Conwy Valley Line - Now Reopened

[PHILIPE]

The National Eisteddfod of Wales is due to take place at Llanrwst this year and have heard on the news that they may not be able to get Insurance for it due to the possibility of flooding, although Health and Safety was actually quoted. This might entail having to look for another site (Maes).

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

http://www.conwyvalleyrailway.co.uk...or-repair-work-to-begin-on-conwy-valley-line/

A plan at last.......should be ready by the summer. Which summer , who knows

Conwy Valley Railway

Major repair work to begin on Conwy Valley Line
Melanie Lawton

Network Rail has started work to repair the extensive damage to the Conwy Valley line this week. The line, which runs between Llandudno Junction and Blaenau Ffestniog, was closed on 16 March due significant flooding, caused by Storm Gareth.
Since the line closed, teams have been assessing the extensive damage, using drones for areas made inaccessible by the flooding. The detailed inspections revealed that six miles of track, two stations, and eight level crossings require significant repair.

Specialist engineers have now developed a programme of work which will see the line reopen this summer, and teams have been busy setting up worksites and sourcing the machinery and materials needed for the repairs, including over 2,000 tonnes of ballast, to safely restore the track.

The line is expected to reopen this summer, with the section between Llandudno and Llanrwst reopening in early summer ahead of the Eisteddfod.

Conwy Valley Railway
Network Rail has started work to repair the extensive damage to the Conwy Valley line this week. The line, which runs between Llandudno Junction and Blaenau Ffestniog, was closed on 16 March due significant flooding, caused by Storm Gareth.
Since the line closed, teams have been assessing the extensive damage, using drones for areas made inaccessible by the flooding. The detailed inspections revealed that six miles of track, two stations, and eight level crossings require significant repair.

Specialist engineers have now developed a programme of work which will see the line reopen this summer, and teams have been busy setting up worksites and sourcing the machinery and materials needed for the repairs, including over 2,000 tonnes of ballast, to safely restore the track.

The line is expected to reopen this summer, with the section between Llandudno and Llanrwst reopening in early summer ahead of the Eisteddfod.



Network Rail Wales and Borders is hosting a community meeting on Wednesday 10 April at Glasdir Conference and Meeting Hall, Llanrwst, LL26 0DF from 18:00 until 19:00 for people interested in learning more about the planned repair work. Engineers will provide an update on the programme, and there will be an opportunity for the public to ask questions.

Cllr Philip Evans, Chair Conwy Valley Railway Partnership, said: “This is excellent news, I’m pleased to see repair work commencing on the line. The line is one of the most scenic railways journeys in the UK and is vital for customers living in our rural communities”

Bill Kelly, route managing director for Network Rail, Wales and Borders, said: “We apologise to passengers and the local community who have been affected by the closure of the Conwy Valley Line.

“We recognise the importance of this railway, and I have seen for myself the devastation the damage has caused in the local area. We expect to open the line between Llandudno and Llanrwst in time for the National Eisteddfod taking place this summer.

“We are working closely with our partners, Transport for Wales, to keep passengers moving with rail replacement buses during the closure. I would encourage anyone wishing to find out more about our repair work to join the project team at the community meeting on Wednesday 10 April.”

Lee Robinson, North Wales development director for Transport for Wales, added: “We understand the importance of the Conwy Valley line and are providing transport alternatives to ensure we keep the people of Wales moving.

“I attended a meeting in Blaenau Ffestiniog last week and spoke with some representatives of the community, to help us understand the challenges they are facing as a result of the storm damage.

“We are working collaboratively with Network Rail to deal with the damage caused by the storm and to restore the service. I’d advise all our customers to check for regular updates and we apologise for any inconveniences caused.








Latest Tweets

Upcoming Events

Copyright © 2016 Conwy Valley Railway

71
SHARES

Network Rail Wales and Borders is hosting a community meeting on Wednesday 10 April at Glasdir Conference and Meeting Hall, Llanrwst, LL26 0DF from 18:00 until 19:00 for people interested in learning more about the planned repair work. Engineers will provide an update on the programme, and there will be an opportunity for the public to ask questions.

Cllr Philip Evans, Chair Conwy Valley Railway Partnership, said: “This is excellent news, I’m pleased to see repair work commencing on the line. The line is one of the most scenic railways journeys in the UK and is vital for customers living in our rural communities”

Bill Kelly, route managing director for Network Rail, Wales and Borders, said: “We apologise to passengers and the local community who have been affected by the closure of the Conwy Valley Line.

“We recognise the importance of this railway, and I have seen for myself the devastation the damage has caused in the local area. We expect to open the line between Llandudno and Llanrwst in time for the National Eisteddfod taking place this summer.

“We are working closely with our partners, Transport for Wales, to keep passengers moving with rail replacement buses during the closure. I would encourage anyone wishing to find out more about our repair work to join the project team at the community meeting on Wednesday 10 April.”

Lee Robinson, North Wales development director for Transport for Wales, added: “We understand the importance of the Conwy Valley line and are providing transport alternatives to ensure we keep the people of Wales moving.

“I attended a meeting in Blaenau Ffestiniog last week and spoke with some representatives of the community, to help us understand the challenges they are facing as a result of the storm damage.

“We are working collaboratively with Network Rail to deal with the damage caused by the storm and to restore the service. I’d advise all our customers to check for regular updates and we apologise for any inconvenience caused.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It sounds like just another patch-up - really is it not time to design something that will withstand the floods, such as a culverting system?

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Something needs doing the money spent on maintenance per passenger must be the highest in Europe.

 

[Parham Wood]

Post 152 gives a link which includes details of a forthcoming public meeting at Llantrwst. It would be good if someone from this forum could attend to ask if anything can be done to reduce the impact of the floods in future. E.g. is the track being ripped up because the water needs to cross to the other side of the line so finds a weak point in the line and enlarges it so would large culverts/ mini viaducts help or is it because the flood depth is such that it just overwhelms the line? I have seen the flooding myself in the past and the scale of it should not be underestimated. The water rises very quickly after heavy rain, it is confined to a relatively narrow valley in many places so it does move at speed. Past flood defence work may have contributed to the issues as it has tended to move the flooding to other parts of the valley I am told. Realistically it is probably too expensive to rebuild the line to withstand heavy flooding, not only to make the embankments strong enough not to be breached but also to raise the level of the line for several miles including at least one station.

There were reports of signalling equipment being damaged. I wonder if it would not be sensible to mount all the equipment higher than the flood level instead of in line level lineside cabinets. Of course crossing treadles and other such equipment could not be so mounted but replacing these would be much quicker than replacing all the signalling equipment. It would probably not speed up the reopening as the main time would be consumed by repairing the track and crossings, but it would be one less thing to do and quicker if the other infrastructure damage was small.

 

[Parham Wood]

My wife who keeps up to date with Conwy issues has read that the plan is to open the line to Llanrwst in time for the Eisteddfod and to open the rest later.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Post 152 gives a link which includes details of a forthcoming public meeting at Llantrwst. It would be good if someone from this forum could attend to ask if anything can be done to reduce the impact of the floods in future. E.g. is the track being ripped up because the water needs to cross to the other side of the line so finds a weak point in the line and enlarges it so would large culverts/ mini viaducts help or is it because the flood depth is such that it just overwhelms the line? I have seen the flooding myself in the past and the scale of it should not be underestimated. The water rises very quickly after heavy rain, it is confined to a relatively narrow valley in many places so it does move at speed. Past flood defence work may have contributed to the issues as it has tended to move the flooding to other parts of the valley I am told. Realistically it is probably too expensive to rebuild the line to withstand heavy flooding, not only to make the embankments strong enough not to be breached but also to raise the level of the line for several miles including at least one station.

There were reports of signalling equipment being damaged. I wonder if it would not be sensible to mount all the equipment higher than the flood level instead of in line level lineside cabinets. Of course crossing treadles and other such equipment could not be so mounted but replacing these would be much quicker than replacing all the signalling equipment. It would probably not speed up the reopening as the main time would be consumed by repairing the track and crossings, but it would be one less thing to do and quicker if the other infrastructure damage was small.

To be fair I'm not suggesting going to the huge expense of raising it above flood level - I'm thinking more of designing it to be flooded with little or no damage. This might involve piling a bit lower to ensure things are supported even where the ground washes away, providing culverts to stop the line obstructing floodwater flow (rather than making them strong enough to act as dykes) and similar.

Regarding the signalling, wouldn't it be just as easy to remove it all (level crossings aside, which are all either AHB or manual, aren't they?) and work the line on train staff and ticket? Even if you had to taxi the train staff back for the odd charter that wouldn't be costly compared with the cost of having and maintaining it all. Sprung points at Llanrwst would even allow the box to be closed except where charters/nuclear trains were running - in that case, the branch DMU would just keep both train staffs until it finishes with the bottom section for the day, at which point it could be put back in a locked cupboard for the next driver to take in the morning.

 

[duffield]

Sprung points at Llanrwst would even allow the box to be closed except where charters/nuclear trains were running.

Not likely to see any nuclear trains again!

The line to Trawsfynydd Power Station closed in 1998** (after the power station closed in 1991), although the track remains it's not usable and would presumably need relaying if it was to be used again (e.g. for dismantling the power station - but that is probably not economically sensible).

**The line was used to remove the spent fuel after the power station closed, this is why it closed several years later.

 

[AndrewE]

Not likely to see any nuclear trains again!

The line to Trawsfynydd Power Station closed in 1998** (after the power station closed in 1991), although the track remains it's not usable and would presumably need relaying if it was to be used again (e.g. for dismantling the power station - but that is probably not economically sensible).
**The line was used to remove the spent fuel after the power station closed, this is why it closed several years later.

Even though the fuel might have gone there will still be a lot of intermediate-level (radioactive) waste to be taken away, and maybe even more low-level waste if it is not allowed to be left permanently on the site. The arisings from the next stage of decommissioning won't be allowed to stay there, no matter how long they postpone the job.
I would guess that either might support a weekly train for several years, which might in turn be why they are determined to keep the line open.

 

[duffield]

Even though the fuel might have gone there will still be a lot of intermediate-level (radioactive) waste to be taken away, and maybe even more low-level waste if it is not allowed to be left permanently on the site. The arisings from the next stage of decommissioning won't be allowed to stay there, no matter how long they postpone the job.
I would guess that either might support a weekly train for several years, which might in turn be why they are determined to keep the line open.

But the freight line to Trawsfynydd hasn't been maintained, it's unusable - surely if there was a potential use for it, weedkiller trains etc. would have been running? My understanding is that the freight line would essentially need complete relaying to bring back into use. Sounds very expensive for a weekly train...but then this is nuclear decommissioning which is very expensive anyhow, so who knows?

 

[Llanigraham]

But the freight line to Trawsfynydd hasn't been maintained, it's unusable - surely if there was a potential use for it, weedkiller trains etc. would have been running? My understanding is that the freight line would essentially need complete relaying to bring back into use. Sounds very expensive for a weekly train...but then this is nuclear decommissioning which is very expensive anyhow, so who knows?

You only have to look at the amount of clearance the defunct BF & Traws Railway Society (https://www.facebook.com/groups/774665652613402/)
had to do to see that it would need a massive effort for little to no return.
Forget it!

 

[Belperpete]

It sounds like just another patch-up - really is it not time to design something that will withstand the floods, such as a culverting system?

Really, to be of any use, the line needs totally rebuilding from scratch. It currently takes nearly twice as long to get to Blaenau by train than it does by car. It needs a decent alignment to allow for reasonable speeds, and adequate passing loops to allow for a decent frequency service, on top of making it flood proof. The chances of all this happening for the handful of passengers who use the line are about zero.

Since becoming a local resident, I have come to realise that the Conwy Valley line as a means of transport is about as much use as a chocolate teapot - and a very, very expensive to maintain chocolate teapot at that. What with the flooding, and the stock routinely being nicked for use elsewhere, it will be interesting to see how many days a full train service has actually been provided this year.

 

[Dai Corner]

There's political angle to this too.

Network Rail have repaired the line every time at no cost to the Welsh Government. That is their remit until someone decides otherwise.

If, as some would like, railway infrastructure was devolved would the Welsh Government do the same, possibly cancelling or postponing other work to pay for it?

 

[Belperpete]

I am surprised that NR didn't say anything about it at the CP6 spending review. If they are being asked to cut their costs, the Conwy Valley would have been near the top of my list. But I suppose the problem was that no money was specifically allocated to it. The rebuilding comes out of a general contingency budget, and each time it has been repaired, we have been told that it is now flood-proof, so no extra funding needed - until the next time! There surely has to come a time when someone queries the vast sums that have been sunk into the Conwy Valley for so little in return.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I am surprised that NR didn't say anything about it at the CP6 spending review. If they are being asked to cut their costs, the Conwy Valley would have been near the top of my list. But I suppose the problem was that no money was specifically allocated to it. The rebuilding comes out of a general contingency budget, and each time it has been repaired, we have been told that it is now flood-proof, so no extra funding needed - until the next time! There surely has to come a time when someone queries the vast sums that have been sunk into the Conwy Valley for so little in return.

Agree , in terms of value for money for public taxpayer expenditure (as the line is a financial liability from a revenue point of view) , let alone "capital" expenditure on endless formation and track repairs , this really has to come at the bottom , or near to it...people may disagree on "ethical" grounds that all railways are sacred . but there has to be a point. What is this line likely to achieve in the next 5 years and beyond ?

 

[Chester1]

Reopening the line between Caernarfon and Bangor would be a better way to spend money in the area. It betters belief it will be operated by 230s and then brand new CAF DMUs.

 

[yorksrob]

What is this line likely to achieve in the next 5 years and beyond ?

Part of the 'stable' network that has taken so long to achieve.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Part of the 'stable' network that has taken so long to achieve.

It could achieve a lot more with a will to do some work to create a proper Swiss-style bus network around Snowdonia and seriously deprecate the car in the Park. You'd have to make a few improvements to it rather than just keep patching it up as-is, though.

 

[yorksrob]

It could achieve a lot more with a will to do some work to create a proper Swiss-style bus network around Snowdonia and seriously deprecate the car in the Park. You'd have to make a few improvements to it rather than just keep patching it up as-is, though.

I'd happily see it "as part of", rather than replaced by a bus network.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd happily see it "as part of", rather than replaced by a bus network.

It would need a clockface timetable, but a lot could be done with a proper quality Snowdon Sherpa network, the railway connecting with it using a couple of dedicated 3-car 230s with large amounts of luggage and bicycle space and a run down the Valley later on a Friday evening and a return early afternoon Sunday for weekend trippers.

Would some sort of light rail concept even be worth looking at? With battery tram-type vehicles with track brakes, the acceleration would mean a better timetable, the level crossings could all be simple open tram type ones and the signalling heavily simplified. I think there's a lot of potential for some rural lines to work like that.

 

[Belperpete]

Would some sort of light rail concept even be worth looking at? With battery tram-type vehicles with track brakes, the acceleration would mean a better timetable, the level crossings could all be simple open tram type ones and the signalling heavily simplified. I think there's a lot of potential for some rural lines to work like that.

I find it hard to see how the signalling on the Blaenau line could be simplified much more than it has been already, other than by abolishing the largely-redundant Llanrwst signalbox.

I agree that by spending a lot of money on the line an improved service could be provided, but the simple truth is that it is never going to happen. The traffic on the line just doesn't warrant such a level of investment. More importantly, one of the basic questions asked when evaluating any public investment proposal is "what other options are there?". I get the impression a lot of people would rather that question wasn't asked, as answers such as "replace the line with a bus service" would provide much better value for money. I suspect this is one of the reasons why there have been no proposals to upgrade the line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I find it hard to see how the signalling on the Blaenau line could be simplified much more than it has been already, other than by abolishing the largely-redundant Llanrwst signalbox.

The ability to have the line operated only by the driver and guard and no other staff at all would be a big gain, and would make things like a Friday late evening service (for weekend trippers) more viable. Abolishing Llanrwst box would be a significant gain here.

 

[yorksrob]

Would installing the current equivalent of RETB both enable a longer operating day and remove vulnerable signalling equipment from the lineside ?

 

[StoneRoad]

Post 152 gives a link which includes details of a forthcoming public meeting at Llantrwst. It would be good if someone from this forum could attend to ask if anything can be done to reduce the impact of the floods in future. E.g. is the track being ripped up because the water needs to cross to the other side of the line so finds a weak point in the line and enlarges it so would large culverts/ mini viaducts help or is it because the flood depth is such that it just overwhelms the line? I have seen the flooding myself in the past and the scale of it should not be underestimated. The water rises very quickly after heavy rain, it is confined to a relatively narrow valley in many places so it does move at speed. Past flood defence work may have contributed to the issues as it has tended to move the flooding to other parts of the valley I am told. Realistically it is probably too expensive to rebuild the line to withstand heavy flooding, not only to make the embankments strong enough not to be breached but also to raise the level of the line for several miles including at least one station.

There were reports of signalling equipment being damaged. I wonder if it would not be sensible to mount all the equipment higher than the flood level instead of in line level lineside cabinets. Of course crossing treadles and other such equipment could not be so mounted but replacing these would be much quicker than replacing all the signalling equipment. It would probably not speed up the reopening as the main time would be consumed by repairing the track and crossings, but it would be one less thing to do and quicker if the other infrastructure damage was small.

To answer the question I've bolded in the quote ...

Both.
Most areas of current damage are at or near places that Desmond (I think it was) destroyed, both ripping up culverts that had been blocked by debris as well as by overtopping water flows which dumped branches and rocks as the flows receded. Others will be "new" as floodwaters usually take the line of least resistance.

To make the line flood proof without a very expensive and almost total rebuild is going to be almost impossible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would installing the current equivalent of RETB both enable a longer operating day and remove vulnerable signalling equipment from the lineside ?

That might be an idea, though train staff and ticket would also do the job, being used as simple train staff with the crew holding both staffs for most of the day except where a charter needs access. Just requires two pieces of wood and a book of tickets.

Or if charters wouldn't wash their face in terms of costs, just one train staff for the whole thing, held at Llandudno, and mothball the loop. (It surprises me this isn't done more often - for instance, Rufford loop hasn't been used for passing for years and still isn't for the new hourly timetable - why is it still there?)

There's then the question of the level crossings - could those move to local operation by traincrew/treadle?

Reducing the staff to two (driver/guard) would massively increase flexibility and heavily cut costs.

 

[Belperpete]

Would installing the current equivalent of RETB both enable a longer operating day and remove vulnerable signalling equipment from the lineside ?

RETB is now obsolete, and has been replaced by ETCS on the Cambrian. ETCS would be prohibitively expensive and would require dedicated stock fitted with ETCS as on the Cambrian.

As far as I am aware, there are two staff to operate the line, other than the train-crew and those needed anyway at Llandudno Jcn: a crossing keeper at TalyCafn and the signalman at Llanrwst.

I would have thought that the crossing at TalyCafn could be automated, or controlled from Llandudno Jcn signalbox, without too much difficulty, and am surprised it hasn't been done already. This is one of my reasons for thinking no-one dares to ask for investment, as doing so may result in unwanted attention being shone on the line's economics.

The simplest solution for Llanrwst would be to just close the box and make the whole line one single token section, as suggested by Bletchleyite. The passing loop can no longer be used for routine passing of trains anyway, due to the interlocking being life-expired. As far as I am aware, the only time there are ever two trains between Ll Jcn and Blaenau nowadays is when an excursion uses the line. Maintaining a passing loop where you can't actually pass trains, and keeping a signalbox open year round just for half a dozen or so excursion trains a year seems madness to me. I find it surprising that such a situation is allowed to continue, but again I think it is a case of best not prod the wasps' nest.

 

[krus_aragon]

RETB is now obsolete, and has been replaced by ETCS on the Cambrian. ETCS would be prohibitively expensive and would require dedicated stock fitted with ETCS as on the Cambrian.

In the medium term, the line is due to be served by the same CAF units as the rest of the NW coast and Cambrian. Granted, only a subfleet is due to be fitted with ERTMS for the Cambrian, but fitting it to a few more of the (ERTMS-ready) fleet to operate the Conwy Valley would be a minimal rolling stock expense, at the cost of some diagramming constraints.

The infrastructure costs remain, though.

And the rest of your post has much worth considering.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The simplest solution for Llanrwst would be to just close the box and make the whole line one single token section, as suggested by Bletchleyite. The passing loop can no longer be used for routine passing of trains anyway, due to the interlocking being life-expired. As far as I am aware, the only time there are ever two trains between Ll Jcn and Blaenau nowadays is when an excursion uses the line. Maintaining a passing loop where you can't actually pass trains, and keeping a signalbox open year round just for half a dozen or so excursion trains a year seems madness to me. I find it surprising that such a situation is allowed to continue, but again I think it is a case of best not prod the wasps' nest.

It would probably be as easy to clip the points and have excursions allowed on Sundays only where they can be the only train on the branch. Then train-staff operation. If a nuclear train is needed in the future, cancel a passenger working and run a bus.

If the loop is indeed not usable, having it signalled makes about as much sense as Rufford, where no train that I am aware of has passed another since about 1994. Though at least at Rufford the box also controls the level crossing, so it does have *some sort* of reason to exist. Regarding the latter, it amazes me that the level crossings haven't been changed to local operation by the driver/guard and both Midge Hall and Rufford boxes abolished.

Yes, it'd be prodding the wasps' nest, but not really to the extent that having to spend millions on rebuilding sections of the line will have done.

 

[Belperpete]

It would probably be as easy to clip the points

You are only allowed to clip facing points temporarily, there is a requirement that after 6 months you must prove them. So you would probably need to provide facing point indicators. Which would mean new signalling installation, which would count as investment.

Yes, it'd be prodding the wasps' nest, but not really to the extent that having to spend millions on rebuilding sections of the line will have done.

Ah, but Network Rail are required to maintain the line "as is", so the money for rebuilding after the flooding is quietly absorbed in Network Rail's overall maintenance contingency budget. Whereas the money for any enhancements is investment, which would need to be specifically approved by the Assembly.

Even totally abolishing Llanrwst loop and signalbox would require signalling alterations at Blaenau and Llandudno Junction, so would probably count as investment. Unless perhaps it could be justified by savings out of the maintenance budget. Even then it would probably require approval from the Assembly, due to the reduction in network facilities.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You are only allowed to clip facing points temporarily, there is a requirement that after 6 months you must prove them. So you would probably need to provide facing point indicators. Which would mean new signalling installation, which would count as investment.

Ah, thanks for that. Plainline it then. Though I suppose that's "investment", even if only for a couple of lengths of bent rail and a few chairs (it's probably still bullhead I guess?).

Ah, but Network Rail are required to maintain the line "as is", so the money for rebuilding after the flooding is quietly absorbed in Network Rail's overall maintenance contingency budget. Whereas the money for any enhancements is investment, which would need to be specifically approved by the Assembly.

Even totally abolishing Llanrwst loop and signalbox would require signalling alterations at Blaenau and Llandudno Junction, so would probably count as investment. Unless perhaps it could be justified by savings out of the maintenance budget. Even then it would probably require approval from the Assembly, due to the reduction in network facilities.

True. If it's to stay, though (we've had the closure debate to its conclusion, I think, so I'm saying this on the basis of it remaining open), I think it would be sensible to do some "basic railway" type investment to reduce staffing levels to driver and guard only (it's not like it's not had any investment over recent years - some platforms have been raised, for instance). Even sprung points or some kind of guard operated ground frame using a key on the train staff would allow the abolition of the box.

It isn't the only line in this position - as I said I just don't understand why Rufford loop is still open when it has been used once in 20-odd years (an Aintree raceday charter a few years ago if I recall). The present hourly service passes on the WCML, and even if it got returned to being two units and crews you could still do that, you'd just have to have most of the layover at Preston, just like the Marston Vale does at Bletchley.