Ebbw Vale line suggestions for service provision and infrastructure changes

[MarkyT]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ebbw-vale-redoubling.144142

Ebbw Vale to Newport should have been a service from day 1. Utter shambles that it was ignored/over looked.

It was platform capacity at Newport that scuppered that idea when the Ebbw service was first envisaged. Just wait until Newport resignalling they said. We're still waiting.

If I were in charge I would run all Ebbw trains into Newport then reverse to Cardiff, but the problem now passengers are accustomed to the direct Cardiff service is that re-routing with up to 10 minutes penalty would be seen as an unacceptable degradation, even though that would still be an excellent service with the non stop hop to Cardiff compared to many other lines.

Ideally you'd need a new branch bay behind #4 at Newport. It looks like the new Bridge Street bridge leaves sufficient space beneath for an extra track to access such a facility. I reckon a 100m standage platform would be fairly easy to squeeze in.

 

[Meerkat]

Are the Newport trains going to sit in a platform or go on round to Cwmbran/Pontypool?

 

[Philip Roberts]

Are the Newport trains going to sit in a platform or go on round to Cwmbran/Pontypool?

I expect they'll go up to Abergavenny and back.

 

[Dr Day]

or Chepstow? Still aspirations for 4 tph on the whole of the Metro area, and Cross Country have scaled back their calls.

 

[Brissle Girl]

The attraction of only running to Newport is that the journey time lends itself to an efficient service of just under a hour, with 2 diagrams providing an hourly service, and not too much platform occupancy at Newport. The latter is likely to be a key factor in any decision, and it may be that any turnaround at Newport is operationally too difficult though.

The other negative of extending Ebbw Vale to Newport services is that the extended elements will not be providing a through service to Cardiff, and so may be perceived negatively given the relative importance of the capital.

 

[Meerkat]

The other negative of extending Ebbw Vale to Newport services is that the extended elements will not be providing a through service to Cardiff, and so may be perceived negatively given the relative importance of the capital.

They aren’t all planned to go to Newport are they?
And how much slower would changing at Newport onto a fast to Cardiff be?

 

[The Planner]

They aren’t all planned to go to Newport are they?
And how much slower would changing at Newport onto a fast to Cardiff be?

Minimum of 10 minutes, time from Park Jn to Newport, 5 minutes connectional allowance and time back to Ebbw Jn.

 

[Meerkat]

Minimum of 10 minutes, time from Park Jn to Newport, 5 minutes connectional allowance and time back to Ebbw Jn.

Wouldn’t the fast train be faster to Cardiff though?

 

[The Planner]

Wouldn’t the fast train be faster to Cardiff though?

Not by much. 90 seconds tops on the faster ones. You assume that you can timetable the perfect connection though. I would be very surprised if you could get it less than 10 minutes as a penalty.

 

[Meerkat]

Not by much. 90 seconds tops on the faster ones. You assume that you can timetable the perfect connection though. I would be very surprised if you could get it less than 10 minutes as a penalty.

Fair enough, but ten minutes might be better than waiting for the next Cardiff direct ( they are planning on splitting destinations across Newport and Cardiff aren’t they?)
Are the 80*s limited by the speed limit in Wales or are the gaps between stations too short to go faster- it looks wonderfully straight between Newport and Cardiff!

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

The other negative of extending Ebbw Vale to Newport services is that the extended elements will not be providing a through service to Cardiff, and so may be perceived negatively given the relative importance of the capital.

The demand pattern on the Ebbw line is interesting. By and large passengers on the northern (Blaenau Gwent) section want to travel to Cardiff while there is subtantial demand for services to Newport on the more southerly (Islwyn) section, It's quite amusing to listen to the two constituencies MSs bicker about it in the Senedd.

One answer might be to run any future services from the Abertillery spur into Newport with Ebbw Vale trains running to Cardiff.

 

[cle]

The attraction of only running to Newport is that the journey time lends itself to an efficient service of just under a hour, with 2 diagrams providing an hourly service, and not too much platform occupancy at Newport. The latter is likely to be a key factor in any decision, and it may be that any turnaround at Newport is operationally too difficult though.

The other negative of extending Ebbw Vale to Newport services is that the extended elements will not be providing a through service to Cardiff, and so may be perceived negatively given the relative importance of the capital.

Is the second point that folks from Abergavenny and Cwmbran would be annoyed at their second, new tph running to Newport, and then up to Ebbw - vs on to Cardiff?

I see the logic, to that I would add that possibly that tph is the one which is designed to connect best at Newport with the fastest BPW->London service (they have Manchester, and Birmingham surely best via Hereford?) - but also there are many frequencies to Cardiff - to balance the directs on the Manchester-Wales service. There are the Holyhead trains too, of course.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Is the second point that folks from Abergavenny and Cwmbran would be annoyed at their second, new tph running to Newport, and then up to Ebbw - vs on to Cardiff?

I see the logic, to that I would add that possibly that tph is the one which is designed to connect best at Newport with the fastest BPW->London service (they have Manchester, and Birmingham surely best via Hereford?) - but also there are many frequencies to Cardiff - to balance the directs on the Manchester-Wales service. There are the Holyhead trains too, of course.

Yes, that's exactly the point, whether it is from the Marches route or Chepstow.

I suspect it would also be fortuitous if the timing of any service that goes on from (say) the Marches line to Ebbw Vale (and vice versa) , which would be heavily constrained by the path up the Ebbw branch, would fit neatly with an even interval to Abergavenny, nor indeed with fast service connections to London. So it would seem better to run the Newport to Ebbw Vale service separately (and as I said, it would be reasonably efficient for diagrams, with a journey time of around 50 mins, thus minimising any efficiency gain in linking services)), and develop any other enhancement services separately.

 

[Meerkat]

Are they building a station in the Llanwern area? Could that have a turnback?

 

[Philip Roberts]

Indeed, it was a question in #44 and subsequent answers in #45 & 46 that suggested the Ebbw route might be linked with them, which led to the discussion. As you can tell, I'm very sceptical that any such linking of routes will occur.

The reason I think it'll go to Abergavenny is some Metro maps show a red line from Ebbw to Aber.

On the other discussion, I'd get it in the future to get to Cardiff even if went to Newport first, rather than wait for the next direct to Cardiff. Usually it takes me less than 20 minutes from Pye Corner to Central. If it took 10 minutes from Pye Corner to Newport, 10 minutes to wait for a connection and then 15 minutes to Central it would take 35 minutes. I'd be happy with that.

 

[Brissle Girl]

There’s no ambiguity that it makes sense for the second train to head to Newport, as the benefit of the service going directly removes a major flaw of the current service for those heading to Newport or further east.

That’s a different situation to those from, say, Abergavenny, whose additional service would not serve the main destination, but a branch line where there is unlikely to be any particular traffic flow from Abergavenny or Pontypool.

However I note you say that some Metro maps show such a service. Are you able to share a copy - it would probably close this discussion down rather quickly (or turn towards a debate as to how appropriate it is).

 

[Philip Roberts]

There’s no ambiguity that it makes sense for the second train to head to Newport, as the benefit of the service going directly removes a major flaw of the current service for those heading to Newport or further east.

That’s a different situation to those from, say, Abergavenny, whose additional service would not serve the main destination, but a branch line where there is unlikely to be any particular traffic flow from Abergavenny or Pontypool.

However I note you say that some Metro maps show such a service. Are you able to share a copy - it would probably close this discussion down rather quickly (or turn towards a debate as to how appropriate it is).

This is a screenshot of a map published in a pdf on the Welsh Government website.

 

[Brissle Girl]

This is a screenshot of a map published in a pdf on the Welsh Government website.

Thank you. That’s very clearly the intention then.

 

[Dai Corner]

I doubt many would travel by train from the Ebbw Valley to Cwmbran or Abergavenny. The shiny new A465 or much older A472 are much quicker.

The Newbridge-Newport corridor is very busy, justifying a bus at least every 10 mins pre-Covid 19. It's all part of a continuous urban area. The reopening of the railway killed off the Ebbw Vale-Newport and Abertillery-Cardiff bus services though.

I suspect the Newport trains will mainly attract passengers willing to pay a premium to avoid road congestion in the peaks or travelling further East to Bristol or beyond.

 

[Philip Roberts]

I doubt many would travel by train from the Ebbw Valley to Cwmbran or Abergavenny. The shiny new A465 or much older A472 are much quicker.

The Newbridge-Newport corridor is very busy, justifying a bus at least every 10 mins pre-Covid 19. It's all part of a continuous urban area. The reopening of the railway killed off the Ebbw Vale-Newport and Abertillery-Cardiff bus services though.

I suspect the Newport trains will mainly attract passengers willing to pay a premium to avoid road congestion in the peaks or travelling further East to Bristol or beyond.

Using myself as a case study (I live in Rogerstone) I can't see myself necessarily getting the train just to go in to Newport (although it would be nice to have the option). For me it's value is as an extra service to Cardiff (via Newport) but, more importantly, to have the option when travelling further east or even north.

 

[cle]

Could it reverse at Newport, and head back out to Cardiff on the slows anyway?

 

[PHILIPE]

Could it reverse at Newport, and head back out to Cardiff on the slows anyway?

It could do but it is not required to go to Cardiff particularly

 

[MarkyT]

I suggest the Ebbw - Newport trains reverse there and also go on to Cardiff via the main lines.

The faster trains avoiding Newport would be preferable for Cardiff bound passengers, but if they'd missed one, the next slow via Newport would still get them there more quickly than waiting for the next fast.

A disadvantage would be more platform occupancy at Newport than a simple hourly shuttle reversing there however. An additional Cardiff end bay on the main side could help with that, as I suggested here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ebbw-vale-redoubling.144142/page-2#post-3612156

 

[tiptoptaff]

Could it reverse at Newport, and head back out to Cardiff on the slows anyway?

No because the Western doesn't have slows, it has reliefs

 

[Dai Corner]

No because the Western doesn't have slows, it has reliefs

A train coming from Ebbw Vale would have to cross all the other lines to reach the Down relief too, which probably wouldn't be a good idea performance-wise.

 

[tiptoptaff]

I suggest the Ebbw - Newport trains reverse there and also go on to Cardiff via the main lines. The faster trains avoiding Newport would be preferable for Cardiff bound passengers, but if they'd missed one, the next slow via Newport would still get them there more quickly than waiting for the next fast. A disadvantage would be more platform occupancy at Newport than a simple hourly shuttle reversing there however. An additional Cardiff end bay on the main side could help with that, as I suggested here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ebbw-vale-redoubling.144142/page-2#post-3612156

The bridge space isn't an issue, you'd have it come out from here, at the end of the existing 3-4 crossover, and it'll fit alongside the end of P4 before the new building. Would only cost a handful of car parking spaces, although I don't think the WG would see that as a bad thing unfortunately
EDIT photo reuploaded with correct editing!

A train coming from Ebbw Vale would have to cross all the other lines to reach the Down relief too, which probably wouldn't be a good idea performance-wise.

That's not a massive issue, it's not uncommon to get routed P1 to DM or UM to P1 as it is, at both ends of the station. Plenty of places to crossover at a reasonable speed at the Cardiff end, between the station and ADJ

 

[Dr Day]

A train coming from Ebbw Vale would have to cross all the other lines to reach the Down relief too, which probably wouldn't be a good idea performance-wise.

...whereas keeping going to Abergavenny could probably be done relatively easily, with minimal investment in infrastructure (at least at the Newport end - turnback may be needed at the Abergavenny end but that is one for the South Metro thread). What TfW (authority) are trying to do is get as much as they can out of the existing infrastructure and provide 4 tph on as many stretches of track as possible - that doesn't necessarily mean 4 tph only to Cardiff even though that is a major attractor. Yes, there's the faff of interchanging at Newport but there is a 'turn up and go' service from there to Cardiff and direct connections to just about everywhere else other than the Valleys. Still an improvement and ticks another Metro box.

 

[tiptoptaff]

...whereas keeping going to Abergavenny could probably be done relatively easily, with minimal investment in infrastructure (at least at the Newport end - turnback may be needed at the Abergavenny end but that is one for the South Metro thread). What TfW (authority) are trying to do is get as much as they can out of the existing infrastructure and provide 4 tph on as many stretches of track as possible - that doesn't necessarily mean 4 tph only to Cardiff even though that is a major attractor. Yes, there's the faff of interchanging at Newport but there is a 'turn up and go' service from there to Cardiff and direct connections to just about everywhere else other than the Valleys. Still an improvement and ticks another Metro box.

Not sure the infrastructure could support 4tph up the Marches, even to Abergavenny, currently. It goes to AB after Little Mill with a relatively long section. I think 3tph would be the max. I think it could manage 4 or 5, but that would need to include the Manchester, Holyhead, new Liverpool, and freight, before you consider this service. If the plan is 1tp2h for Holyhead and 1tp2h for Liverpool, alternating to give an a 1tph service to Chester, then it might just fit. But the shunt is still an issue.

The shunt at Abergavenny for terminating trains isn't exactly quick and simple, either.

 

[cle]

Would the Liverpool not be the alternate hour Holyhead (this is the Halton service) ?

With that other hour running to just Wrexham?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If the WAG electrify to Abergavenny it may make it easier long term to electrify all the way to Crewe.