From what I've read previously, extending platform zero is likely to be a major project. It was suggested that the scheduled front of the station and clock tower would have to be jacked up and moved forward into the square to allow this to happen, which sounds pretty expensive.
I think that was only one of the options under consideration. My fear is that the likely outcome is that the booking hall, with the clock on top, would be demolished leaving just the front wall (with the 'GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY' along it) standing (the clock appeared to be gone on one version of the earlier proposals).
One of the original reasons for extending platform 0 was said to be to allow GWR's London service to use it. But if that's true, what's the logic behind proposing to provide one entrance for platforms 1 and 2, and another for the rest. If your going to split entrances, wouldn't a split between Platforms 0 - 5 and 6 - 8 be more logical?.
Judging from the pictures that went with the article, I think it's to reduce traffic through the subways by building new stairs from platforms 1&2 directly into the space that is currently the booking hall (a bit like a larger version of the stairs from 6&7 into the newish south-side concourse building). Building a new entrance for platforms 3&4 is rather more difficult, I assume.
Whilst "doing a Reading" would be better in the longer term, I get the impression this will be just a few minor tweaks to the existing structure.
I think 'doing a Reading' is what Network Rail wanted; the earlier artist's impressions had a Reading-style transfer deck and all the platform buildings and canopies would have gone. Fortunately they didn't get enough money for that.
Is the old bay platform 5 at the West of 3/4 being brought back into use?
I was thinking about this Saturday night, there is very little that could make efficient use of it, combined with moves in and out locking up the already tight West Junction I don’t think it’s worth it.
The talk of 'West Wales Parkway' suggests that the idea of faster services to Carmarthen, missing out Swansea, could be on the cards. That would be 1tph (at least) from the west and is likely to terminate at Cardiff Central since the logical eastwards extensions (Nottingham and Portsmouth) are operated by other TOCs.
PS. Is the station listed? if it is, then I would feel wales is stuck with what they have now.
Yes Cardiff Central is listed. I think even the platform canopies may be listed but NR seemed to have made changes to them for the electrification masts no problem, so I'm not sure.
All the platforms currently are through platforms so I'm not sure what you mean when you say all the through platforms would be removed.
The whole station, apart from platforms 0 and 8, is listed according to
this listing description (not sure if it's official, but Network Rail certainly put in an application for Listed Building Concent for the OHLE). It is interesting to note the 'reasons for listing' section near the bottom of the page:
"Listed as most complete example of GWR major city railway station of the period following the regrouping of the railway system." Thus, the whole is very much important; it's not listed because of a specific special feature but because the platform buildings, canopies, booking hall, subway tiles etc. all combine to create a structure that was considered worthy of listing.
Any demolition is therefore a serious matter, sympathetic additions perhaps less so.
It's not only the stone frontage that's listed – the booking hall and subways are too I think. And deservedly so! I really like Cardiff Central booking hall and would be very disappointed to see it go. The problem is that the line to Platform 0 is directly behind it (ie. the line runs just above the ticket office in the picture here).
I agree completely. I think Cardiff Central is architecturally my favoriate station in Wales since the demolition of the original building at Fishguard & Goodwick; that booking hall ceiling (and the lights), the platform numbers on the tiles in the main subway, the platform canopies and the platform buildings themselves (very similar to part of Bristol Temple Meads) are all wonderful and should be preserved.
The booking hall is rather splendid in its design, a huge shame if it was lost.
You could extend platform zero towards the east by about another two or three cars (making it more or less a IEP length platform by closing the current steps/lift from the ticket hall to a new external access outside M&S.
Even if you didn’t make it a full IEP length platform you could at least make it a good 7/8 car (DMU) length one by doing the above.
Sadly Network Rail want it to be an IEP-length platform. Using Google Earth I estimate that by cutting off access to the car park you could extend it to 127m (by extending eastwards) or 183m (by extending in both directions). If you had an alternative access you could extend another 12 or so metres (the length of the ramp) eastwards right up to the booking hall wall for a total of 195m, nominally enough for an 8-car class 158 lashup (8x23m) or 9-car class 150 formation (9x20m) but still far short of the 234m (9x26m) necessary to get an IEP in there, let alone a pair of 'sardine midget' class 800s at 260m (10x26m). That said, if you keep the 800s the right way round (first class at the London end) you could put the class 800 stop board beyond the east end of the platform so the train stops with the kitchen off the platform. Most of the passenger doors on a 9-car set would then be platformed; they do have SDO don't they? Obviously you wouldn't want to plan to use SDO at CDF on a regular basis, but if something broke down in platform 1 it could be a fallback.
There’s no operational need for Zero to be used for Paddington services, it’ll come in handy if/when the Ebbw line service increase happens.
The problem, if I recall correctly from the route study, is that Network Rail intend to put 4tph on the releif lines east of Cardiff and for these releif line services to take over platform 3. That means all services using the mains having to go through platforms 0-2 at CDF, with NR intending to use platform 2 for most westbound services and 0 for most eastbound services, with platform 1 as an overflow for either direction.
I think Ebbw Vale services were on the list to move to the releif lines, though I can't make sense of that as they'd have a conflicting move across the mains to get to the Ebbw branch anyway.
)
