South Wales 'Metro' updates

Light rail doesn't equal tram, and Tyne and Wear doesn't use trams. Nor is it strictly speaking even light rail! Take all those confusions together and put article in bin.

The imaginative idea probably also overlooks the number of years that the railways would have to close entirely for the conversion to take place. Since Greater Manchester is referred to, you can look to the Rochdale branch for an example of that.

Light Rail on the VoG not really practical - but north of Queen St makes perfect sense. With large no. of stops and short station spacing's LR would provide faster and more frequent services. As the article set out it would also provide the basis of an extendable network. None of this (or for that matter the extension to Hirwaun) is possible with HR due to bottleneck on frequency at Queen St and timetable constraints & perturbation sensitivities.

Solaris said:

Light Rail on the VoG not really practical - but north of Queen St makes perfect sense. With large no. of stops and short station spacing's LR would provide faster and more frequent services. As the article set out it would also provide the basis of an extendable network. None of this (or for that matter the extension to Hirwaun) is possible with HR due to bottleneck on frequency at Queen St and timetable constraints & perturbation sensitivities.

Click to expand...

If you have heavy (normal) rail on VOG Coast Line (Cardiff Central > Penarth > Barry > Rhoose (Airport) > Llantwit Major > Bridgend), you then lose through services between say Penarth/Barry Island & Caerphilly or Treherbert - if Light Rail exists north of Cardiff. So, although most people are heading for central Cardiff, we would still end up with large numbers of people having to change trains at Cardiff Central as we would lose the cross city links that we have now by staying in the same trains. (Just look at the number of people who remain on board these trains as they call at Cardiff Central).

Envoy said:

If you have heavy (normal) rail on VOG Coast Line (Cardiff Central > Penarth > Barry > Rhoose (Airport) > Llantwit Major > Bridgend), you then lose through services between say Penarth/Barry Island & Caerphilly or Treherbert - if Light Rail exists north of Cardiff. So, although most people are heading for central Cardiff, we would still end up with large numbers of people having to change trains at Cardiff Central as we would lose the cross city links that we have now by staying in the same trains. (Just look at the number of people who remain on board these trains as they call at Cardiff Central).

Click to expand...

But how many of them are just going to Queen Street?

Not to say that trams for the Valley Lines are a good idea, but this particular problem could be solved by bringing them off the railway somewhere north of Queen Street to go through the centre and past Central to terminate somewhere in the Bay. Trains from the south would terminate at Queen Street with through passengers interchanging with trams either there or at Central.

edwin_m said:

But how many of them are just going to Queen Street?

Not to say that trams for the Valley Lines are a good idea, but this particular problem could be solved by bringing them off the railway somewhere north of Queen Street to go through the centre and past Central to terminate somewhere in the Bay. Trains from the south would terminate at Queen Street with through passengers interchanging with trams either there or at Central.

Click to expand...

If trams from the valleys were brought down to street level north of Queen Street, they would be running on very congested roads. This would screw up their schedules. Some might argue that you don't need schedules as they would be so frequent. That might well be the case as several valley routes get closer to Cardiff but such high frequencies would surely not be the case in the upper valleys?

As things are now, passengers from the valleys can travel on trains all the way down to Cardiff Queen Street where they can change to the shuttle that takes them to the Bay avoiding all roads. Therefore, a passenger can be reasonably assured that services will run to schedule. (That is not the case with Cardiff Buses). Likewise, they can also travel to Cardiff Central reasonably guaranteed that they will be able to change to desired main line services at a precise time.

If trams were introduced in the valleys, it would surely also mean that all platforms would have to be lowered as I can't see them building high platforms for boarding from streets.
You would also have unsightly wires above the streets and the risk of hitting people.

The only viable light rail route in Cardiff I think would be the Coryton and Cardiff Bay lines with a new north-South crosscity service with anew station on the bay line near to Callaghan Square with the Coryton branch extended to Fforest Farm and the bay line extended on street to other parts of the bay.

Trams could be similar vehicles to those in Manchester

Envoy said:

If trams from the valleys were brought down to street level north of Queen Street, they would be running on very congested roads. This would screw up their schedules. Some might argue that you don't need schedules as they would be so frequent. That might well be the case as several valley routes get closer to Cardiff but such high frequencies would surely not be the case in the upper valleys?

As things are now, passengers from the valleys can travel on trains all the way down to Cardiff Queen Street where they can change to the shuttle that takes them to the Bay avoiding all roads. Therefore, a passenger can be reasonably assured that services will run to schedule. (That is not the case with Cardiff Buses). Likewise, they can also travel to Cardiff Central reasonably guaranteed that they will be able to change to desired main line services at a precise time.

If trams were introduced in the valleys, it would surely also mean that all platforms would have to be lowered as I can't see them building high platforms for boarding from streets.
You would also have unsightly wires above the streets and the risk of hitting people.

Click to expand...

I agree the best form of high-frequency light rail corridor in a city centre is fully or at least mostly segregated from road traffic at least. Sharing space with pedestrians in shopping streets, although fairly safe, limits speed and encourages many passenger stop locations, which is not good for journey time from the Valley extremities. There's not enough road space in Cardiff city centre for easy segregation on the surface so you'd be looking to stop, limit and divert road traffic widely, which could be very unpopular, perhaps politically impossible, or you could put the new light rail corridor above or below the street level at insane cost and nuisance during construction, all whilst a perfectly good fully segregated heavy rail corridor exists nearby.

The potential of tram-train operation should not be thought of as a means for the Valleys trains to run on the streets of Cardiff, rather it is a future opportunity to allow cost-effective branching extensions of the valleys network outside the city or in its suburbs, that in the narrow restrictive valley environment could be constructed with the tighter curves and steeper gradients supported by tram-derived vehicle designs. The designation of such new light branches legally as tramways would also allow the establishment of new level crossings easily and allow running in streetside reservations without the full segregation required for lines designated as heavy rail. All these factors reduce cost and nuisance. The new light branches would have to include high platforms in order that the tram-trains using them could also run on the existing network, or split-level platforms would be required on the shared sections as proposed for Sheffield-Rotherham.

Around Cardiff clearly these branches do not exist now, so there's no need for tram-train vehicle at all in the short and medium term. The point of suggesting them for the branches is that whilst they could run in light rail mode on the new cheap branches they could also join the main line and mix in with other (heavy rail) traffic in the core sections on the approach to and through the city, carrying their branch passengers directly to the centre and increasing overall urban frequency in the core.

Clearly there's no need for such vehicles and their special abilities today, and ordering a fleet of new or refurbished conventional EMUs for the existing valley services does nothing to prevent or hinder acquisition of such a fleet in the future for network expansion and frequency enhancement when the time comes, as by definition the light vehicles would be specified to inter-run with the conventional EMUs, and even any remaining freights.

So, my (hopefully rational) answer is to stick with heavy rail for the imminent rolling stock replacement.

MarkyT said:

The potential of tram-train operation should not be thought of as a means for the Valleys trains to run on the streets of Cardiff, rather it is a future opportunity to allow cost-effective branching extensions of the valleys network outside the city or in its suburbs,



Clearly there's no need for such vehicles and their special abilities today, and ordering a fleet of new or refurbished conventional EMUs for the existing valley services does nothing to prevent or hinder acquisition of such a fleet in the future for network expansion and frequency enhancement when the time comes, as by definition the light vehicles would be specified to inter-run with the conventional EMUs, and even any remaining freights.

So, my (hopefully rational) answer is to stick with heavy rail for the imminent rolling stock replacement.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.

I think we need to consider some commercial realities and value for money considerations. The chances of WG funding a £300-400M heavy rail electrification project on the core valleys are in my view limited, ESP when one considers such a HR approach provides no headroom for new services, stations or network extensions!
For a similar ££ a LR conversion would enable new stations, extensions and a step change in frequency & journey times at lower unit cost and via a less disruptive capital programme.?
The reality maybe dawning - it looks to me like we will have newer/better DMUs or a complete LR conversion....the EMU option is looking very ££/disruptive with limited benefits.

Solaris said:

I think we need to consider some commercial realities and value for money considerations. The chances of WG funding a £300-400M heavy rail electrification project on the core valleys are in my view limited, ESP when one considers such a HR approach provides no headroom for new services, stations or network extensions!
For a similar ££ a LR conversion would enable new stations, extensions and a step change in frequency & journey times at lower unit cost and via a less disruptive capital programme.?
The reality maybe dawning - it looks to me like we will have newer/better DMUs or a complete LR conversion....the EMU option is looking very ££/disruptive with limited benefits.

Click to expand...

Why would LR conversion be cheaper than HR electrification?

Tram infrastructure might be a bit cheaper when built from scratch, but apart from the OLE most of the infrastructure for trains is there already, including much of the signalling that has been replaced recently. Not a big difference between DC and AC OLE particularly as the AC type can also be simplified for lower speed, and doesn't need a substation every few miles which might be difficult to provide on the more rural sections.

The main potential cost saving with trams would probably be avoiding the need to rebuild structures for larger OLE clearances, but Paisley Canal has shown this might not be as bad as people think especially if planning for a captive fleet of units. It is also possible to provide step-free access across the track instead of building ramped footbridges or lifts at stations that don't already have suitable access.

Against this is vehicle cost. Trams have less floor area than trains and achieve their high capacities by carrying lots of standing passengers. This wouldn't work for the journey times on the Valleys, so more or longer trams would be needed and would cost more than trains to buy and operate (trams are more expensive for an equivalent floor area). Perhaps the clincher is that secondhand electric trains could be made available for the first few years service, but there is no obvious source of secondhand trams.

Solaris said:

I think we need to consider some commercial realities and value for money considerations. The chances of WG funding a £300-400M heavy rail electrification project on the core valleys are in my view limited, ESP when one considers such a HR approach provides no headroom for new services, stations or network extensions!
For a similar ££ a LR conversion would enable new stations, extensions and a step change in frequency & journey times at lower unit cost and via a less disruptive capital programme.?
The reality maybe dawning - it looks to me like we will have newer/better DMUs or a complete LR conversion....the EMU option is looking very ££/disruptive with limited benefits.

Click to expand...

LR vehicles are no cheaper per seat than heavy rail possibly more expensive, and heavy rail electrification is a known low-risk solution which in this case should require little alteration to the rest of the railway fabric unlike a comprehensive conversion to dedicated light rail which would involve severing all the connections to the heavy rail network and if a low floor was adopted many alterations to platforms. Conversion could entail long closures of the service whilst changes were carried out and practically the wiring costs for DC or AC should be little different - its not a ahigh speed line after all! Signalling on the valleys network is mostly fairly new, compatible with electrification, and the Cardiff Central and Queen Street station areas should be resignalled by the time electrification arrives.

Without extensive doubling of the single track extremities of all the valleys higher reaches, there is no scope for increasing frequencies as far as the northern termini with light or heavy rail, but either could support more short workings terminating at Pontipridd or Caerphilly. The so-called hard limit of (what was it?) 14TPH through Queen Street is quite frankly a nonsense today when Thameslink plans to run 24TPH with 12-car trains through the central core in London, including the flat junction at Blackfriars, and TfL are aiming for around 30TPH for the complex sub-surface lines resignalling (Circle, District, Met and H&C with all their flat junctions). Note these are all heavy rail whether TfL or National Rail.

MarkyT said:

LR vehicles are no cheaper per seat than heavy rail possibly more expensive, and heavy rail electrification is a known low-risk solution which in this case should require little alteration to the rest of the railway fabric unlike a comprehensive conversion to dedicated light rail which would involve severing all the connections to the heavy rail network and if a low floor was adopted many alterations to platforms. Conversion could entail long closures of the service whilst changes were carried out and practically the wiring costs for DC or AC should be little different - its not a ahigh speed line after all! Signalling on the valleys network is mostly fairly new, compatible with electrification, and the Cardiff Central and Queen Street station areas should be resignalled by the time electrification arrives.

Without extensive doubling of the single track extremities of all the valleys higher reaches, there is no scope for increasing frequencies as far as the northern termini with light or heavy rail, but either could support more short workings terminating at Pontipridd or Caerphilly. The so-called hard limit of (what was it?) 14TPH through Queen Street is quite frankly a nonsense today when Thameslink plans to run 24TPH with 12-car trains through the central core in London, including the flat junction at Blackfriars, and TfL are aiming for around 30TPH for the complex sub-surface lines resignalling (Circle, District, Met and H&C with all their flat junctions). Note these are all heavy rail whether TfL or National Rail.

Click to expand...

Track doubling or more likely additional passing loops easier and less expensive for LR than HR. Disruption/costs of 25Kv electrification. (ESP civils) really make this a tough call Vs the immediate extra transport benefits of LR for probably same capital cost without the disruption...

The current HR pathway constraint at the network core is real.... sure it could be fixed but would require a significant capital investment. LR would not need this as 24tph is easy to accommodate in LR terms.

As article pointed out the Manchester model (so a high floor system) would be easier to accommodate on the existing network

We'll just have to agree to disagree...

Solaris said:

The current HR pathway constraint at the network core is real.... sure it could be fixed but would require a significant capital investment. LR would not need this as 24tph is easy to accommodate in LR terms.

Click to expand...

Can you explain to me the nature of the core capacity restriction because as an (albeit currently not practicing) signal engineer it makes no sense to me. 15TPH is a four-minute headway. That is ridiculous, especially with short four car trains and with little interaction with other services. Usually with high capacity urban corridors the dominating factor in headway is platfrom reoccupation rather than signal block length. Again with short 4-car trains loading time should not be a major factor so what is this four-minute headway built up from? If additional work (additional signals etc) is required in the core over say a two mile stretch, surely that is cheaper than widespread work across the whole network. If you're saying buy tram derived vehicles now working on lower voltage DC rather than AC but otherwise running on existing HR infrastructure as tram trains, which perhaps could be converted to LR starting out at the extremities over a long programme that's another viable strategy, but I would suggest that additional simple high platfrom passing loop stations will be a similar cost whether HR or LR, and even if drive on sight is the rule elsewhere you still need a signalling system of some sort for single line block control. The savings for LR come from avoiding huge ramped footbridges or lifts and the like for DDA access becasue new level crossingsa are permitted. A big bang approach would be hugely dispruptive. A phased conversion could work, but then the tram-trains (they would have to be such dual mode vehicles) when first introduced would essentially be operating as conventional trains only over the existing network with any existing restriction still applying.

MarkyT said:

Can you explain to me the nature of the core capacity restriction because as an (albeit currently not practicing) signal engineer it makes no sense to me. 15TPH is a four-minute headway. That is ridiculous, especially with short four car trains and with little interaction with other services. Usually with high capacity urban corridors the dominating factor in headway is platfrom reoccupation rather than signal block length. Again with short 4-car trains loading time should not be a major factor so what is this four-minute headway built up from? If additional work (additional signals etc) is required in the core over say a two mile stretch, surely that is cheaper than widespread work across the whole network. If you're saying buy tram derived vehicles now working on lower voltage DC rather than AC but otherwise running on existing HR infrastructure as tram trains, which perhaps could be converted to LR starting out at the extremities over a long programme that's another viable strategy, but I would suggest that additional simple high platfrom passing loop stations will be a similar cost whether HR or LR, and even if drive on sight is the rule elsewhere you still need a signalling system of some sort for single line block control. The savings for LR come from avoiding huge ramped footbridges or lifts and the like for DDA access becasue new level crossingsa are permitted. A big bang approach would be hugely dispruptive. A phased conversion could work, but then the tram-trains (they would have to be such dual mode vehicles) when first introduced would essentially be operating as conventional trains only over the existing network with any existing restriction still applying.

Click to expand...

I'm no signalling expert but from those who have informed me from the HR and LR industry and with local knowledge key issues are:
- Whole network frequency is constrained primarily by Queen St north to Cardiff West.
- However this is exacerbate by limits on frequency on VoG and
flat junctions across the network (Cardiff West, Radyr, etc)
- The combined impact of these constrains timetable/diagram planning.
- Reliability concerns and PPM regime, then limits operational capacity through core to perhaps 14/15tph post CASR (even though CASR was designed for 16tph)
-This is before one tries to accommodate additional stations (eg Gabalfa or Crwys rd) and extension to Hirwaun - which would be difficult to accommodate on current HR network.

NR proposals in route plan for future suggest "grade separation" to provide additional frequency/capacity.
So yes HR could deliver more - but its seems a major capital programme would be required in addition to the electrification planned.

The capital cost of a whole LR conversion north of Queen St (750v and standard LR vehicle's like in Manchester) is broadly similar to HR electrification and delivers major frequency & capacity benefits (and which could easily accommodate Hirwaun extension and additional network stations) - and the basis of an affordable extendable network. Yes it would be challenging and disruptive.....but if we want a step change we need a transformative project.

Solaris said:

I'm no signalling expert but from those who have informed me from the HR and LR industry and with local knowledge key issues are:
- Whole network frequency is constrained primarily by Queen St north to Cardiff West.
- However this is exacerbate by limits on frequency on VoG and
flat junctions across the network (Cardiff West, Radyr, etc)
- The combined impact of these constrains timetable/diagram planning.
- Reliability concerns and PPM regime, then limits operational capacity through core to perhaps 14/15tph post CASR (even though CASR was designed for 16tph)
-This is before one tries to accommodate additional stations (eg Gabalfa or Crwys rd) and extension to Hirwaun - which would be difficult to accommodate on current HR network.

NR proposals in route plan for future suggest "grade separation" to provide additional frequency/capacity.
So yes HR could deliver more - but its seems a major capital programme would be required in addition to the electrification planned.

The capital cost of a whole LR conversion north of Queen St (750v and standard LR vehicle's like in Manchester) is broadly similar to HR electrification and delivers major frequency & capacity benefits (and which could easily accommodate Hirwaun extension and additional network stations) - and the basis of an affordable extendable network. Yes it would be challenging and disruptive.....but if we want a step change we need a transformative project.

Click to expand...

A twin M5000 LR consist on Manchester Metrolink is about the same length as a 3-car train formed of 20m HR vehicles. If the key concern is conflict at the flat junctions, then the light rail alternative will thus make no difference as light rail vehicles can't magically pass through each other. Grade separation of some junctions could be cheaper with LR however, as steeper gradients and tighter curves might be utilised.

I would expect the Hirwaun trains to be the existing Aberdare trains extended so whilst additional vehicles will be required to keep the current frequency with the extra running time, no extra paths would be required in the city core. Also trains may need to be lengthened to meet increased demand.

To be clear I'm not against LR derived vehicles, but with the network as it is they would have to be tram-trains capable of mixing with other heavy rail traffic on sections such as the VOG. To provide a viable diversionary route for GWR Swansea expresses the VOG would also have to be 25kV electrified which means the tram-trains would have to be AC capable as well as DC.

MarkyT said:

If the key concern is conflict at the flat junctions, then the light rail alternative will thus make no difference as light rail vehicles can't magically pass through each other. Grade separation of some junctions could be cheaper with LR however, as steeper gradients and tighter curves might be utilised.

Click to expand...

There is some benefit with LR at flat junctions. The protecting signals can be put close to the junction without the need for overlaps, and the vehicles have better acceleration and braking so the time penalty if they have to slow for the junction is much less. However LR junctions are generally subject to more severe speed restriction so the journey time might be extended somewhat on a route with several of them.

Solaris said:

This from Minister's statement at end of June...

http://www.assembly.wales/en/bus-home/pages/rop.aspx?MeetingID=3175&language=en#230684

and this re NTP, Metro and work I/P

http://gov.wales/topics/transport/planning-strategies/ntp/?lang=en

Click to expand...

The second link gives the opportunity to read the National Transport Finance Plan 2015, an interesting document which gives some detail about the costs of individual plans and information about timescales.

I've re-read this over the weekend, in particular the rail and Metro proposals. Recent announcements have quoted the cost of Metro Phase 2 as being £500-600 million and the Rhymney and Taff groupings (CCRM10 and 10e)are the only lines that have electrification listed as improvements against them and costed at around £200m apiece, curiously not mentioning Penarth and Barry, unless I've missed it. These costings seem rather modest if a step change to light rail is being looked for by Welsh Government, when compared with Edinburgh and Nottingham, and others.

Ebbw Vale proposals include the further doubling work between Rogerstone and Pye Corner and also Abertillery and additional stations, and Maesteg a proposal for a passing loop between Tondu and Garth, which I thought had been proposed before. Nowhere is there mention of electrication of these lines or the Vale of Glamorgan, so presumably these are less of a priority and now in later phases. Understandable to delay wiring if they continue to add extra track infrastructure, but there would be considerable implications arising from not releasing Class 150s even if the Pacers can be dispensed with!

RP said:

The second link gives the opportunity to read the National Transport Finance Plan 2015, an interesting document which gives some detail about the costs of individual plans and information about timescales.

I've re-read this over the weekend, in particular the rail and Metro proposals. Recent announcements have quoted the cost of Metro Phase 2 as being £500-600 million and the Rhymney and Taff groupings (CCRM10 and 10e)are the only lines that have electrification listed as improvements against them and costed at around £200m apiece, curiously not mentioning Penarth and Barry, unless I've missed it. These costings seem rather modest if a step change to light rail is being looked for by Welsh Government, when compared with Edinburgh and Nottingham, and others.

Ebbw Vale proposals include the further doubling work between Rogerstone and Pye Corner and also Abertillery and additional stations, and Maesteg a proposal for a passing loop between Tondu and Garth, which I thought had been proposed before. Nowhere is there mention of electrication of these lines or the Vale of Glamorgan, so presumably these are less of a priority and now in later phases. Understandable to delay wiring if they continue to add extra track infrastructure, but there would be considerable implications arising from not releasing Class 150s even if the Pacers can be dispensed with!

Click to expand...

That Transport Plan was a clear as mud. It was just the same re-hashed vagueness that the government have to put out every year. Perhaps they can't announce these schemes due to corporate reasons - who knows

RP said:

The second link gives the opportunity to read the National Transport Finance Plan 2015, an interesting document which gives some detail about the costs of individual plans and information about timescales.

I've re-read this over the weekend, in particular the rail and Metro proposals. Recent announcements have quoted the cost of Metro Phase 2 as being £500-600 million and the Rhymney and Taff groupings (CCRM10 and 10e)are the only lines that have electrification listed as improvements against them and costed at around £200m apiece, curiously not mentioning Penarth and Barry, unless I've missed it. These costings seem rather modest if a step change to light rail is being looked for by Welsh Government, when compared with Edinburgh and Nottingham, and others.

Ebbw Vale proposals include the further doubling work between Rogerstone and Pye Corner and also Abertillery and additional stations, and Maesteg a proposal for a passing loop between Tondu and Garth, which I thought had been proposed before. Nowhere is there mention of electrication of these lines or the Vale of Glamorgan, so presumably these are less of a priority and now in later phases. Understandable to delay wiring if they continue to add extra track infrastructure, but there would be considerable implications arising from not releasing Class 150s even if the Pacers can be dispensed with!

Click to expand...

Larger capital costs for Nottingham and Edinburgh LR primarily due to new sections/build. If just existing lines converted to LR (at least at the outset)then capital costs fall dramatically... so core valley figures make sense...

Solaris said:

Larger capital costs for Nottingham and Edinburgh LR primarily due to new sections/build. If just existing lines converted to LR (at least at the outset)then capital costs fall dramatically... so core valley figures make sense...

Click to expand...

You could employ the existing track and station layout in entirety but might (eventually) replace signalling with something 'LRT-based' that could move protecting signals in closer to junctions as edwin_m pointed out and employ drive-on-sight or something similar along plain line sections between stations.

To get desirable frequencies and retain speed safely in the core however I think even with light rail vehicles you'd need some sort of ATP in the plain line sections between stations, and that could be provided by ETCS signalling overlay as on Thameslink.

Docklands is a fast urban system based on LRT vehicles, but to maintain the required pace and capacity it needs its Seltrac control system regardless of the 'driverless' feature. Even with 'drivers' at the front pushing the go button, the system would still need the ATO/ATP features..

With short high-performance trains, an ETCS/ATO overlay should be able to approach the capacity achieved by Seltrac on DLR and Tubes, in excess of the 24TPH already planned for Thameslink. In Cardiff, those trains could be HR or LR derived, as there's nowhere outside the high-density core that isn't HR today.

HR trains are getting lighter anyway, and more sprightly. There's a measure of technical convergence with LR, especially in the low-floor European local line sector. Not the same car-body shells, but a lot of common ideas and components being employed.

The valleys network could buy new high-performance trains that were. like earlier T&W Metrocars, based on LRT vehicles. They could be specified, from the outset capable of inter-running with HR traffic (under some conditions such as full train protection 'both-ways') and have dual-power capability for running on the VOG if that was equipped with AC. The big question is how would that compare to a nominally HR but also high-performance modern emu and full AC electrification. A Thameslink style high-density corridor approach could be employed to enhance the core capacity for either. Ordering conventional now need not prejudice future fleets of interunning tram-trains for future light branches, and the high-density control system in the core would be able to host those extra through services from the new branches. In the interim perhaps some of those extra paths could be filled with additional 'short' HR workings within the double track core e.g. Pontypridd-Caerphilly.

I'm surprised at the push towards a light rail solution, rather than an "S-Bahn" type solution. Surely Cardiff is more suited to it and it requires less expensive conversion. Especially if the S-Bahn is more Rhein/Ruhr/Sieg type, where it runs as more of a main line service and interfaces somewhat with the local Regio and IC trains.

Is the "push to a light rail solution" coming from anywhere other than this forum and a column by Ian Walmsley a year or so back? I was under the impression the policy was for heavy rail electrification of the existing routes along with possibly some form of light rail for routes that don't have a rail link today.

Rhondda Cynon Taff council doing a study into what looks like both options from Beddau/Llantrisant:

http://www.rctcbc.gov.uk/en/transpo...proposedcardiffcapitalregionmetronetwork.aspx

As part of the Metro project, a study is being commissioned to explore the options for developing a rapid transit corridor that will link the rapidly expanding communities of South East Rhondda Cynon Taf (such as Talbot Green and Llantrisant) with the centre of Cardiff. Under its terms of reference, this study will examine the operational and technical feasibility of reinstating a passenger rail service along the disused line between Pontyclun and Beddau as well as the construction of a light rail (tram) route using an alternative alignment through North West Cardiff

Click to expand...

http://gov.wales/topics/transport/public/metro/?lang=en

Metro is a new transport system that will transform the way we travel around the Cardiff Capital Region. It will provide faster, more frequent and joined-up services using trains, buses and light rail.

High frequency

Metro will run at least four services an hour across the whole network when needed and even more on busy sections. This gives a 'turn up and go' experience for passengers using vehicles designed for speed and capacity.

Integration

Metro combines heavy rail, light rail and buses to deliver a seamless network. With just one ticket, people will be able to move quickly and easily across the region...

Click to expand...

In the Railway Gazette report on this, the following paragraph is quoted which I can't find in the WG info: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/.../south-wales-metro-consultation-to-begin.html

In its ‘Rolling Out Our Metro’ document published as part of the consultation, the Welsh Government says that some potential options ‘may be better value, and deliver better outcomes, than the original concept for Valley Lines electrification’

Click to expand...

It doesn't suggest they are ready to start work on Valley Lines electrification anytime soon.

LNW-GW Joint said:

In the Railway Gazette report on this, the following paragraph is quoted which I can't find in the WG info: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/.../south-wales-metro-consultation-to-begin.html



It doesn't suggest they are ready to start work on Valley Lines electrification anytime soon.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. On the other hand it may mean they will spend the cash on reopening lines or better bus links.

Sion Barry, Business Editor at Media Wales (Western Mail & South Wales Echo), has just published an article on the Metro.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/south-wales-metro-explained-new-10526272

I note that it suggests trams for the valleys north of Cardiff but standard electrification for the Vale Coastal route (Cardiff > Barry/Penarth > Rhoose > Llantwit Major > Bridgend). That being so, we lose the present convenience of through journeys from the valleys to Barry & Penarth.

Wonder who the bright spark was who came up with the ridiculous rabbit logo?
What will happen to all the Valley Line Train drivers? Will they become Tram drivers on lower pay?

QUOTE: "The Vale of Glamorgan Line, which requires heavy freight with Barry Docks and the fact that the part of the line doubles up as the Great Western Mainline from South Wales to London, could also adopt electrified trains".

Envoy said:

Wonder who the bright spark was who came up with the ridiculous rabbit logo?

Click to expand...

Looks like a hare to me.

Call me a cynic if you will but a lot of this is still wild speculation. The First Minister’s Statement last week didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know.

The ‘Metro Stage 1’ is frankly a load of bulls**t. The Welsh Government are talking up the success of the extension of Ebbw Vale Town Centre as though it's part of the Metro when frankly the 4-5 extra miles of single track is something which frankly should have been done back in 2006/7 or whenever the line reopened.

The WG likes talking up it's investment in rail in Wales, which has done a lot of good things, but their utter failure to address the rolling stock issue, which is going to come to ahead in four years and three weeks time is truly shocking.

I’m also becoming increasingly irritated by the presence of that map both in documents produced by/for the WG and in the media. The map on that article is different to the one issued by the WG last week – this one doesn’t include Monmouth the one issued by the WG does. But even the WG’s one carries the warning that it is a ‘potential map’ and I fear too many members of the public will get carried away by the idea of a new rail/tram station in Monmouth in the east and Porthcawl to single another one out in the west if they keep seeing London Underground style maps.

In terms of Monmouth, the First Minister was asked a direct question about it:


The First Minister who is coincidently the AM for Bridgend, which includes Brackla has previously confirmed that the WG has no plans to open a railway station in Brackla, despite a turf cutting ceremony for said station back in 2002, yet low and behold it appears on the map on what is clearly a railway line from Bridgend to Cardiff.

The Map also gives the impression of a non-stop service of some sort from Porthcawl to Bridgend – is that really ever likely to happen?

Oh and as for the livery design – that won’t be official yet, just something a designer has had saved on their computer for a while, or drew at the last minute, but again, the wild speculation of people here, the public and the media will again get us nowhere closer to the project.

Sorry rant over

PaulHarding150 said:

The WG likes talking up it's investment in rail in Wales, which has done a lot of good things, but their utter failure to address the rolling stock issue, which is going to come to ahead in four years and three weeks time is truly shocking.

Click to expand...

Well with the new Northern franchise having been awarded to Arriva and strictly ruling out Pacers and it looks like D-trains as well, what are the chances of the Valley lines getting a load of worn-out, tired, only good enough for scrap Pacers and souped up D-trains dumped on them in 4 years time? Arriva Northern have said that they'll be eliminating their Pacers by 2019, if Porterbrook intend to refubish the 144s for the Valley lines they'll need to be released in 2018 at the latest.
Right now, it seems the best the Valley lines can hope for is to desperately get hold of any 150/1s and maybe 150/2s that GWR or Northern might release, which is a dire situation.

It's only 5 months to go until the Assembly elections and there are no signals as yet from any of the political parties in Wales that anyone wants to make the rolling stock on the Valley lines and indeed the chronic shortage of stock elsewhere in Wales a political issue. There's more fighting going on between the parties over the M4 relief road and stupid, child like mud-slinging from Andrew RT Davies in the Assembly chamber at Carwyn Jones over the bleeding NHS!

I believe firmly in devolution, but on rail all parties in the Assembly are desperately letting Wales down. It's a disgrace.