South East Wales - New service to Bristol and new stations opening: how should these be served?

[Caaardiff]

https://haveyoursay.tfw.wales/sew-n..._BBht0ItT-GVMIfTOkKmKqeswefV3L5D0dcZOyhlF_s9k

New stations at Cardiff East (Newport Road), Newport West, Somerton, Llanwern, and Magor and Undy will provide better access to the railway for communities in South Wales.

The new stations will be served by existing and new Cardiff to Cheltenham rail services, and new Cardiff to Bristol services. At least two, and up to four trains per hour in each direction will call at the proposed stations.

I know the new stations between Cardiff and Severn Tunnel have been discussed but this is the first i've heard about how the services to Cheltenham will change and the addition of a Cardiff - Bristol service.

Option 1 Service Pattern There will be two trains per hour between Cardiff Central and Severn Tunnel Junction. • Spa One train per hour Cardiff Central to/from Cheltenham Spa (TfW). • One train per hour Cardiff Central to/from Bristol Temple Meads (TfW or GWR).

Option 2 There will be three trains per hour between Cardiff Central and Severn Tunnel Junction. • One train per hour Cardiff Central to/from Cheltenham Spa (TfW). • Two trains per hour Cardiff Central to/from Bristol Temple Meads (TfW or GWR).

Option 3 There will be four trains per hour between Cardiff Central and Severn Tunnel Junction. • Two trains per hour Cardiff Central to/from Cheltenham Spa (TfW). • Two trains per hour Cardiff Central to/from Bristol Temple Meads (TfW or GWR)

The stations listed above will all be on the mainline, presumably on the reliefs. Option 1 is the most basic where Cheltenham will remain hourly, with the Bristol services also hourly. Option 3 being the most frequency with half hourly Cheltenham and half hourly Temple Meads.

It doesn't specify but gives the impression Bristol services will start Cardiff. Surely it would make more sense to start at Swansea or even further West to avoid having to change at Cardiff, along with GWR already operating services from Cardiff - Bristol.
The way it's worded suggests they will be TFW services rather than GWR but up for DFT discussion. TFW will need to order more trains to cover these, more 231 or 756's?

Also TFW's Cheltenham service has a very tight turnaround, which the extra stations would add extra time on. So I can see Cheltenham services being split from Maesteg services to be able to work the timetable.

https://ehq-production-europe.s3.eu...b4c3bc63a9a69dde41f88ba13df15f2218f5ee847456b

 

[DelW]

The linked document says that TfW are "developing proposals", but as we all know, unless there is a source of funding, such schemes are wont to stay as proposals. Has there been any indication of how likely it is that the necessary money will be made available, and if so, from whose budget?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I can see Cheltenham services being split from Maesteg services to be able to work the timetable.

That is the plan. Cardiff - Cheltenham & Maesteg - Ebbw Vale Town.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

The linked document says that TfW are "developing proposals", but as we all know, unless there is a source of funding, such schemes are wont to stay as proposals. Has there been any indication of how likely it is that the necessary money will be made available, and if so, from whose budget?

Funding is pretty likely as the scheme emerged as a result of two seperate reviews established by the Welah and UK governments.

From a Welsh Government perspective the plans were drawn up by the Burns Commision established following the scrapping of plans for an M4 relief road south of Newport while they were also backed by the Union Connectivity Review looking about how transprt links between the four UK nations could be improved.

While funding is never certain for any plan, this one seems to have broad cross-party and governmental support.

 

[DelW]

Tha

Funding is pretty likely as the scheme emerged as a result of two seperate reviews established by the Welah and UK governments.

From a Welsh Government perspective the plans were drawn up by the Burns Commision established following the scrapping of plans for an M4 relief road south of Newport while they were also backed by the Union Connectivity Review looking about how transprt links between the four UK nations could be improved.

While funding is never certain for any plan, this one seems to have broad cross-party and governmental support.

Thanks, that sounds reasonably encouraging then!

 

[SWML9102]

Good to see this starting to move forward. Any additional services need to run through from west of Cardiff. Cardiff Central already struggles to cope with the number of terminating trains, as discussed elsewhere. When the tfw Cheltenham goes to a regular hourly service, perhaps it could interwork with the Swanline to avoid terminating services and provide east-west connectivity across Cardiff with the proposed new stations.

 

[Envoy]

I wonder what is happening regarding the Cardiff Parkway station proposed for the St.Mellons area? This is part of a bigger scheme put forward by a developer who would like to build a business park at the location. Friends of the Earth and others objected and the Welsh Government ‘called in’ the scheme over 1 year ago since when, we have heard nothing.

I see that TfW would like to run a half hourly stopping service to Cheltenham. Currently, we have an hourly service calling at all the stations that already exist. Cross Country also has an hourly faster service to Cheltenham and then on to Birmingham and eventually Nottingham. XC now plan to make the 9.45am from Cardiff a Voyager service to Edinburgh via Newcastle starting in December 2024 along with a southbound service.

Grand Union have also applied for permission to run services via this route between Cardiff & Edinburgh. All well and good if the half hourly TfW service on the Cheltenham run generates extra passengers who would have travelled by car. However, it would be a pity if these extra stopping services skim off passengers from Cheltenham and Gloucester & thus make the extra long distance services to Edinburgh unviable.

As has been said above, it would make sense to combine the Cheltenham stoppers with the so called Swanline stoppers between Cardiff & Swansea. (Cardiff to Bristol TM will be electrified so as of now, the electric trains could not proceed to Swansea - unless bi-mode). Perhaps the Cheltenham stoppers could be extended to Worcester or even Kidderminster which have weak links southward.

 

[CptCharlee]

For GWR to operate any frequency increase on Cardiff to Bristol, its going to need alot more fleet capacity. Unless its run by ex-tfw 150s.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

For GWR to operate any frequency increase on Cardiff to Bristol, its going to need alot more fleet capacity. Unless its run by ex-tfw 150s.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's taken on as a TfW service, perhaps with a top up order of 197s or FLIRTS.

 

[ScotGG]

With severe need for housing in Bristol and beyond a well planned program of new housing around new stations would also offer substantial growth chances in a sustainable way. New stock needed of course and a cohesive plan. Good luck getting the DfT and Treasury doing that mind!

 

[Envoy]

I have just looked at the questionnaire. What has gender identity, sexual orientation or ethnicity got to do with running railway?

They are really nosey and this is likely to put people off from having anything to do with this questionnaire.

 

[SargeNpton]

I have just looked at the questionnaire. What has gender identity, sexual orientation or ethnicity got to do with running railway?

They are really nosey and this is likely to put people off from having anything to do with this questionnaire.

It's to make sure that they can say that their survey is taking account of diversity and inclusion. Just about any survey you contribute to these days will have the same.

 

[anthony263]

Tfw saying trains will have level boarding so expect more class 756s. Extending Swanline to Bristol TM has been proposed many times and would be a great idea

 

[Chingy]

Surely capacity through the Severn Tunnel would hinder additional stopping trains being introduced through there?

As I understand it, only one train is allowed in, in each direction. 2 GWR Padds, 2 GWR locals and a freight per hour in each direction pretty much fills up paths.

 

[Signal_Box]

Surely capacity through the Severn Tunnel would hinder additional stopping trains being introduced through there?

As I understand it, only one train is allowed in, in each direction. 2 GWR Padds, 2 GWR locals and a freight per hour in each direction pretty much fills up paths.

Negative, one train per line yes standard TCB regulations.

The method I think your referring to is the passage of certain freight trains where as you rightly say one train in the tunnel at a time.

Some of the class 4 Freightliner services, scrap trains (they need special certification prior to passage) and the petrochemical trains. These trains are looped at Pilning in the down direction or held on the up relief west of Severn Tunnel Junction until their path is available.

 

[The Planner]

Surely capacity through the Severn Tunnel would hinder additional stopping trains being introduced through there?

As I understand it, only one train is allowed in, in each direction. 2 GWR Padds, 2 GWR locals and a freight per hour in each direction pretty much fills up paths.

That is 5 trains per hour. The tunnel can take more than that. Severn Tunnel East to West is timed as absolute block with 2 minutes bunce on top (it probably doesnt need as much as 2). A GWR 800 can traverse the tunnel in 3½ minutes, so its a 5½ minute headway for those. A 165 takes 4 minutes, so a 6 minute headway. A Class 4 takes 4½ normally, a 2200 ton Class 6 takes 6 minutes, so a 8 minute headway. If you assume the above and a class 6, that is 31 minutes of the hour used.

 

[Bartsimho]

That is 5 trains per hour. The tunnel can take more than that. Severn Tunnel East to West is timed as absolute block with 2 minutes bunce on top (it probably doesnt need as much as 2). A GWR 800 can traverse the tunnel in 3½ minutes, so its a 5½ minute headway for those. A 165 takes 4 minutes, so a 6 minute headway. A Class 4 takes 4½ normally, a 2200 ton Class 6 takes 6 minutes, so a 8 minute headway. If you assume the above and a class 6, that is 31 minutes of the hour used.

Here's a question could more freight be routed via Gloucester as most of it isn't highly time sensitive? Could even promote it with access charges.

Just if only 1 freight train in the tunnel at a time then encouraging the avoiding line seems like a preferred option

 

[midland1]

Here's a question could more freight be routed via Gloucester as most of it isn't highly time sensitive? Could even promote it with access charges.

Just if only 1 freight train in the tunnel at a time then encouraging the avoiding line seems like a preferred option

In steam days a lot of freight was routed via Gloucester.

 

[Bartsimho]

In steam days a lot of freight was routed via Gloucester.

With concerns about capacity of the tunnel it seems like it would be preferable now as well due to the slower times freight can take

 

[The Planner]

Here's a question could more freight be routed via Gloucester as most of it isn't highly time sensitive? Could even promote it with access charges.

Just if only 1 freight train in the tunnel at a time then encouraging the avoiding line seems like a preferred option

If there is a path through the tunnel that a FOC has bid for, you need a very good reason to say no. Try telling a FOC a service isnt time sensitive, they will be considering driver diagrams and wagon/loco cycles.

 

[tiptoptaff]

I think FL would argue their intermodal flows are time-sensitive

 

[louis97]

Surely capacity through the Severn Tunnel would hinder additional stopping trains being introduced through there?

As I understand it, only one train is allowed in, in each direction. 2 GWR Padds, 2 GWR locals and a freight per hour in each direction pretty much fills up paths.

On top of what has already been said, there is also work being undertaken to understand what alterations can be made to the signalling to improve capacity.

 

[ValleyLines142]

Also TFW's Cheltenham service has a very tight turnaround, which the extra stations would add extra time on. So I can see Cheltenham services being split from Maesteg services to be able to work the timetable.

Or they could terminate at Gloucester permanently as the down Paddington is five minutes after the TfW arrival and if that fails a Worcester service 15 minutes after.

 

[deltic08]

Or they could terminate at Gloucester permanently as the down Paddington is five minutes after the TfW arrival and if that fails a Worcester service 15 minutes after.

Cheltenham is a far easier change than Gloucester if you have to walk the full length of Gloucester platform or to use the footbridge from the west end bay platform.
Passengers from Lydney and Chepstow travelling beyond Cheltenham would have to change again.
Better to terminate at Cardiff and not extend to Maesteg.
With a proposed improved frequency of Cardiff-Cheltenhams, hourly Cheltenham/Gloucester-Paddington 80x, possible extra freights diverted via Gloucester and Cardiff-Paddington diverts when Severn Tunnel is closed, surely Severn Tunnel Junction-Cheltenham/Gloucester-Swindon electrication is a priority.
Electric trains with greater acceleration and deceleration will maintain timings on Cardiff-Cheltenhams despite additional 4 stops.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Tfw saying trains will have level boarding so expect more class 756s. Extending Swanline to Bristol TM has been proposed many times and would be a great idea

Class 231s, as already planned given the speed difference would be my guess, or a faster variant of the 756.

The stations listed above will all be on the mainline, presumably on the reliefs. Option 1 is the most basic where Cheltenham will remain hourly, with the Bristol services also hourly. Option 3 being the most frequency with half hourly Cheltenham and half hourly Temple Meads.

To call it currently hourly is a bit of a stretch when there are gaps in it like now, please the delays which can often mean 90 minutes between trains.

Removing the Maesteg portion will help this no end as it's where trains seem to lose time but as someone working for a company with sites in Caldicot and Bridgend, losing a link like we have is rather annoying (although I do accept that I'm probably the only person who makes that journey on a semi-regular basis)

 

[Snow1964]

That is 5 trains per hour. The tunnel can take more than that. Severn Tunnel East to West is timed as absolute block with 2 minutes bunce on top (it probably doesnt need as much as 2). A GWR 800 can traverse the tunnel in 3½ minutes, so its a 5½ minute headway for those. A 165 takes 4 minutes, so a 6 minute headway. A Class 4 takes 4½ normally, a 2200 ton Class 6 takes 6 minutes, so a 8 minute headway. If you assume the above and a class 6, that is 31 minutes of the hour used.

Yes, and there are effectively loops at each end, so the slowest trains can be looped if running early.

So can easily add couple more passenger trains each hour and still have over quarter of an hour spare every hour.


Biggest constraint is Cardiff, it is a through station with negligible bay platforms, so not great place to terminate trains, better off having them run through, combining a few that terminate from opposite directions and terminating elsewhere

 

[The Planner]

On top of what has already been said, there is also work being undertaken to understand what alterations can be made to the signalling to improve capacity.

I don't see what can possibly done to increase capacity in the tunnel, you cannot have a red aspect in there so the tunnel stays as it is. Its a 4 minute headway from Bristol Parkway to near enough Swansea (apart from the tunnel). Newport re-signaling is only around 12-13 years old, so no one is going to make any significant changes.

With a proposed improved frequency of Cardiff-Cheltenhams, hourly Cheltenham/Gloucester-Paddington 80x, possible extra freights diverted via Gloucester and Cardiff-Paddington diverts when Severn Tunnel is closed, surely Severn Tunnel Junction-Cheltenham/Gloucester-Swindon electrication is a priority.
Electric trains with greater acceleration and deceleration will maintain timings on Cardiff-Cheltenhams despite additional 4 stops.

The lines aren't exactly lacking in capacity for those extra trains. Resilience in case the tunnel is closed isn't enough justification either. Severn Tunnel Jn to Gloucester is 2tph in the hours when the Maesteg runs with an hourly freight. There is no intention to divert trains from the tunnel via Gloucester in any case.

 

[louis97]

I don't see what can possibly done to increase capacity in the tunnel, you cannot have a red aspect in there so the tunnel stays as it is. Its a 4 minute headway from Bristol Parkway to near enough Swansea (apart from the tunnel). Newport re-signaling is only around 12-13 years old, so no one is going to make any significant changes.

You see this was my understanding too, however options were certainly being explored which could have allowed a train into a tunnel without the route being available throughout. Not sure how far they progressed though.

 

[Snow1964]

I don't see what can possibly done to increase capacity in the tunnel, you cannot have a red aspect in there so the tunnel stays as it is. Its a 4 minute headway from Bristol Parkway to near enough Swansea (apart from the tunnel). Newport re-signaling is only around 12-13 years old, so no one is going to make any significant changes.

The focus probably ought not be on the tunnel itself, but some intermediate repeaters approaching the tunnel, with aim of allowing drivers of following trains to get the power down as soon as train ahead clears the long tunnel section, by giving them earliest knowledge of when signal protecting the tunnel clears.

If they cannot sight the signal will drive defensively on assumption might be red, and clearly if a train approaches at a crawl, will take longer to get through (even though the gradients do help accelerating approaching it).

Moving block cab signalling does this, but have to assume that physical lineside signalling will be used through the tunnel for few more decades, so solution is to give same info via lineside signalling.

 

[The Planner]

The focus probably ought not be on the tunnel itself, but some intermediate repeaters approaching the tunnel, with aim of allowing drivers of following trains to get the power down as soon as train ahead clears the long tunnel section, by giving them earliest knowledge of when signal protecting the tunnel clears.

If they cannot sight the signal will drive defensively on assumption might be red, and clearly if a train approaches at a crawl, will take longer to get through (even though the gradients do help accelerating approaching it).

Moving block cab signalling does this, but have to assume that physical lineside signalling will be used through the tunnel for few more decades, so solution is to give same info via lineside signalling.

That potentially means closing the signals up and reducing the line speed as they become under braked. In the up direction the block signal for the tunnel is right at the portal, the single yellow is at the Tunnel Jn platform end 1684m away, the green is at the M4 motorway bridge 1469m behind that. Prior to the re-signaling the block signal was at the end of the Up Loop. Same applies on the down, the block signal is at the portal, the single yellow is 1969m back also protecting the exit to the Down Loop, the green 1776m prior to that. Again, prior to the re-signaling, the block signal was at the end of the Down Loop.