Yeah, I don't think it went to Coryton either - that doesn't bode well.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
South Wales 'Metro' updates
- Thread starter Envoy
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
If there is any doubt about EMI affecting signalling would trains have to run under a possession? (Which the current test trains presumably aren't)
The fact that the current test trains don't seem to be entering the Coryton branch isn't very encouraging in that respect.
What to expect from the £1bn ‘Welsh Tube’ set to open this year
Trains on the South Wales Metro will run every five minutes between Pontypridd and Cardiff
Interesting that it seems Sundays aren't getting the 4 tph service. I was under the impression that the original plan included that.
Yeah, the last I heard (see this post) the Sunday service varied a bit from line to line. Quoting what I wrote based on the consultation document from August last year - "Sunday service reductions are variable, with Treherbert (for example) receiving 28 trains/day on a Sunday as against 35 trains/day, but some branches (e.g. Penarth) get a 50% reduction in service on a Sunday (i.e. 2 tph rather than 4)."
I also discovered in the TfW Board minutes that they were keen (back in November/December 2024) to look at ways of introducing 4tph (presumably on weekdays and Saturdays) on the TAM lines given that the 398s and Cardiff Bay line aren't ready yet. The December minutes (which are the most recent published online) talk about "plans to further develop the concept of 4tph on TAM via a shuttle service", which might mean a Merthyr-Abercynon-Aberdare service that's timed to meet a train going into Cardiff at Abercynon, and a similar Treherbert-Pontypridd service?
Here’s a couple of pictures at Butetown today. Electrical equipment for feeding the overhead wires has gone in, as have tensioner reels.
Attachments
Last edited:
Realtimetrains is now showing test trains to Coryton in the early hours of Saturday morning.
We will see...
A couple of other Cardiff Bay branch updates - I think that some more cantilever arms have gone up at the south end of Butetown, and there were a whole gang of orange-clad workers on the track around the Cart Road Bridge (former canal bridge, now a cycle and footpath). One was using a total station, so clearly either laying something out or checking the position of something. The posession of the Bay branch ends tomorrow, and then there's a day closure on Sat 26th, followed by a two-week closure from May 10th - May 25th, which might well include the track slew to the new second platform because there's a consultation document out suggesting this will happen after 11th May.
tigermonstera
Member
Ah, that makes sense! I'd seen the L-shaped concrete mouldings stockpiled and wondered what they were for.
The test trains definitely ran (756106 was the test unit - a 4-car), but there's no real-time reporting for stations on the Coryton branch during the tests.
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:V12506/2025-04-19/detailed#allox_id=0 and https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:V12504/2025-04-19/detailed#allox_id=0 were the two services booked to visit Coryton.
However, the timings at Heath Junction suggest that the trains probably did go to Coryton and back, as if they had skipped Coryton for some reason they're unlikely to have sat on the main line for 20 minutes.
I do wonder if this is to do with how the data feeds work - certainly on the Penarth branch (which is a similar one-train-only rule branch) it's noticeable that the timings at Dingle Road are created by a timing rule (i.e. "trains call at Dingle Rd x minutes after leaving Cogan Junction or y minutes after leaving Penarth") rather than by real data, as there's no train detection to confirm that the train has passed. If Coryton's the same, then perhaps no "real time" feed gets created for a train that's not in passenger service in the middle of the night.
Last edited:
bradleyd
Member
I've read one one of the local Facebook groups (valley times) that they've started testing the tram trains recently, anybody know anything else, like when they may be doing so, locations to see etc?
Chris125
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Nov 2009
- Messages
- 3,150
South Wales Metro Updates twitter feed has videos of a 756 on the Coryton Line.
Yes - have a look at the 398 thread (avoiding the endless argument about toilets...) - and generally you can find the planned test runs by searching for anything leaving Taff's Well Depot on Realtimetrains. The next planned run is on Monday (to both Treherbert and Aberdare) but there's no guarantee that they actually run.
Better late than never, eh?
(Edited to add response that didn't get posted earlier somehow)
Yes [as also explained below] the Coryton branch only gets automatic timings at stations if the train has GPS.
A manual (e.g. TRUST SDR) entry is also sometimes added for Coryton, and has indeed happened in this case now.
Of course such an entry isn't definitive and the timings are clearly wrong (it claims under 3 minutes from Heath Junction to Coryton which is too short even though the train didn't stop at the intermediate stations)
I don't know how these manual entries work but normally when they do this the departure time from Coryton seems to just be based on the same delay as arrival at Heath Jn (as is the case here).
Last edited:
The data at Dingle Road in the direction of Cardiff is accurate, as there a report triggered when a train departs Penarth. The opposite direction there is just one report on entering the branch.
Similarly on the Coryton branch, the data for Heath Low Level is accurate for trains in the direction of Cardiff. There is a report triggered shortly before trains arrival at Heath. However in the opposite direction, there is just one report on entering the branch.
On the Coryton branch you also get GPS reports for trains appropriately fitted, however you won't get these reports for a train like this as the trains are not timed at the intermediate stations, they are just infilled by RTT.
Possibly getting a bit off topic here, but Heath Low Level only seems to get a measured time on RTT in either direction if the train has GPS reporting.
You're right, the report exists in the data, I forgot RTT doesn't do anything with it currently. It will do in the future.
chargesmith
Member
Does anyone know when Ynyswen station is re-opening?
"Autumn 2025", according to this webpage https://tfw.wales/projects/metro/south-wales-metro/treherbert-line-transformation
Quick update on the Bay branchline - several more cantilevers have gone up to support the overhead wires, and there's a single track mast that now has its its registration arm fitted. Groundworks are continuing for the second platform at Butetown - there's no structure built up above the foundations yet.
Last edited:
Tomos y Tanc
Member
- Joined
- 1 Jul 2019
- Messages
- 737
At the risk of going off topic, should it reopen?
The number of stations on the Treherbert line compared to the Aberdare and Merthyr lines is very noticeable. It seems TfW has taken the view that places that already have stations should retain them rather than questioning why a settlement within easy walking distance of two othe stations should retain a service while similar settlements in the Taf and Cynon valleys have never had a service. Politics, one suspects.
I see the WalesOnline story posted earlier claims that Llwynypia will be getting toilets...
I assume that's a mistake, given that Tonypandy and Llwynypia are next to each other? Although there has been activity for some time at Llwynypia station with blue barriers (water?) - I'm not sure what they're doing.
I assume that's a mistake, given that Tonypandy and Llwynypia are next to each other? Although there has been activity for some time at Llwynypia station with blue barriers (water?) - I'm not sure what they're doing.
Wouldn't make much sense to add toilets to both and only Tonypandy shows as getting them according to the last electrification document (from Dec 2023).
I think if anything it probably shows that the other lines could do with additional stations.
It seems the electrification limit is immediately north of the station, presumably just before the crossrail crossovers.
It'll be interesting to see how much active/passive provision for phase 1 crossrail is included in these works.
If it was fine for years for a diesel heavy rail system, then closing it once they introduce an electrified tram-train metro system would be a bit backwards. We'll imagine they've not spent presumably a lot of money adding a second platform. Metro systems often have smaller gaps between stations because the increased acceleration and relatively low top speed makes them less costly in terms of timings. Coryton is another example of quite short gaps between stations.
I think if anything it probably shows that the other lines could do with additional stations.
Was surprised going along recently how fast the masts etc seem to be going up. Perhaps the tram ponty - bay service they planned is still in the works after all.
It seems the electrification limit is immediately north of the station, presumably just before the crossrail crossovers.
It'll be interesting to see how much active/passive provision for phase 1 crossrail is included in these works.
The masts themselves are designed to be very quick to erect - it's all the groundwork that has taken the time, especially after local residents objected to the noise of the piling rigs in the evening.
As far as I can tell, the only visible provisions for Crossrail phase 1are:
- space has been left for a third track and platform at Cardiff Bay, and twin-track cantilevers have been used to reach across the space where the third track will go in order to hang the overhead wires for platform 2.
- the embankment opposite the Salvation Army building on Bute St has been replaced with a retaining wall. This is where the line to/from Callaghan Square will be on a ramp alongside the existing line, so it's likely that the retaining wall will eventually be the edge of the ramp.
Oh, one other thing that occurred to me on timings - there's likely to have to be some kind of transition of the Bay line to line-of-sight operation and a consequent load of driver training. But that training can't happen until the infra is finished so that the drivers can learn on it.
So I expect that what'll happen is that the Bay line will go through a staged transition and the line will remain fenced off from the general public (i.e. continuing to act as a "railway" rather than a "tramway") whilst the 398s are introduced. That'll allow for the 398s to be used for training alongside the existing diesel stock until all the trackwork and signalling is finished and all the drivers are trained, and only at that point will the fences come down and the line formally transition to tramway line-of-sight operation.
Anyway, the upshot of all that is that they will want to finish the electrification sooner rather than later so as to be able to begin driver training with the 398s.
Last edited:
Last Hurrah
Member
Passing Aber station just beyond Caerphilly, it’s noticeable a number of Electrification masts & Cantilevers are already in place
What would the alternative be? Keeping it operable just with no trains on it?
Either that or have it formally closed. But given the Welsh Government aspires to convert it to passenger use, having it temporarily closed is probably the best approach.
Presumably a line that is “temporarily closed” retains all its “grandfather rights” whereas reopening a closed line would have to be to more exacting modern standards.
Tomos y Tanc
Member
- Joined
- 1 Jul 2019
- Messages
- 737
I think that's probably right although I suspect that when and if the line to Hirwaun or beyond that, to the Tower Colliery site reopens, it will operate under tram rather than heavy rail regulations.
But there will presumably be fewer opportunities for objections
Yes, and a long-closed line generally ends up being completely rebuilt anyway - it's extremely unlikely that the existing track will be in any fit state to be used by the time they come to run trams on it. Closing a line formally involves revoking the Act of Parliament that built it, which then discharges all the legal rights that the railway currently has over that land, so the railway authorities prefer not to do that if they expect to reuse it as a railway. It's been interesting seeing how the plans for the second platform at Penarth have been justified (without planning permission) because the original Act of Parliament grants the railway company (and Network Rail as their legal successor) the right to build structures within a certain distance of the intended route.