Improving commuting capacity on Marches line towards Cardiff

[Envoy]

Moderator note: split from

South Wales 'Metro' updates

I thought it would be worthwhile to start a discussion on the South Wales 'Metro'. Basically, this is the scheme to enhance transport links across south east Wales. One of the key issues that needs to be addressed is what form of transport will be used on the Cardiff Valley lines network -...

www.railforums.co.uk

About time too. Will be interesting to see how many people use it.

I think it will be very popular if the parking is free. If people have to pay to park and then pay to use the train, most will just keep driving for the entire journey. It will need promoting in the eastern valley (Pontypool / Blaenavon) and in the town of Usk to the east.

PS. Both Abergavenny to the north & Cwmbran to the south have a serious lack of parking spaces.

 

[Topological]

I think it will be very popular if the parking is free. If people have to pay to park and then pay to use the train, most will just keep driving for the entire journey. It will need promoting in the eastern valley (Pontypool / Blaenavon) and in the town of Usk to the east.

PS. Both Abergavenny to the north & Cwmbran to the south have a serious lack of parking spaces.

There is a separate thread about Pontypool. I was there last night and had not noted the new car park open. I was already parked in the old one so did not pay attention. It was great to learn this morning that the new car park had opened.

Since the old one is free, and can only have one or two cars in overnight, it would suggest that the new car park would need to be free. However, I do not know how busy the car park gets during the day. Last night there were more people in the old car park than the 2 who had been there when I arrived on Thursday morning.

The problem here will still be the lack of services. Pontypool is great for me because there are early trains to Manchester and from 16:30 all the southbound stop at Pontypool. However, during the middle of the day it seems very few of the Manchester trains stop.

 

[Envoy]

There is a separate thread about Pontypool. I was there last night and had not noted the new car park open. I was already parked in the old one so did not pay attention. It was great to learn this morning that the new car park had opened.

Since the old one is free, and can only have one or two cars in overnight, it would suggest that the new car park would need to be free. However, I do not know how busy the car park gets during the day. Last night there were more people in the old car park than the 2 who had been there when I arrived on Thursday morning.

The problem here will still be the lack of services. Pontypool is great for me because there are early trains to Manchester and from 16:30 all the southbound stop at Pontypool. However, during the middle of the day it seems very few of the Manchester trains stop.

You highlight the problem about the low frequency of trains. Really the Marches Line needs limited stop long distance express services interlaced with stoppers - certainly as far north as Abergavenny. Pontypool and New Inn is in the odd position of being on a long distance mainline whilst also being in the densely populated ‘Metro’ area.

Caerleon, on the same line, could also do with having a station - which would serve the local population as well as tourists wishing to see the Roman remains.

 

[Philip Roberts]

You highlight the problem about the low frequency of trains. Really the Marches Line needs limited stop long distance express services interlaced with stoppers - certainly as far north as Abergavenny. Pontypool and New Inn is in the odd position of being on a long distance mainline whilst also being in the densely populated ‘Metro’ area.

Caerleon, on the same line, could also do with having a station - which would serve the local population as well as tourists wishing to see the Roman remains.

Couldn't agree more on Caerleon. I'd also add that it's quite difficult to get to by car, even for people who live in Newport!

 

[Richard Scott]

Couldn't agree more on Caerleon. I'd also add that it's quite difficult to get to by car, even for people who live in Newport!

Parking is also difficult so a station would be a useful addition for the town.

 

[slowroad]

Parking is also difficult so a station would be a useful addition for the town.

I disagree. Would need a large car park to be viable, which is not feasible in the village. And even without car park, drop offs would create additional traffic problems. Would also undermine a pretty good bus service and, unless stopping trains added, have either infrequent services or disrupt long distance services.

 

[Meerkat]

Does seem like there should be an hourly stopper to Abergavenny. The southbound platform used to have tracks east of it so could relatively easily gain an extra platform to terminate in.
Then build a new accessible footbridge that also goes over the A465 to a large car park built on the east side of that road.

 

[AlastairFraser]

What about a Glebelands Park station with large multistorey car park (shared with the bowls centre) near junction 25A of the M4?

Then reopen Caerleon station at the former location without a car park, with a Cwmbran South Parkway close to the A4042 and Newport Road junction.

Incorporate @Meerkat's plan for a stopper terminating at Abergavenny with a sizeable car park and it should work well.

 

[slowroad]

What about a Glebelands Park station with large multistorey car park (shared with the bowls centre) near junction 25A of the M4?

Then reopen Caerleon station at the former location without a car park, with a Cwmbran South Parkway close to the A4042 and Newport Road junction.

Incorporate @Meerkat's plan for a stopper terminating at Abergavenny with a sizeable car park and it should work well.

Like it! But would a one per hour stopper suffice for this level of development? Surely not. Could the wider network support 2/3/4 tph?

 

[Topological]

Like it! But would a one per hour stopper suffice for this level of development? Surely not. Could the wider network support 2/3/4 tph?

You would assume that Newport could handle trains terminating in Platform 4, if necessary the signalling could be split to allow arrivals from both Abergavenny and Ebbw Vale to share the platform.

However, I think that a train from Abergavenny to Newport every 15 minutes would be overkill. Working on the two longer distance trains being half an hour apart then a 2tph service from Abergavenny would seem the maximum. That would give Abergavenny and Cwmbran 4tph, Pontypool would have up to 4tph depending on the hour. The new stops would still have a train every 30 minutes.

The ideal situation is for the train to continue to Cardiff, but adding more terminating services in Cardiff is hard. A compromise may see 1tph continue through to Cardiff, whilst the other "local" train terminates at Newport.

This may require some of the trains that currently use Platform 4 at Newport to use Platform 3 (for example Manchester bound trains)

 

[amahy]

Just a thought, but when the Liverpool to Cardiff service introduced, could this be combined with existing services to form a regular stopping service on the southern section of the Marches line?

 

[cle]

Just a thought, but when the Liverpool to Cardiff service introduced, could this be combined with existing services to form a regular stopping service on the southern section of the Marches line?

it definitely should be - if it happens. It was 1p2h as I recall (other turning at Shrewsbury) - to line up with the Holyhead. But I can't see why it couldn't grow to hourly in time.

Issue is where to send it. If only there was a West Parkway - or maybe an additional platform at Bridgend. And it could support development (sprawl) westwards from the city - similarly this train could call at East Parkway.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Like it! But would a one per hour stopper suffice for this level of development? Surely not. Could the wider network support 2/3/4 tph?

I would begin with 1tph Abergavenny - Newport to start with, and if passenger numbers suffice, then upgrade infrastructure for 1tph+ additional services towards Cardiff.

 

[amahy]

it definitely should be - if it happens. It was 1p2h as I recall (other turning at Shrewsbury) - to line up with the Holyhead. But I can't see why it couldn't grow to hourly in time.

Issue is where to send it. If only there was a West Parkway - or maybe an additional platform at Bridgend. And it could support development (sprawl) westwards from the city - similarly this train could call at East Parkway.

Even if it stayed at 1p2h it would still combine with the Manchester/Holyhead services to form 2tph along the whole Marches line. Perhaps the Manchester service could be an express, and the Holyhead/Liverpool service a stopper, or vice versa? For me, the stopping patterns on Marches seem a little over complicated as things stand, so it might help if there was a 2 tph timetable, where each train has its own stopping pattern every hour. My suggestion would be:

1tph all stops between Shrewsbury and Newport.

1tph Shrewsbury, Ludlow, Hereford, Abergavenny, Cwmbran, Newport.

The stopping service could potentially combine with the Swanline service.

 

[cle]

I always thought a Crewe-Cardiff hourly could mop up more of the smaller calls, and fits into Crewe's bays nicely. Could speed up the Manchester but also the Holyhead/Liverpools below Shrewsbury. And Crewe has many onward connections.

Conversely I don't think terminating at Newport from the Marches is worthwhile, you have to get to Cardiff. I can't imagine the interchange for fast London services is bigger - in the peaks anyway.

 

[Topological]

I always thought a Crewe-Cardiff hourly could mop up more of the smaller calls, and fits into Crewe's bays nicely. Could speed up the Manchester but also the Holyhead/Liverpools below Shrewsbury. And Crewe has many onward connections.

Conversely I don't think terminating at Newport from the Marches is worthwhile, you have to get to Cardiff. I can't imagine the interchange for fast London services is bigger - in the peaks anyway.

Assuming that any 2nd train per hour in hours that only have a single train would go into Cardiff as the current Holyhead does, then it is only a question of whether additional services would get paths.

My thought was that you might squeeze a single extra train, but that if new stations on the Abergavenny to Newport stretch were to get a train every half hour then probably one of them would need to terminate at Newport.

I do not think anyone is proposing any of the longer distance services terminating at Newport.

 

[zwk500]

I always thought a Crewe-Cardiff hourly could mop up more of the smaller calls, and fits into Crewe's bays nicely. Could speed up the Manchester but also the Holyhead/Liverpools below Shrewsbury. And Crewe has many onward connections.

The issues with these is capacity - Especially between Abergavenny and Shrewsbury, where the AB Sections can be very long. If you have alternate slow and fast trains, the slower train must be able to fit in the headway behind the first fast and ahead of the first slow. Given the AB sections this doesn't leave that much room for an all-stopper and a fast, you'd need to spread the calls out a bit between the two trains (although one could still be slower, of course).

Conversely I don't think terminating at Newport from the Marches is worthwhile, you have to get to Cardiff. I can't imagine the interchange for fast London services is bigger - in the peaks anyway.

Terminating at Newport doesn't have the platform capacity available - it's tight enough as it is. Also running through to Cardiff runs into a capacity crunch approaching Cardiff Central, and the platform question there as well. It's possibly doable, but something will likely end up taking a hit.

 

[Meerkat]

The issues with these is capacity - Especially between Abergavenny and Shrewsbury, where the AB Sections can be very long.

My crayoning assumed that resignalling would be done as far as Abergavenny.

 

[Christian Schm]

Not sure why this has been split off? Cardiff - Abergavenny very much is park of the Metro - it is shown as such on TfW maps and WG & TfW have confirmed it (and would surely be happy to do so again if you asked them)

Also, the commitment to a turn-up-and-go service (aka 4 tph) is also to the whole Metro - so including Abergavenny, Chepstow and Pyle. Though more realistic is a separate hourly stopping service to Abergavenny, bringing up to 3tph when the Cardiff-Liverpool service finally starts, and enabling some local stops to be withdrawn on the Manchester train.

 

[Meole]

As this is primarily a Welsh line surely a reduction in the services into England should be undertaken to enable an increase in the timetable for the benefit of commuters to Cardiff, the Metro must be the priority over rural provision for small towns Church Stretton, Craven Arms, Ludlow and Leominster.

 

[Topological]

As this is primarily a Welsh line surely a reduction in the services into England should be undertaken to enable an increase in the timetable for the benefit of commuters to Cardiff, the Metro must be the priority over rural provision for small towns Church Stretton, Craven Arms, Ludlow and Leominster.

That would be fair

Manchester trains can serve all of the stops between Hereford and Shrewsbury (which I say as a regular user) and there are the Holyheads as well. IF Liverpool ever starts then there will be more and maybe the Manchester can be sped up again.

Although Cardiff and Manchester are cities, there seems to be an obsession by some that there should be an Intercity service between the two. The journey will always be quick by train because of how hard it is to drive through the West Midlands on the M5/M6. So there is not too much time sensitivity with the service. I also see the churn at Crewe and other stops along the way and cannot see the service as any different to Liverpool to Norwich, or Cardiff to Nottingham (for example).

Perhaps where the Manchester picks up Pontypool as part of the metro provision, it could skip Craven Arms and Church Stretton, then the opposite pattern skip Pontypool and maybe even another, to serve Craven Arms and Church Stretton? I still think the Manchesters can do all.

 

[Harpo]

Although Cardiff and Manchester are cities, there seems to be an obsession by some that there should be an Intercity service between the two.

Just as some are obsessed with denying it that tag and keeping it rooted in regional mediocrity.

As TfW’s biggest earner, it’s no surprise that it’s the focus for continual improvement and the well established principles of growing traffic through service acceleration.

 

[amahy]

As this is primarily a Welsh line surely a reduction in the services into England should be undertaken to enable an increase in the timetable for the benefit of commuters to Cardiff, the Metro must be the priority over rural provision for small towns Church Stretton, Craven Arms, Ludlow and Leominster.

I completely disagree. The whole section between Shrewsbury and Hereford (more than half the line, and half the stations) is in England. Reducing trains into England would also reduce trains to the city of Hereford, which has a poor train service as is. The same can be said for the towns you mentioned, which would have next to no public transport connections without the railway.

 

[30907]

If there is an issue about terminating at Newport, then how about Abergavenny-Ebbw Vale? Obviously it would be preferable to run through to Cardiff but....

My quick crayoning, no attempt at pathing, would be:
2tph as far as Abergavenny, 1tph continuing all stations to Shrewsbury (Holyhead, Liverpool...).
1tph "fast" to Manchester, calling Hereford-Ludlow-Shrewsbury. (If you still have differential DMU/DL schedules, you can tweak that a bit.)
Should leave room for freight @1tph.

 

[Harpo]

If there is an issue about terminating at Newport, then how about Abergavenny-Ebbw Vale?

TfW had a poster ready for that at Ebbw Vale a while ago. Unlikely to beat the ‘long’ 20 minute drive though!