Carmarthen to Aberystwyth Reopening?

[ChiefPlanner]

Well, maybe that could still happen. But even with regional and rural funds, is this the best incremental spend on public transport in Wales (or even West Wales)?

The golden age of EU funding has long gone east - Ireland did extremely well (far west rail upgrades to Westport etc) , then Spain and Portugal got a share - now the emphasis is towards the eastern boundaries.

We in the UK tried for a dollop of cash for London - Holyhead - a trans - European strategic corridor for Eire , and got a trifling sum - hardly enough to pay for one interlocking somewhere.....

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Just a thought - the Valleys line upgrade is around £750 million for a catchment area of something like a a half million + population - serving just a few major centers of economic activity / governance / education etc etc.

Compare and contrast ?

 

[Bald Rick]

Just a thought - the Valleys line upgrade is around £750 million for a catchment area of something like a a half million + population - serving just a few major centers of economic activity / governance / education etc etc.

Compare and contrast ?

Exactly!

given that the total population between Aber and Carmarthen (as stated in the report) is around 8,000 people, you could give each of them £100k and still be better off!

 

[Altfish]

Exactly!

given that the total population between Aber and Carmarthen (as stated in the report) is around 8,000 people, you could give each of them £100k and still be better off!

But that's like trying to say the £14.8bn cost of Crossrail only benefits those who live between Paddington and Liverpool Street.

 

[Bald Rick]

As to the issue of level crossings, while I wholeheartedly agree with the general network policy to reduce the number of these wherever possible, especially on fast heavy traffic railways, I think new examples should be allowed where demonstrated adequately safe on more minor routes under certain circumstances, specifically where approach speed of rail traffic is controlled so local monitoring by trains is practical.

I’m going to have to disagree with you Mark.

There is no doubt that the safest type of LX is no LX at all. And there is also no doubt that no matter what form of protection is put in place, some road users will accidentally misuse or even wilfully abuse the crossings.

A new LX, even a cheap one, will be over £2m. A new bridge in a rural area (as that is what we are talking about here) will be between 5 and 10 times that. However the new bridge has a much lower operating and maintenance cost - indeed practically nil - compared to a level crossing which is over £100k pa all in. And it won’t fail, and there won’t be people who break the barriers or worse.

When building new (which almost all reopenings are), you have to go through a consents process, and adding a bridge in to that is small fry compared to the line itself. Over the assessment period, a bridge will be cheaper as well as safer and more reliable, and will therefore make the business case better.

 

[Bald Rick]

But that's like trying to say the £14.8bn cost of Crossrail only benefits those who live between Paddington and Liverpool Street.

It’s not really though, is it.

 

[AndrewE]

I’m going to have to disagree with you Mark.

There is no doubt that the safest type of LX is no LX at all. And there is also no doubt that no matter what form of protection is put in place, some road users will accidentally misuse or even wilfully abuse the crossings.

A new LX, even a cheap one, will be over £2m. A new bridge in a rural area (as that is what we are talking about here) will be between 5 and 10 times that. However the new bridge has a much lower operating and maintenance cost - indeed practically nil - compared to a level crossing which is over £100k pa all in. And it won’t fail, and there won’t be people who break the barriers or worse.

When building new (which almost all reopenings are), you have to go through a consents process, and adding a bridge in to that is small fry compared to the line itself. Over the assessment period, a bridge will be cheaper as well as safer and more reliable, and will therefore make the business case better.

But the short-term (immediate) cost of the bridge(s) might well sink the CBA of the line re-opening, whereas the benefits of a rail connection in the medium to longer term could far outweigh the apparently higher risk of a LC. Lower overall risk due to fewer road transport accidents, less pollution, healthier people who might walk to and from a station instead of driving door-to-door...
Another case of the pursuit of excellence stopping a desirable improvement. Nothing in life is without risk and the people who want to eliminate it entirely usually end up by preventing wider gains instead.

 

[Bald Rick]

But the short-term (immediate) cost of the bridge(s) might well sink the CBA of the line re-opening, whereas the benefits of a rail connection in the medium to longer term could far outweigh the apparently higher risk of a LC. Lower overall risk due to fewer road transport accidents, less pollution, healthier people who might walk to and from a station instead of driving door-to-door...
Another case of the pursuit of excellence stopping a desirable improvement. Nothing in life is without risk and the people who want to eliminate it entirely usually end up by preventing wider gains instead.

Read my last sentence. The business case (ie the Benefit Cost Ratio) is generally better with bridges on new lines.

 

[Altfish]

It’s not really though, is it.

Yes, it isn't only people on the route that will benefit.
If you live in (say) Harlech, your journey to Swansea will be greatly improved.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, it isn't only people on the route that will benefit.
If you live in (say) Harlech, your journey to Swansea will be greatly improved.

I dare say we could stretch to giving anyone who wants to do Harlech to Swansea by train £100k each too. It might increase the budget by, say, £200k.

I jest of course, but the report does make it clear that the traffic expected from ‘north’ of Aber to Carmarthen and beyond is minimal.

 

[squizzler]

But that's like trying to say the £14.8bn cost of Crossrail only benefits those who live between Paddington and Liverpool Street.

This. Experience shows demand forecasting to be way off, with most recent new lines enjoying about double the forecast. That means that the BCR on paper goes from about half to somewhere in the region of 1:1.

A demand forecast based on residents will miss out the tourist traffic, and I suspect tourist traffic is much more elastic than commuting (you have to go to your job, whereas demand to visit a particular region must be more elastic). The cardigan coast is filed with massive static caravan parks which are effectively small towns occupied on a seasonal basis. Do these even register on the demand forecasts?

 

[Gareth Marston]

This. Experience shows demand forecasting to be way off, with most recent new lines enjoying about double the forecast. That means that the BCR on paper goes from about half to somewhere in the region of 1:1.

A demand forecast based on residents will miss out the tourist traffic, and I suspect tourist traffic is much more elastic than commuting (you have to go to your job, whereas demand to visit a particular region must be more elastic). The cardigan coast is filed with massive static caravan parks which are effectively small towns occupied on a seasonal basis. Do these even register on the demand forecasts?

The line goes inland immediately south of Aberystwyth though so does not really serve them.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

This. Experience shows demand forecasting to be way off, with most recent new lines enjoying about double the forecast. That means that the BCR on paper goes from about half to somewhere in the region of 1:1.

A demand forecast based on residents will miss out the tourist traffic, and I suspect tourist traffic is much more elastic than commuting (you have to go to your job, whereas demand to visit a particular region must be more elastic). The cardigan coast is filed with massive static caravan parks which are effectively small towns occupied on a seasonal basis. Do these even register on the demand forecasts?

Maybe there are large numbers of 1950's era "seeded" caravan parks , - but I suspect the economic and soclal model of the users of these are somewhat inclined towards use of a car to get there and back with their various passengers and items for the holiday. Yes there are some - well located at places like Borth - for the railway - but I challenge anyone to do the cliff path from say Aberystwyth to Clarach via Constitution Hill with various encumbrances. There may well be some trickle down effects of the odd day trip arising - locally.

In any case - they are not permanant dwellings , and therefore do not count in population based trip generation models.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Read my last sentence. The business case (ie the Benefit Cost Ratio) is generally better with bridges on new lines.

Bearing in mind a speed read the other day - something like 140 "crossings" of some sort of the derelict alignment / formation ? , some of course will be cable routes , the odd water pipe etc. All of which would need to be accommodated , rerouted etc.

Other things that come to mind , which the report (good though it is for what was asked for) , include the environmental works needed. We know the Cors Tregaron has a fairly unique colony of black adders (the reptile sort) and only the other day - BBC commented on the threat to them as they have a poor press with the public (never had a problem myself - as those seen get out of the way pretty quickly) , there will undoubtedly some well established "Celtic" colonies of newts etc (both of the latter were found on the VoG and the Ebbw Vale lines) , and no doubt good numbers of rare plants etc, happily minding their business in peace and serenity since 1965.

Also intrigued at Pendinas Tunnel no 1 - digging that out in an interesting area , with an Iron Age settlement to hand and a Napoleonic monument handy , would be a great challenge for the engineers and project managers - particularly where working out where to dispose of the rock spoil. Perhaps railing it up the Conway Valley to a well know slate area could be an option , mixing it with the countless millions of tons of waste already there.

All challenges , all cost.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Over the time of the WG being in place, how many times has this particular reopening project featured as a priority in their transport budget?

 

[CardiffKid]

Over the time of the WG being in place, how many times has this particular reopening project featured as a priority in their transport budget?

Zero.

Lots of AMs have asked questions about it potentially re-opening and there have been speculative press stories etc, but it's never appeared in a transport budget.

The reason that this report has been published (and paid for by the govt) is because Plaid Cymru insisted on a feasibility study into it (among other things) in return for their support for Labour to get the First Minister nomination back in 2016.

 

[Bald Rick]

This. Experience shows demand forecasting to be way off, with most recent new lines enjoying about double the forecast.

But it doesn’t, and they don’t.

The Borders Railway was bang on the forecasts for year 1. Many other openings (lines and stations) railways go ahead of forecasts in the first couple of years, but then tend towards the forecasts after a couple of years opening. Why? Because the standard forecasting book recommends that you reduce the first 2-3 years modelled forecasts by certain percentages to allow for traffic build up. Experience has shown that build up is generally quicker. And so the forecasting methodology changes.

In any event, as mentioned repeatedly before, project promoters will usually only ever make news of new stations / lines where they exceed forecasts. They are not going to issue a press release that says “new line fails to hit forecasts”. Perhaps this is why you haven’t seen any news about the new line to Aylesbury Vale Parkway, or Corby, or East Midlands Parkway, or Edinburgh Gateway, or Airdrie - Bathgate for that matter (although I may be wrong on the latter).

 

[8H]

Another way of looking at this is does Wales need to develop an internal system of public transport that is not road traffic dependent and moves people just as quickly or better than the road system? The way that the global issues on climate and fuel and pollution will inevitably have to move suggests it is a good idea to develop a motor car alternative. I am not convinced by the argument that the Swansea District Line (quoted example) is more important and so you shouldn’t do AYW-CMN, you actually need to do both. DfT stats on road vehicle ownership by postcode are illustrative of the present madness of our car van lorries reliant society. Look up your own patch! Sometimes there are at least as many vehicles as homes in an area. It’s not going to be sustainable. Road use has got to decline as frightening as some of us will find this notion!

 

[Gareth Marston]

Another way of looking at this is does Wales need to develop an internal system of public transport that is not road traffic dependent and moves people just as quickly or better than the road system? The way that the global issues on climate and fuel and pollution will inevitably have to move suggests it is a good idea to develop a motor car alternative. I am not convinced by the argument that the Swansea District Line (quoted example) is more important and so you shouldn’t do AYW-CMN, you actually need to do both. DfT stats on road vehicle ownership by postcode are illustrative of the present madness of our car van lorries reliant society. Look up your own patch! Sometimes there are at least as many vehicles as homes in an area. It’s not going to be sustainable. Road use has got to decline as frightening as some of us will find this notion!

We need a 50 year whole nation strategy for this not just some isolated campaign

 

[8H]

We need a 50 year whole nation strategy for this not just some isolated campaign

Agreed ! but got to start somewhere

 

[snowball]

Agreed ! but got to start somewhere

And an ultra-lightly populated area like the Carmarthen-Aberystwyth corridor would be the worst possible place to start. The reduction in carbon emissions per million pounds spent would be negligible compared with more populated areas.

 

[Bald Rick]

Another way of looking at this is does Wales need to develop an internal system of public transport that is not road traffic dependent and moves people just as quickly or better than the road system? The way that the global issues on climate and fuel and pollution will inevitably have to move suggests it is a good idea to develop a motor car alternative. I am not convinced by the argument that the Swansea District Line (quoted example) is more important and so you shouldn’t do AYW-CMN, you actually need to do both. DfT stats on road vehicle ownership by postcode are illustrative of the present madness of our car van lorries reliant society. Look up your own patch! Sometimes there are at least as many vehicles as homes in an area. It’s not going to be sustainable. Road use has got to decline as frightening as some of us will find this notion!

Sigh.

Road use doesn’t need to decline to reduce pollution. Fuel use does.

If this railway was built, but the time it opens we would be well down the road (pun intended) of large scale replacement of fossil fuelled road vehicles with electric equivalents.

 

[8H]

Other moves might be dumping the Brynglas scheme and putting back Severn Bridge road tolls! It’s the idea that you don’t do anything across rural areas even if it connects bigger conurbations that I simply don’t see, unless it’s code for doing ddim byd !

 

[squizzler]

The Borders Railway was bang on the forecasts for year 1. Many other openings (lines and stations) railways go ahead of forecasts in the first couple of years, but then tend towards the forecasts after a couple of years opening. Why? Because the standard forecasting book recommends that you reduce the first 2-3 years modelled forecasts by certain percentages to allow for traffic build up. Experience has shown that build up is generally quicker. And so the forecasting methodology changes.

In any event, as mentioned repeatedly before, project promoters will usually only ever make news of new stations / lines where they exceed forecasts. They are not going to issue a press release that says “new line fails to hit forecasts”. Perhaps this is why you haven’t seen any news about the new line to Aylesbury Vale Parkway, or Corby, or East Midlands Parkway, or Edinburgh Gateway, or Airdrie - Bathgate for that matter (although I may be wrong on the latter).

Another example: in this month's Modern Railways there was some news from Ireland. The Western Rail Corridor, which for a long time was held up as a poster child of a badly conceived rail re-opening, has now - quite considerably - exceeded its traffic forecast. Apparently (quote attributed to local paper) "353,000 people used the service in 2017, rather than the 200,000 projected to used the restored service in the business case projection in 2010". This puts the route well on the way towards a doubling of expected traffic

It seems to me that the Irish Rail Western Corridor has many similarities to the proposal in this thread. I rode said railway earlier this month on a charter train and it appeared in rude health. In fact the situation for the Irish Western Corridor faces a greater handicap than the subject of this discussion, because alternative transport takes the form of a brand new motorway (M18) running parallel almost all the way.

 

[8H]

Sigh.

Road use doesn’t need to decline to reduce pollution. Fuel use does.

If this railway was built, but the time it opens we would be well down the road (pun intended) of large scale replacement of fossil fuelled road vehicles with electric equivalents.

You have consistently taken patronisingly faux polite interventions to a new and extraordinary height! Where did you take your degree in it?

 

[AndrewE]

Read my last sentence. The business case (ie the Benefit Cost Ratio) is generally better with bridges on new lines.

My point was that I suspect that the assessment period would not be long enough for the additional up-front costs of the bridges to be balanced by the benefits that would accrue over the whole life of the line. The project would therefore not get off the starting block.
They couldn't even justify double-track rail bridges over roads on the borders line - how's that for short-sighted? They could have just laid singe track initially to cut costs, I'm sure they are regretting it now as they will be a terrible constraint on double-tracking...

 

[MarkyT]

Just to be clear, I was suggesting that in a very small number of difficult cases, level crossings might be justifiable to avoid enormous expense, likely great local opposition to a bridge, or a long rail deviation perhaps taking the new railway and its local station a long way out of a settlement it could otherwise serve more optimally. The case of a traditional station crossing near housing in a town/village setting comes to mind, where trains would also be speed limited by a station approach or start from rest, allowing a locally monitored solution to be considered without major effect on journey times. For crossings of all sorts on rural plain line sections where trains need to be going full speed, I would agree that bridging should always be the default option for multiple reasons. I fully agree crossings are a pain to manage. There's always some new modification to do on circuits and signage and periodic tests and inspections, etc, etc. And they're an open (literally) invitations to trespassers. By contrast a bridge is almost 'fit and forget', but there are some locations where bridges very close to the old crossing site would be impossible and a complete road closure is undesirable and likely unachievable because the road provides some sole or most convenient access. There are many cases like this on the existing railway where long term full crossing abolition is not reasonably practicable for various reasons. I don't see why new railways shouldn't also have SOME new crossings in similar environments, properly risk mitigated of course and notwithstanding a continued commitment to progressively reduce the total number of crossings networkwide. In short, I'm trying to suggest, generically, the 'exceptional circumstance' that some new crossings might be allowed to be provided in.

 

[AndrewE]

Just to be clear, I was suggesting that in a very small number of difficult cases, level crossings might be justifiable to avoid enormous expense...

I think we agree!

 

[Tobbes]

Read my last sentence. The business case (ie the Benefit Cost Ratio) is generally better with bridges on new lines.

Thanks, that's really interesting, @Bald Rick . I'd no idea that the annual costs of a level crossing were £100k+.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks, that's really interesting, @Bald Rick. I'd no idea that the annual costs of a level crossing were £100k+.

It varies, of course, depending on the type of crossing, how busy the line and road is (NR is responsible for the road surface on the crossing), and how often it gets whacked. For crossings that have a attendant, it is getting on for 5 times that.