What improvements would you like to see on the Ebbw Vale line?

[anthony263]

If it were me. I'd have a half hourly Ebbw vale to Cardiff and a half hourly Abertillery to Newport service if they want 4tph on the branch.

 

[Western 52]

I'd go for one to each of Newport and Cardiff from both Ebbw Vale and Abertillery. This gives more journey opportunities without having to change, so better for most passengers.

 

[waverley47]

I'd go for one to each of Newport and Cardiff from both Ebbw Vale and Abertillery. This gives more journey opportunities without having to change, so better for most passengers.

But, having a half hourly service to one destination can be more attractive than an hourly service to two destinations. It's complex and we shall see but there are definitley benefits to each.

 

[yorkie]

From another thread:

It won't happen but it would be very interesting to see how a direct Ebbw Vale - Bristol service would fare.

Firstly if anyone has any thoughts on whether it would be possible to create a path for it, secondly, where could such a service call at and thirdly would it prove popular?

 

[JonathanH]

It is one of those where priorities have to be considered.

There are already two trains an hour through the Severn Tunnel from Cardiff and Newport to Bristol, one on to Portsmouth and one on to Taunton and, in some hours, the West Country.

There are already two trains an hour through the Severn Tunnel from Cardiff and Newport to London.

None of these would be chopped to allow a different service because Cardiff is a major traffic objective.

What does a direct service from Ebbw Vale add commercially? Why Ebbw Vale and not the Hereford line? There aren't any intermediate stops that can realistically be taken out of the existing services as it seems appropriate for Severn Tunnel Junction, Patchway and Filton Abbey Wood to maintain their links to Bristol and Cardiff (although not necessarily further afield).

I think it is very difficult to see a commercial reason for running from Ebbw Vale through to Bristol even before pathing is considered.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I'm guessing if there is a path for a third TPH between South Wales and Bristol Temple Meads, the likelihood is that the business case for a Cardiff originated service will trump that from Ebbw Vale. Also Ebbw Vale to Newport is a good journey time (c 50 mins) to have an relatively efficient use of diagrams on a stand alone basis.

 

[Meerkat]

I reckon there is a market for the journey, which would build as folk working in Bristol moved to take advantage of it (I am assuming housing in the valley is rather cheaper than Bristol). But a decent connection into an existing Bristol service should surely be sufficient?

 

[Dai Corner]

I reckon there is a market for the journey, which would build as folk working in Bristol moved to take advantage of it (I am assuming housing in the valley is rather cheaper than Bristol). But a decent connection into an existing Bristol service should surely be sufficient?

Agreed.

Pye Corner and Rogerstone also have the advantage of being in the catchment area of Bassaleg School which has a good reputation.

 

[30907]

I'm guessing if there is a path for a third TPH between South Wales and Bristol Temple Meads, the likelihood is that the business case for a Cardiff originated service will trump that from Ebbw Vale.

OTOH, it might prove operationally convenient not to run that 3rd train West of Gaer Jn and combine it with the Ebbw Vale service - so an operating decision with a modest commercial benefit.

 

[Dr Day]

If it was commercially and operationally viable, wouldn't it already be operating, or at least announced in a plan for when more rolling stock was going to be available? If anything, given WG aspirations for 4 tph across 'South East Wales Metro' I would have thought extra Cardiff-Bristols plus Ebbw-Chepstow shuttles was more likely, with interchange for both branches needed for Cardiff and a range of other destinations eg Bristol/Manchester/London. Not necessarily viable, but politically more likely.

 

[JonathanH]

How politically acceptable would it be for the Welsh Government to be looking to double the service between Cardiff and Bristol Temple Meads at the expense of other destinations? Why wouldn't it be looking to get 2tph every hour to Cwmbran, Pontypool and Abergavenny (and indeed Chepstow) first?

 

[Dai Corner]

How politically acceptable would it be for the Welsh Government to be looking to double the service between Cardiff and Bristol Temple Meads at the expense of other destinations? Why wouldn't it be looking to get 2tph every hour to Cwmbran, Pontypool and Abergavenny first?

I think it's more about grabbing a share of the revenue, like they do for Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham. Profits from the English services can then be used to subsidise the Welsh ones.

 

[Meerkat]

How politically acceptable would it be for the Welsh Government to be looking to double the service between Cardiff and Bristol Temple Meads at the expense of other destinations? Why wouldn't it be looking to get 2tph every hour to Cwmbran, Pontypool and Abergavenny (and indeed Chepstow) first?

It’s one of those “what is the taxpayer paying for” questions.
It does seem a bit dubious to be subsidising English people to move to Wales, competing with locals for houses, and thereby making it easier for their employers to stay in Bristol. So really it depends on whether it’s enabling locals to get jobs, or it’s just English moving in.
With an added complication for if they are coming anyway it’s better they commute by train than car (removing the bridge tolls was a bit silly)

 

[Dai Corner]

It’s one of those “what is the taxpayer paying for” questions.
It does seem a bit dubious to be subsidising English people to move to Wales, competing with locals for houses, and thereby making it easier for their employers to stay in Bristol. So really it depends on whether it’s enabling locals to get jobs, or it’s just English moving in.
With an added complication for if they are coming anyway it’s better they commute by train than car (removing the bridge tolls was a bit silly)

I think that's more an argument for the dubiousness of perpetuating a political border based on squabbles between medieval monarchs and a physical barrier tunnelled under in 1886 and bridged in 1966 rather than modern economic and social reality?

 

[JonathanH]

It is quite apparent that Ebbw Vale to Bristol would be about getting residents of the former area to work in Bristol. The numbers going the other way wouldn't be significant.

Would it bring inward investment to Ebbw Vale? I don't see that it would despite the office buildings that have been built on the valley floor since the railway was reopened as part of the location's regeneration.

I think that's more an argument for the dubiousness of perpetuating a political border based on squabbles between medieval monarchs and a physical barrier tunnelled under in 1886 and bridged in 1966 rather than modern economic and social reality?

A border that many in Wales would like to see made harder and more strongly defined than it is at the moment (albeit not those who live close to it). I appreciate that Cardiff - Newport - Gloucester - Bristol is a more closely aligned economic area than North and Mid Wales is to Cardiff.

 

[Dai Corner]

It is quite apparent that Ebbw Vale to Bristol would be about getting residents of the former area to work in Bristol. The numbers going the other way wouldn't be significant.

Would it bring inward investment to Ebbw Vale? I don't see that it would despite the office buildings that have been built on the valley floor since the railway was reopened as part of the location's regeneration.


A border that many in Wales would like to see made harder and more strongly defined than it is at the moment.

I think there are probably at least as many who'd like to see it go or don't care?

If the separatists ever get their way, there might not be much cross-border commuting anyway as England might not allow Welsh citizens to work in their country and Wales might not allow immigration from England.

(I write as one with a father born in Cardiff who met and married my English mother there and moved to London for his dream job where I was born. I moved to Wales after meeting a Welsh woman and am still here but am thinking of moving back to England since we split up. My ex is living in Somerset with her new English bloke.)

 

[adrock1976]

I would have the following service pattern:

Ebbw Vale Town/Crosskeys - Abergavenny every 30 minutes
Abertillery - Chepstow/Gloucester every 30 minutes
Ebbw Vale Town - Cardiff Central every 60 minutes

As the present day Ebbw Vale - Cardiff will become a long standing service of over 20 years operation in 2025, I would leave that as it is. The opposite half hour Ebbw Vale Town - Pye Corner section would be the Abergavenny train, with the short Crosskeys - Abergavenny providing connections into and out of the Cardiff train. Together with the Abertillery - Chepstow/Gloucester trains, this would provide a 15 minute frequency between Pye Corner and Llanhilleth (also Aberbeeg if the station is ever reopened at the junction).

Although some or most trains from Maesteg run to and from Gloucester, this could be revised to run Maesteg - Caerffili via Ninian Park every 30 minutes, boosting the frequency between Cardiff Central and Caerffili.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I doubt those on the Cheltenham line would appreciate having to change at Newport, and in the opposite direction I doubt there would be a fraction of the demand from passengers in the branch to head that direction in comparison to Cardiff or Bristol.

You seem to be reconfiguring and breaking many established services just to give the branch a far better service than anyone else has envisaged.

5tph down much of the branch appears optimistic too in my opinion.

 

[adrock1976]

I doubt those on the Cheltenham line would appreciate having to change at Newport, and in the opposite direction I doubt there would be a fraction of the demand from passengers in the branch to head that direction in comparison to Cardiff or Bristol.

You seem to be reconfiguring and breaking many established services just to give the branch a far better service than anyone else has envisaged.

5tph down much of the branch appears optimistic too in my opinion.

If this was a response to my previous post, Cheltenham would still have the present day XC Regional Nottingham - Cardiff as a direct train with no changes.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

If this was a response to my previous post, Cheltenham would still have the present day XC Regional Nottingham - Cardiff as a direct train with no changes.

So sod Severn Tunnel and Caldicot where those trains don't stop? Which also messes things up for people wanting to travel to Bristol...

You can't advocate making services on the Gloucester line worse, that's silly.

Considering the proposed bridge around Lydney that would improve a rail link you could integrate an Ebbw Vale into a Bristol that way with a new route but the valleys would have it quicker changing.

 

[HST43257]

If Ebbw Vale was linked to Bristol, I wouldn’t want to do it at the expense of other services.

Ive wondered, as part of MetroWest, whether a Patchway area terminator could work, but decided against it on ability to turn back. If it went to Ebbw Vale, however, you could speed up the Cardiff to Penzance/Taunton/Portsmouth trains.

 

[ATW158Xpress]

WG proposals for the Ebbw Vale/Crosskeys - Newport service to extend to Gloucester calling at all stations running alongside an the planned improvement of the exciting Cardiff - Gloucester/Cheltenham service going hourly from next December.

Which gives 3 trains an hour in total between Newport and Gloucester with the XC service operating fast with one stop in Chepstow, protemtally Lydney during the peaks. With TFW rail calling all stations which gives the likes of Caldicot and Severm Tunnel Junction a combined half hourly service to Newport and Gloucester.

 

[Brissle Girl]

If Ebbw Vale was linked to Bristol, I wouldn’t want to do it at the expense of other services.

Ive wondered, as part of MetroWest, whether a Patchway area terminator could work, but decided against it on ability to turn back. If it went to Ebbw Vale, however, you could speed up the Cardiff to Penzance/Taunton/Portsmouth trains.

Not quite sure what the rationale for a Patchway terminator would be in the first place, and to extend a 20 min journey time service by the best part of a further 70 mins would seem to be quite an extension.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

If we were to do anything, it would arguably be best to amend the Ebbw Vale to Cheltenham, and the Maesteg to Bristol.

Obvious benefits…

- Cheltenham / Gloucester already has an hourly service to Newport and Cardiff.
- Suitable amendment of the Ebbw Vale (Or whatever the station is short that now runs to Newport. Is it Risca / Crosskeys?) to Cheltenham using a standard 2/150 or similar unit.
- Through service from Bridgend to Bristol allowing same platform change in both directions for Port Talbot and Swansea, meaning Maesteg gets a more regional type of train.

 

[Parallel]

Another issue with this service is that when it is cancelled, it just sits in Platform 4, blocking it for an hour whilst everything else booked to use Platform 4 is alterated to Platform 3. The problem is that the departures are quite close together between xx:14 and xx:44, other services then became delayed with waiting for Platform 3 to become free, and then the dwell time for passengers to make their way from Platform 4 to Platform 3 and then to board. Today when this happened, the CIS was also spitting out rubbish, the announcements were saying the next train was for London Paddington; the screens were saying Holyhead and the front of the train was saying Cheltenham Spa. This led to passengers boarding incorrect trains.

Why not just wait until the line is re-doubled or trains can run to Abertillery? Seems a strange choice of service to start running now. It might help if Newport had a bay platform adjacent to the western end of Platform 4.

 

[Signal_Box]

I’ve noticed the way the timetable is set up at present there’s a serious pinch point beteeen Park Junc North and Risca South Junc where many years ago the Risca bypass cut across the old formation and replaced a road over rail bridge with a single portal.

The only option would be to increase the double track either south from Risca or North from Park to reduce the single track section.

Even when Park Junc is resignalled and potentially a moderate increase in line speed is achieved you’ll still have the pinch point.

Problem is the branch train is timed to fit in at Newport on the Mainline vice making a viable path on the branch. Until Newport West Parkway is built (maybe) with the bay platform option there’ll always be significant performance risk.

Already if a UP train (from Cardiff) is late it’ll carry its delay for a significant time, and also check the DN train into the bargain.

The only realistic solution is doubling as planned north of Cross Keys, and potentially North from Park to a point north of Pye Corner.

If we were to do anything, it would arguably be best to amend the Ebbw Vale to Cheltenham, and the Maesteg to Bristol.

Obvious benefits…

- Cheltenham / Gloucester already has an hourly service to Newport and Cardiff.
- Suitable amendment of the Ebbw Vale (Or whatever the station is short that now runs to Newport. Is it Risca / Crosskeys?) to Cheltenham using a standard 2/150 or similar unit.
- Through service from Bridgend to Bristol allowing same platform change in both directions for Port Talbot and Swansea, meaning Maesteg gets a more regional type of train.

I think extending the service off the branch will only introduce performance risk, and little to do with connectivity. The current Ebbw Vale to Cardiff is what’s needed, the Newport shuttle is a pure political service which serves only to carry pound notes out of the pubic purse.

We’ll all know when the branch opened a mini bus was provided from Rogerstone to Newport costing £100,000s with often than not only the driver on board, the shuttle is the same - I noted a maximum of 3 passengers over 6 trains on a weekday.

Not quite sure what the rationale for a Patchway terminator would be in the first place, and to extend a 20 min journey time service by the best part of a further 70 mins would seem to be quite an extension.

Totally agree, the dwell time to lock up the empty train would eat up valuable paths on the mainline, another block to this in order to route a train (signalling wise) into Patchway on the UP (towards Bristol) is you have to call either to Parkway, Filton or Avonmouth blocking the junction. Patchway station being between the junction protecting signal and actual junction.

Maybe, a run to Fiton West Parkway (yet to be built) on the Avonmouth branch to keep the unit off the Mainline perhaps -but I can’t see any real need to be honest.

Also with a Patchway where does the empty stock go ? Parkway potentially, the UP Loop is an option, but again you need to path the ecs to and from Patchway beteeen the London, XC, Parkway terminator, Gloucester and any other services that run these days.

If Ebbw Vale was linked to Bristol, I wouldn’t want to do it at the expense of other services.

Ive wondered, as part of MetroWest, whether a Patchway area terminator could work, but decided against it on ability to turn back. If it went to Ebbw Vale, however, you could speed up the Cardiff to Penzance/Taunton/Portsmouth trains.

I agree, we should be looking to three trains per hour Bristol to Cardiff vice a Ebbw Vale to Bristol service.