South Wales 'Metro' updates

[toby_farman]

Apologies if this has been mentioned before...

But what is the advantage of Tram-Trains over "conventional" trains..? The tram-trains will be high floor, be mainly powered by 25kv wires (but also batteries) and only run on the street for a few hundred metres at Cardiff bay. Why not regular trains like Civitys or FLIRTs on those routes? They could add batteries to regular trains (might be cool) and have full walk through carriages

I just don't get the point.

 

[edwin_m]

Very little advantage with the current network. But there are various long-term plans/ideas for expansion of the rail network both within and beyond Cardiff, which would be more achievable if built as light rail.

 

[toby_farman]

Very little advantage with the current network. But there are various long-term plans/ideas for expansion of the rail network both within and beyond Cardiff, which would be more achievable if built as light rail.

Yes, but Heavy rail trains are more comfortable.

Speaking on "Battery trains" this train (379 013 NOT MY PHOTO) was converted to be a Battery Electric Multiple Unit. Something similar in Cardiff, perhaps a little shorter.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, but Heavy rail trains are more comfortable.

That depends on the type and pitch of seating and the other passenger comforts provided, not on whether it's a train or a tram. Typically trams have a lower standard of comfort for shorter journeys but there's no reason why that has to be the case, especially with a high floor where the seats don't have to fit round the wheels. I don't know what layout is planned for Cardiff, but the tram-trains in Germany have a middle section which is designed more for people making longer journeys. I think they also have air suspension rather than springs.

 

[Cardiff123]

Please let's not start the toilet debate again

 

[Pete_uk]

That depends on the type and pitch of seating...

Which will be the cheapest available.

 

[S-Bahn]

I would just like to add that I used the toilet on a Pacer on the valley lines today and not pre-mediated to just prove a point.

 

[toby_farman]

Please let's not start the toilet debate again

Not my fault, blame Transport For Wales Rail Services

 

[toby_farman]

Which will be the cheapest available.

 

[59CosG95]

Please let's not start the toilet debate again

Agreed, let's not get bogged down with it

 

[toby_farman]

Is this really better than a regular train??

 

[S-Bahn]

What's the proposed number of seats in one of these versus a Pacer or 150?

 

[krus_aragon]

What's the proposed number of seats in one of these versus a Pacer or 150?

Per CVL Rolling Stock Tables, 96 seats plus 31 tip-up seats, and 128 standing. In the same document, a 142 is described as 90 seats, 12 tip-up and 109 standing, and a 150 is 111 seats, 7 tip-up, and 173 standing. The 142 and 150 would, of course, be pre-PRM mods.

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder to please keep on topic; this thread is about the proposed South Wales Metro.

Any suggestions/ideas must be posted in the Speculative Ideas section please. Thanks

 

[S-Bahn]

So the passenger capacities are:

Pre-PPM 2 car Pacer = 221 passengers
Pre-PPM 2 car 150 = 291 passengers
New 3 car Train Tram = 255 passengers

So a 3 car Train-tram will be about halfway between a Pacer and a 150.

Doesn't fill me with confidence when some peak time 4 car 150's are already full or close too in 2019.

As for the increased frequency to compensate, that's fine for Cardiff to Pontypridd, but people north of Ponty are not going to hang around on the platform hoping the next train isn't as busy.

 

[Envoy]

Does anyone know how they plan to get from the City Line at Ninian Park to Cardiff Bay via Central? (If they go to street level, they will hit road traffic congestion in the Callaghan Square area). What if the scheme attracts even more passengers than we have at present - with no end door connections it will be difficult to have 1 longer train/tram served by one guard. Are they planning to have driver only operated?

 

[Brissle Girl]

They won’t. Only trains coming down through Cathays will go to the Bay.

 

[Brissle Girl]

So the passenger capacities are:

Pre-PPM 2 car Pacer = 221 passengers
Pre-PPM 2 car 150 = 291 passengers
New 3 car Train Tram = 255 passengers

So a 3 car Train-tram will be about halfway between a Pacer and a 150.

Doesn't fill me with confidence when some peak time 4 car 150's are already full or close too in 2019.

As for the increased frequency to compensate, that's fine for Cardiff to Pontypridd, but people north of Ponty are not going to hang around on the platform hoping the next train isn't as busy.

As well as the frequency being doubled half the trains will be two units, so capacity will be considerably greater.

 

[Envoy]

They won’t. Only trains coming down through Cathays will go to the Bay.

Well, it doesn’t look like that on the map on P88 of ‘Rail’ dated 9 October 2019. This shows one solid green line going all the way from Cregiau to Splott via Central & the Bay. It even appears to show a further extension to Cardiff East Parkway on the mainline. Surely, they would not be allowed on the ‘Reliefs’?

 

[Cardiff123]

Well, it doesn’t look like that on the map on P88 of ‘Rail’ dated 9 October 2019. This shows one solid green line going all the way from Cregiau to Splott via Central & the Bay. It even appears to show a further extension to Cardiff East Parkway on the mainline. Surely, they would not be allowed on the ‘Reliefs’?

That is for 'Cardiff Crossrail' and is a plan by Cardiff Council that is un-costed and un-committed, and is unlikely to happen until the 2030s, if it gets the go-ahead.

Nothing to do with Keolis Amey's current costed and committed to plans.

 

[Envoy]

That is for 'Cardiff Crossrail' and is a plan by Cardiff Council that is un-costed and un-committed, and is unlikely to happen until the 2030s, if it gets the go-ahead.

Nothing to do with Keolis Amey's current costed and committed to plans.

If this idea ever came about of running on-street from the Bay through to Splott & perhaps across Callaghan Square, then these tram-trains would surely never be able to keep to schedule due to being mixed with traffic? Being as they would be sharing the City Line between Fairwater and Central, then surely they would screw up the schedules of all the other tram-trains that will be running on the present system to/from the valleys? This may not matter so much south of Pontypridd due to the high frequencies but the people who will suffer the most will be in the upper valleys where frequencies will be less.

Regarding the proposed Cregiau leg: as long as the new line from Fairwater is segregated from normal roads, the tram-trains should be able to keep to schedule. However, if this is not built as soon as possible, choatic traffic congestion will occur in NW Cardiff as the plans approved by Cardiff Council & the Welsh Government for new built up areas do not allow for any road improvements - such as access to the M4/A4232 at J33. (The idea that people will use buses from J33 is quite frankly bonkers as whatever route they will use, it will not get people quickly to the city centre. The same applies to buses travelling along the A4119 via Llandaff or a more southern route via Fairwater & Canton).

Access to the A4232 at J33 from the A4119 would also allow people from Plasdwr etc. to travel to Culverhouse Cross without having to go through St.Fagans.

 

[edwin_m]

If this idea ever came about of running on-street from the Bay through to Splott & perhaps across Callaghan Square, then these tram-trains would surely never be able to keep to schedule due to being mixed with traffic? Being as they would be sharing the City Line between Fairwater and Central, then surely they would screw up the schedules of all the other tram-trains that will be running on the present system to/from the valleys? This may not matter so much south of Pontypridd due to the high frequencies but the people who will suffer the most will be in the upper valleys where frequencies will be less.

That's exactly the reason why it's even more critical for tram-trains than for other tramways that they have the minimum of interaction with general road traffic. It's generally considered OK to cross general traffic streets at signaled junctions and perhaps to share bus lanes, but running in an unrestricted traffic lane should be very much the last resort. I don't know the Splott area but if there is significant street running then it might be better just to run a bus instead. I imagine there is enough space around Callaghan Square to create a traffic-free tram route there if they decide to do so.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

I don't know the Splott area but if there is significant street running then it might be better just to run a bus instead. I imagine there is enough space around Callaghan Square to create a traffic-free tram route there if they decide to do so.

I don't think there is any street running planned for Splott. As I understand the proposals, the trams would use the existing freight corridor through Splott linking the SWML and Cardiff docks before running back up the Cardiff Bay branch, diverging from it to run through Callaghan Square and south of Cardiff Central before joining the City line.

I don't see on street running as the main problem with this proposal. Rather it's the circuitous route that strike me as odd. Why would Splott residents choose to travel to central Cardiff via Cardiff Bay rather than just hopping on a bus on Newprt Rd?

 

[Brissle Girl]

Because some parts of Splott are a good walk from Newport Road and once on the bus the traffic from there into the centre is pretty slow, including the only single carriageway part of Newport Rd. And if you're going to the Callaghan Sq/Central Station areas it will be even slower.

 

[Envoy]

A claim has now been made that capacity on the Rhymney > Caerphilly > Cardiff > Penarth route will actually decrease once the Stadler Flirts come into service. If this is indeed the case, then that is a crazy situation when the aim is surely to increase capacity in order to induce people off the roads?
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/fewer-seats-services-wales-gets-17295397

But data, obtained from TfW via a Freedom of Information request, shows capacity on Rhymney, Bargoed and Caerphilly trains may drop by as much as 34.6% during peak times once brand new Stadler Flirt trains completely replace outdated trains from December 2023.

 

[MarkyT]

A claim has now been made that capacity on the Rhymney > Caerphilly > Cardiff > Penarth route will actually decrease once the Stadler Flirts come into service. If this is indeed the case, then that is a crazy situation when the aim is surely to increase capacity in order to induce people off the roads?
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/fewer-seats-services-wales-gets-17295397

The analysis seems to reveal an increase in total capacity as far as Caerphilly in 2023, with a decrease beyond that, suggesting short workings are planned at the south end of the line where the capacity is most needed. It also seems to be comparing 769s to the FLIRTs rather than the non-PRM compliant trains they are replacing temporarily until the FLIRTs are ready for service. 769s can work in minimum 4x20m car formations, so are going to be considerably larger inside than some of the trains that operate today.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The analysis seems to reveal an increase in total capacity as far as Caerphilly in 2023, with a decrease beyond that, suggesting short workings are planned at the south end of the line where the capacity is most needed. It also seems to be comparing 769s to the FLIRTs rather than the non-PRM compliant trains they are replacing temporarily until the FLIRTs are ready for service. 769s can work in minimum 4x20m car formations, so are going to be considerably larger inside than some of the trains that operate today.
View attachment 70677

Those figures are actually showing a reduction in seated capacity even between Caerphilly and Cardiff - so we can surmise that at least part of the new capacity comes from removing seats (albeit compared to the 769's)

The actual frequencies are shown - 6 tph at the ends of the route, unchanged, with an extra 3tph between Cardiff and Caerphilly - which unfortunately suggests an irregular service interval between Cardiff and Caerphilly.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Presumably the Flirts will be 4 abreast seating whereas the 769s are 5?

Part of the issue seems to be that these trains are being brought in to solve a short term issue as they are all that are available, even though their capacity is probably more than needed (in a 5 abreast configuration).

We really should be comparing the current position to that in 2023 once the transition is complete.

 

[Dr Day]

If Caerphilly-Queen St falls within the 20 minutes threshold, the normal UK standard for a reasonable amount of time to be standing, then a strategy of moving to more ‘commuter’ stock with proportionally more standing space makes some sense.

Peak trains on the Valleys are clearly busy, but how many passengers are actually standing for more than 20 minutes? I don’t recall Valleys trains appearing regularly in the lists of ‘Britain’s most crowded trains’ - if anything would have thought that TfW trains into Manchester and Birmingham are more over crowded for longer in the peaks than Valleys ones. But going off topic...

 

[Cardiff123]

I guess that 3 car Flirts will work Caerphilly - Penarth and Coryton - Penarth, with 4 car Flirts working Rhymney/Bargoed - Barry Island/Bridgend via the VoG