or-less break even!

WE may only break even on paper, but of course BCR is only a tool and is unable to put a value on every benefit a new railway would bring to to communities en route.

Those lines had substantial , on route or hinterland populations and accessed directly major cities. Read the report and compare the route , with the population density. There is a striking map , correlating the low density (very low density in fact) , of settlement and people.

Yes , BCR is a tool and does not explain everything , and most re-openings have exceeded demand expectations. I think this is a special case. Much as rebuilding the "Port Road from Stranraer to Dumfries would be.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Wasnt the Borders Railway only supposed to have a BCR of 0.5?? I suspect that a fair bit could be cut from those costs, partly by not following the formation all the way.

I helped the start of the Borders , by agreeing through Rail Passenger Partnership the seed corn of the Newcraighall shuttle way back - even that was foreseen to have a gap between revenue and costs and Scotrail (NX at the time) , nobly took the revenue risk. This was done as a "springboard" , as I could see the potential , now realised on Borders , which I shamefully have not yet ridden on.

Very good luck with finding a different formation , - this is not the flat , empty , plains of Utah or Nebraska.

 

[deltic]

I was surprised that the route would cover its day to day operating costs. Given the detail in the report on engineering etc I found the passenger forecasting analysis to be rather basic. We have the advantage in England of access to mobile phone data to provide a reasonably accurate assessment of the present size of the transport market between centres and can hence assess the potential size of the rail market if a new service was introduced.

 

[6Gman]

If I am reading the figures correctly they are forecasting around 40 "trips" per train journey. Not 40 on board as an average, but 40 passenger journeys per train service. So that could be 20 Aberystwyth - Llanilar, and 20 Lampeter - Carmarthen. Find it hard to believe that would achieve break-even ...

Reminds me a little of Crewe - Derby - around 80 minute journey time, and merits a 153 (or perhaps a 156) hourly each way.

But Carmarthen is no Crewe; Aberystwyth is no Derby; and Pencader is certainly no Stoke on Trent!

 

[Bald Rick]

Wasnt the Borders Railway only supposed to have a BCR of 0.5?? I suspect that a fair bit could be cut from those costs, partly by not following the formation all the way.

The quote does costs exclude some fairly chunky sums, not least the costs of project development, environmental protection, compensation for some land owners (notably the Gwili Railway) and utilities cost. There is easily another £100m in that lot. (Section 5.1)

As I understand it, recent new railways such as the Borders, Ebbw vale, etc, have all carried over twice their projected traffic. I suspect that in practice this project would more-or-less break even!.

Some have exceeded estimates. Some haven’t. Borders was 22% above forecast in the first 6 months, but only 2% over forecast for the full first year.
Source: https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/39335/sct04173824741.pdf

Besides, the forecasting models are adjusted using actual data, and accuracy is improving.

Bear in mind that the BCR of 0.43 was on best case sensitivity, ie that of an hourly service, with 65 minute journey times. The additional capital cost of getting to 65minute journey times is not quoted (and has probably not been assessed).

I was surprised that the route would cover its day to day operating costs.

I’m not sure it does.

Firstly the operating costs quoted in section 6.3.2 are in 2010 prices, which we have to assume is inflated back to 2017 for the analysis.

Secondly, the labour costs appear to be grossly underestimated. For an hourly service, the graph shows a cost of around £300k pa. Elsewhere the report (3.4.3) suggests that’s an hourly service will need 4 diagrams. 2 staff each. Allowing for standard shift cover, that’s going to be around 30 staff. That will cost nearly £3m, not £300k. Perhaps I’m missing something.

Thirdly, it does not include costs for NR maintenance, signalling or response. Let alone renewals. That’s another few million.

Nevertheless, a decent report.

 

[6Gman]

I’m not sure it does.

Firstly the operating costs quoted in section 6.3.2 are in 2010 prices, which we have to assume is inflated back to 2017 for the analysis.

Secondly, the labour costs appear to be grossly underestimated. For an hourly service, the graph shows a cost of around £300k pa. Elsewhere the report (3.4.3) suggests that’s an hourly service will need 4 diagrams. 2 staff each. Allowing for standard shift cover, that’s going to be around 30 staff. That will cost nearly £3m, not £300k. Perhaps I’m missing something.

Nevertheless, a decent report.

If they could get the running time down to 75 minutes (a big "if") then it could perhaps be done with 3 units, but I can't see any way of doing it with fewer than 8 drivers (and 8 guards?). That's 48 turns per week (is a Sunday service proposed?). So - with a bit of cover for leave, sickness, training - perhaps 12 drivers? 12 guards? Say £60k per crew [no idea what ATW pays, but recruitment shouldn't be an issue] = £720,000 pa. This, of course, makes no provision for supervision costs and other overheads.

(And I've just remembered that the crew at the northern end would - presumably - have to come from Machynlleth ...)
(Which I should have remembered earlier, given that I was once their Depot Editor ...)
(Looks for embarrassed emoji)

 

[Llanigraham]

I suspect you wage bill is a bit low, and you also need to add in the costs of Network Rail employees, so presuming this would get added as another panel at Cardiff that possibly a couple of signallers, atleast one MOM, plus a Level Crossing Manager. Perhaps another £100k p.a.

And I haven't included extra P'way or S&T bodies!

 

[Bald Rick]

If they could get the running time down to 75 minutes (a big "if") then it could perhaps be done with 3 units, but I can't see any way of doing it with fewer than 8 drivers (and 8 guards?). That's 48 turns per week (is a Sunday service proposed?). So - with a bit of cover for leave, sickness, training - perhaps 12 drivers? 12 guards? Say £60k per crew [no idea what ATW pays, but recruitment shouldn't be an issue] = £720,000 pa. This, of course, makes no provision for supervision costs and other overheads.

(And I've just remembered that the crew at the northern end would - presumably - have to come from Machynlleth ...)
(Which I should have remembered earlier, given that I was once their Depot Editor ...)
(Looks for embarrassed emoji)

Driver salary alone is nearly £50k pa before overtime and allowances. Conductors are around £30k.

But salaries are only one part of staff costs. As well as the aforementioned overtime and allowances, there are the company contributions to pension (approx 16%) and national insurance (approx 14%). The costs of training. Equipment (uniforms, phones, tablets, lockers, etc). Then someone needs to manage them and keep them competent. And there needs to be accommodation - no doubt existing will not be big enough for another 30 staff or so. And a few other things. In total, you can approximately double basic salary to get actual staff costs.

In terms of numbers, I don’t have direct experience of managing train crew, but I do for signallers, where cover arrangements are broadly similar. For a typical 24h/7 day pattern, you need about 5 people for every working position. Assuming the 4 diagrams quoted in the report, and that they would be active approx 18/7 (allowing for trips to / from depots at start / end of day), you need about 30 people. Possibly a few more. Half drivers, half conductors. Average salary around £40k. Double it for actual staff costs. Call it £2.5m, and add a bit for contingency (as there will be a lot of training required).

I don’t want to say it, but if the ‘Labour’ costs quoted in the report are this far out, there must be a question mark on the other operational costs, which don’t seem to have been given much detail. However, fuel costs for an hourly service look like they are around £600k pa, which will be about right, perhaps a little light given the current price of red diesel.

 

[6Gman]

Driver salary alone is nearly £50k pa before overtime and allowances. Conductors are around £30k.

But salaries are only one part of staff costs. As well as the aforementioned overtime and allowances, there are the company contributions to pension (approx 16%) and national insurance (approx 14%). The costs of training. Equipment (uniforms, phones, tablets, lockers, etc). Then someone needs to manage them and keep them competent. And there needs to be accommodation - no doubt existing will not be big enough for another 30 staff or so. And a few other things. In total, you can approximately double basic salary to get actual staff costs.

In terms of numbers, I don’t have direct experience of managing train crew, but I do for signallers, where cover arrangements are broadly similar. For a typical 24h/7 day pattern, you need about 5 people for every working position. Assuming the 4 diagrams quoted in the report, and that they would be active approx 18/7 (allowing for trips to / from depots at start / end of day), you need about 30 people. Possibly a few more. Half drivers, half conductors. Average salary around £40k. Double it for actual staff costs. Call it £2.5m, and add a bit for contingency (as there will be a lot of training required).

I don’t want to say it, but if the ‘Labour’ costs quoted in the report are this far out, there must be a question mark on the other operational costs, which don’t seem to have been given much detail. However, fuel costs for an hourly service look like they are around £600k pa, which will be about right, perhaps a little light given the current price of red diesel.

Good points - I'd forgotten the Superann and NI ! And I was - deliberately - going for the lower end of salary range.

 

[Tobbes]

However, fuel costs for an hourly service look like they are around £600k pa, which will be about right, perhaps a little light given the current price of red diesel.

And that's before we see red diesel phased out.... ah well, we can then plan on Aber-Carmathen being electrified double track

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

When will it be likely that we will hear that this reopening project will finally be announced as an official Welsh Government project that is going forward. Will the outcome of any Brexit deliberations have any bearing on it?

 

[Tobbes]

When will it be likely that we will hear that this reopening project will finally be announced as an official Welsh Government project that is going forward. Will the outcome of any Brexit deliberations have any bearing on it?

I can't see any WG Government going for this at £750m. Like, not any.

 

[krus_aragon]

When will it be likely that we will hear that this reopening project will finally be announced as an official Welsh Government project that is going forward. Will the outcome of any Brexit deliberations have any bearing on it?

Do bear in mind that the report on reopening Gaerwen to Llangefni, delivered eight years ago now, suggested a price tag of ₤25m, and nothing has happened since (other than a HGV ploughing through an underbridge earier this month).

I expect this report will just be used quietly to deflect calls for reopening, with reference to the hefty price tag and abysmal BCR.

 

[JohnR]

I can't see any WG Government going for this at £750m. Like, not any.

If we were staying in the EU, perhaps they might have coughed up some of it?

 

[Tobbes]

If we were staying in the EU, perhaps they might have coughed up some of it?

Well, maybe that could still happen. But even with regional and rural funds, is this the best incremental spend on public transport in Wales (or even West Wales)?

 

[JohnR]

Well, maybe that could still happen. But even with regional and rural funds, is this the best incremental spend on public transport in Wales (or even West Wales)?

I wouldnt like to say, but probably not. However, these things tend to happen due to political pressure as much as sensible transport economics. And I sense there is political pressure to do this.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Do bear in mind that the report on reopening Gaerwen to Llangefni, delivered eight years ago now, suggested a price tag of ₤25m, and nothing has happened since (other than a HGV ploughing through an underbridge earier this month).

I expect this report will just be used quietly to deflect calls for reopening, with reference to the hefty price tag and abysmal BCR.

Not according to the Cambrian News and Paid Cymru - who are using the unfair that HS2 only benefits England argument.

http://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/arti...arthen railway&sectionIs=News&searchyear=2018

Governments urged to prioritise Aberystwyth-Carmarthen railway
Monday, 22 October 2018 - Transport

by Cambrian News reporter

@CambrianNews
[email protected]

Jonathan Edwards, Adam Price, Elin Jones and Ben Lake met in Llandysul to discuss the Aberystwyth to Carmarthen Rail Reinstatement Feasibility Study
Following the publication of the long-awaited technical feasibility study commissioned by Welsh Government, local politicians have called on the Welsh and UK governments to work together to prioritise the reinstating of the rail link between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen.

The report has published a route and costings for the plan as well as an outline of the environmental and economic challenges to be overcome, including a cost of £775m.

The Plaid Cymru politicians of Ceredigion and Carmarthenshire are optimistic that the cost can be met, so long as UK and Welsh governments work together positively

Elin Jones AM said: “The Mott Macdonald report is the game-changer needed in the campaign to reinstate the Aberystwyth to Carmarthen rail link.

"I’ve lived alongside this rail corridor almost all my life and I’ve never seen a train. For the first time, I can see a glimpse of light at the end of the tunnel in making this project a reality.

"It is now costed, it is technically feasible and it is now only a matter of political prioritisation by both Welsh and UK governments.”

Ben Lake MP said: “The report has thrown up many of the environmental and logistical constraints facing a project of this magnitude. But I am glad that the report has not shown the project the red light.

"I hope that communities along the route will now join together to consider the report’s implications and to put pressure on governments to take the project to the next stage. I’ll be seeking an urgent meeting with the UK Railways Minister to discuss the report.”

Carmarthen East and Dinefwr MP Jonathan Edwards said: “The cost of this project at first appears substantial, but as we’ve seen this weekend, the scheme would be minuscule in comparison to the £100bn projected spend on the England-only HS2 railway.

"We in Plaid Cymru have been campaigning for our fair share of rail investment, which has seen Wales lose out to the tune of £5bn. This could fund a host of infrastructure projects including the Carmarthen to Aberystwyth railway line.”

Carmarthen East and Dinefwr AM and leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price AM said: “The decision to undertake the technical feasibility study was a result of Plaid Cymru’s budget negotiations with the Welsh Government, and I welcome its optimistic and detailed assessment of the task ahead.

"It is an opportunity to create a national rail corridor starting with Carmarthen to Aberystwyth. This is an exciting and imaginative idea that I think will inspire people and will change the shape of our nation.

"If the Welsh Government is serious about developing every part of Wales, then this is the opportunity to prove it.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Do bear in mind that the report on reopening Gaerwen to Llangefni, delivered eight years ago now, suggested a price tag of ₤25m, and nothing has happened since (other than a HGV ploughing through an underbridge earier this month).

I expect this report will just be used quietly to deflect calls for reopening, with reference to the hefty price tag and abysmal BCR.

Carwyns Government parked everything (almost) and has spent the Lions share of its Transport budget on dualling the A465.

 

[MarkyT]

Don't the environment people require that all bridges are clear of maximum foreseeable flood levels, because of the risks that arise if the water reaches bridge level (backing up causing flooding upstream, impact from trees etc floating in the flood)?

Perhaps there could be auxiliary culverts excavated beneath the track on either bank that could handle the flow blocked by the bridge deck hull at full flood and the channel could be deepened in the immediate vicinity too. Wouldn't stop floating debris brought downstream building up against the bridge though. Perhaps the deck could be lifted clear of floodwaters with gates in the floodwalls closed, but that would prevent the line being used at times of extreme high water.

I've thought for a long time that track brake fitted units would be of benefit for highly rural railways. The better emergency braking capability could allow a faster approach speed to locally monitored crossings as well as reducing risks in general.

A good idea. I've long thought the effective absolute ban (apart from 'exceptional circumstances' - which are?*) on new crossings of all sorts on any character of line that happens to be classified as heavy rail is irrational. And not consistent with the policy for light rail where tramway legislation allows operators to drive something bigger than a pacer on rails right down the middle of the High Street! The policy should be about risk management which IS clearly possible for both heavy rail level crossings and street running light rail with the correct safeguards.
* The problem with such a clause is the circumstances are not defined anywhere so if a study like this made a new level crossing proposal to avoid an extraordinarily expensive diversion of road or rail there's a residual risk that the proposal could be dismissed outright as not being able to make the 'exceptional circumstance' argument, hence if the project moved further ahead the cost and time overrun risk of a subsequent refusal to authorise such a crossing on such doctrinaire grounds could scupper the scheme. Studies such as this will thus never risk proposing any new level crossings AT ALL, no matter what controls could be put in place to manage their safety.

I wouldnt like to say, but probably not. However, these things tend to happen due to political pressure as much as sensible transport economics. And I sense there is political pressure to do this.

That's a particular issue with this proposal as it provides a highly symbolic linking of two 'unconnected' islands of the Welsh Railway Network actually within Wales. I know the Marches route is largely TfW operated but it is partly in England. The symbolism of a steel connection wholly within Wales cannot be underestimated.