South Wales electrification

[jopsuk]

Agreed - we need to stop thinking of buses as being the competition for rail

In a joined-up system, buses would primarily provide local links and feed to rail lines, with more integrated ticketing and joined-up timetabling (where frequencies of either were worse than 4/hr)

 

[Rhydgaled]

Welsh Government announced £3.5 Billion for infrastructure projects today not a single penny for Valleys or Main Line electrification though the answer to the European funding element is confirmed - ERDF funds to help dual another section of A465 road.

Why should they put a penny towards rail electrification? Westminister in the proportion of tax revenue they give to WAG don't give WAG a single penny to spend on rail electrification.

It is a scandal that both WAG and Westminster continue to throw money at road dualing etc. to help fuel climate change though. In my opinion, the road 'improvement' budget (paying for things like A465 dualing) should be split between public transport, small road saftey schemes for pedestrians (installing zerba/puffin/pelican crossings and widening pavements) and road maintenance (resurfacing).

 

[anthony263]

Well it looks like the money will have to come from somewhere to pay for electrifying the Cardiff valley lines.

As for the buses between Pontypridd and Cardiff really the ones I have seen well used are service X4/T4 & X32 from Maerdy.

However the new Optare tempo's for the T4 are useless and simply are not up to the job on service T4 as they cannot cope with the number of passengers between Merthyr Tydfil & Cardiff. This of course could benefit the train however the problem with the station in Merthyr Tydfil is that it is right next to a Tesco so doesnt really have much of a car park which I have seen to be packed on a few occasions I have visisted the area.

 

[tbtc]

Welsh Government announced £3.5 Billion for infrastructure projects today not a single penny for Valleys or Main Line electrification though the answer to the European funding element is confirmed - ERDF funds to help dual another section of A465 road.

As Rhydgaled says, they are waiting for someone else to pay for it - can't blame the WAG for not stumping up if its not their responsibility
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In a joined-up system, buses would primarily provide local links and feed to rail lines, with more integrated ticketing and joined-up timetabling (where frequencies of either were worse than 4/hr)

But most bus journeys are fairly local trips that don't need a train (or where forcing people to have to connect to a train service will just make public transport so unattractive that people will just drive instead).

 

[Rhydgaled]

But most bus journeys are fairly local trips that don't need a train (or where forcing people to have to connect to a train service will just make public transport so unattractive that people will just drive instead).

Surely that depends where you are. Out here in north Pembs, the only bus service to Carmarthen is the really slow 460 from Cardigan (and that's in the next county), so connecting the north-Pembs buses (412 and Poppit Rocket) into the new Fishguard rail service would surely be helpful.

 

[tbtc]

Surely that depends where you are. Out here in north Pembs, the only bus service to Carmarthen is the really slow 460 from Cardigan (and that's in the next county), so connecting the north-Pembs buses (412 and Poppit Rocket) into the new Fishguard rail service would surely be helpful.

I did say "most", not all - there will be some rural examples. But in the case of a relatively short journey like Pontypridd - Cardiff (which we were discussing) then forcing bus passengers to change onto a train is going to make a fairly small trip more complicated and turn people off public transport altogether.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why should they put a penny towards rail electrification? Westminister in the proportion of tax revenue they give to WAG don't give WAG a single penny to spend on rail electrification.

The key document for rail will be the DfT's SoFA due out in July, detailing what it will fund in NR's CP5 (2014-19).
This includes spending for Wales (infrastructure, rolling stock etc).
The WG would not be allowed to "announce" it in advance when Justine Greening wants the glory.

I see the £45m for Wrexham-Chester doubling is in the WG plan appendix as for delivery 2012-15.

 

[Gareth Marston]

From the WG Infrastructure Plan published yesterday.
"We are leading the development of the Business Case for electrification
of the Great Western Main Line from Swansea to Cardiff, and the Valley Lines, working closely with Network Rail and the DfT"

Minister of State for Wales speaking to Sennedd today from BBC website
Gillan: Rail electrification 'cannot happen on a whim'

Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan says the UK government must see a business case before it can electrify the main Paddington-Swansea railway line.

Electrification cannot happen on a whim, she told the Welsh assembly in a statement on the Queen's speech.

 

[Solaris]

Comprehensive business cases for VLE and electrification of GWML to Swansea were submitted to DfT in January/ DfT have acknowledged stength of cases ....

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Comprehensive business cases for VLE and electrification of GWML to Swansea were submitted to DfT in January/ DfT have acknowledged stength of cases ....

I hope somebody is lobbying the GW franchise bidders to include Cardiff-Swansea electrification as an option in their bids (assuming it will not be in the imminent GW ITT which I doubt).
To improve the business case will mean working up a joint (Bath-) Bristol-Cardiff-Swansea interurban service proposal with cascaded EMUs.
The extension to Swansea will not be made on an inter-city basis when the DfT are happy (perhaps keen) to use IEP for these services, nor on local South Wales services.
ATW will also have to be involved even though their franchise will expire before the wires go up - an electric operation will change the balance of services.

The Valleys case stands or falls on its own.

 

[Greenback]

Agreed - we need to stop thinking of buses as being the competition for rail

I agree, but the way the transport sector is set up, it is all about competition. Sadly, this is an extension of the prevailing 'wisdom' that states that competition leads to efficiency while centralised planning leads to waste.

you'll find the vast majority of them originate from destinations served by Valley Lines and therefore run as competition to the trains, they may serve some intermediate housing areas but interchange is not an option due to ticketing. 4 of the 10 are Express from Merthyr bus station only serving there and Pontypridd.

The express buses are an example of the misguided notion of competition in action. There is no need for bus routes that merely duplicate rail routes.

In a joined-up system, buses would primarily provide local links and feed to rail lines, with more integrated ticketing and joined-up timetabling (where frequencies of either were worse than 4/hr)

Correct, but this requires planning, rather than just being left to the market. I;m sure I read on here that the effective, and planned network of local buses conencting with Metro trains in Tyne and Wear had to be broken up in order to encourage competition!

But most bus journeys are fairly local trips that don't need a train (or where forcing people to have to connect to a train service will just make public transport so unattractive that people will just drive instead).

Exactly, which is why the Llanelli - Swansea buses ar enot filled with people travelling between the Llanelli bus station and Swansea bus station. They are populated with people going to places like Fforestfach, Parc Trostre, Llangennech, Gorseinon and Loughor.

The only ones making the full journey are on concessionary passes, but that's another can of worms!

Surely that depends where you are. Out here in north Pembs, the only bus service to Carmarthen is the really slow 460 from Cardigan (and that's in the next county), so connecting the north-Pembs buses (412 and Poppit Rocket) into the new Fishguard rail service would surely be helpful.

I think it would, but this would again require co-ordination, planning and development, all of which are sadly lacking with the way things are currently run.

Comprehensive business cases for VLE and electrification of GWML to Swansea were submitted to DfT in January/ DfT have acknowledged stength of cases ....

Getting back on topic, governments like to ignore things they don't like, as though they had never existed!

There is a business case for electrification to Swansea, but DfT do not want to pay for it, or admit that they messed up previously by ignoring the local trains!

 

[Rhydgaled]

I hope somebody is lobbying the GW franchise bidders to include Cardiff-Swansea electrification as an option in their bids (assuming it will not be in the imminent GW ITT which I doubt).
To improve the business case will mean working up a joint (Bath-) Bristol-Cardiff-Swansea interurban service proposal with cascaded EMUs.

My fictious scenario is 4tph between Cardiff and Swansea, plus an hourly Carmarthen - Cardiff service via the Swansea District Line. The 4tph into Swansea from the east would then be:

• 1tph London - Reading - Newport - Cardiff Central - Bridgend - Port Talbot Parkway - Neath - Swansea (with Intercity 225s, or similar)
• 1tph Manchester - Swansea (diesel - existing service, but calling Bridgend, Port Talbot and Neath only on the section in question)
• 1tph Swansea - Cardiff Swanline EMU service all stations (was going to be to Cheltenham, but I've given up hope of wires to Cheltenham except perhaps from Swindon)
• 1tph Swansea - Bristol EMU semi-fast service (replaces part of Taunton - Cardiff), western extention calls at Bridgend, Pyle, Port Talbot, Neath and Swansea

The Swanline EMU service would have the proposed 2nd Maesteg each hour attached (means we need corriodor-ended units) or the 2nd Maesteg would be diverted via Barry or terminate at Bridgend. Trobble is, once the current Maesteg and my proposed SDL service is factored in there isn't enough paths for that and all the freight without some new 4-tracking or having it spend alot of time in loops. Several posters have suggested that the Swansea - Bristol would be the service to drop (though perhaps they'd extend the Swanline to Bristol instead).

The extension to Swansea will not be made on an inter-city basis when the DfT are happy (perhaps keen) to use IEP for these services, nor on local South Wales services. The Valleys case stands or falls on its own.

Those are the two big questions, how much of Valleys are DfT indending to electrify? If Bridgend and Maesteg are included, then Swansea has a much stronger case, if IEP is ordered in bi-mode form then electrification, and perhaps eventually the railways and life on earth, is dead. On Wales Today last night they were talking about Tower Coliery, class 92 haulage of coal from Tower to Aberthaw anyone?

 

[anthony263]

My fictious scenario is 4tph between Cardiff and Swansea, plus an hourly Carmarthen - Cardiff service via the Swansea District Line. The 4tph into Swansea from the east would then be:

• 1tph London - Reading - Newport - Cardiff Central - Bridgend - Port Talbot Parkway - Neath - Swansea (with Intercity 225s, or similar)
• 1tph Manchester - Swansea (diesel - existing service, but calling Bridgend, Port Talbot and Neath only on the section in question)
• 1tph Swansea - Cardiff Swanline EMU service all stations (was going to be to Cheltenham, but I've given up hope of wires to Cheltenham except perhaps from Swindon)
• 1tph Swansea - Bristol EMU semi-fast service (replaces part of Taunton - Cardiff), western extention calls at Bridgend, Pyle, Port Talbot, Neath and Swansea

The Swanline EMU service would have the proposed 2nd Maesteg each hour attached (means we need corriodor-ended units) or the 2nd Maesteg would be diverted via Barry or terminate at Bridgend. Trobble is, once the current Maesteg and my proposed SDL service is factored in there isn't enough paths for that and all the freight without some new 4-tracking or having it spend alot of time in loops. Several posters have suggested that the Swansea - Bristol would be the service to drop (though perhaps they'd extend the Swanline to Bristol instead).

Those are the two big questions, how much of Valleys are DfT indending to electrify? If Bridgend and Maesteg are included, then Swansea has a much stronger case, if IEP is ordered in bi-mode form then electrification, and perhaps eventually the railways and life on earth, is dead. On Wales Today last night they were talking about Tower Coliery, class 92 haulage of coal from Tower to Aberthaw anyone?

I say run the Swanline to Bristol TM unless the severn tunnel diversion route is wired then run to Cheltenham.

You could have trains overtake at Port Talbot Parkway where additional platforms could be built since the line is 4 tracked between Port Talbot parkway & Margam.

The only other option I have come up with is to run the swanline service to Bridgend then go via the Vale of glamorgan line.

Of course the problem with a electric Swansea - Bristol TM service is that would there be enough EMU's if the Valley Lines decides to get the class 315's to save money since I believe all the class 319's from thameslink are spoken for although FGW could order brand new emu's (Eespecially if they wires the Thames Valley Branches and Reading - Bassingstoke etc) and sent their allocation of class 319's to Northern although keep a few for use in Bristol.

 

[tbtc]

The express buses are an example of the misguided notion of competition in action. There is no need for bus routes that merely duplicate rail routes

We're talking about the X4? The Ian Duncan Smith route?

AIUI there simply isn't capacity for the half hourly Pacers to Merthyr to deal with the number of bus passengers too.

Plus aren't you saying elsewhere that fast direct public transport is important in the Valleys? So an express service is a good thing? (since the trains stop everywhere on the route to Cardiff)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To improve the business case will mean working up a joint (Bath-) Bristol-Cardiff-Swansea interurban service proposal with cascaded EMUs.

It looks like there won't be enough cascaded EMUs to cope with direct DMU replacement of the Thames Valley/ Lancashire routes (based on current numbers, plus the need to retain some stock around London), so I don't forsee any *new* routes being run by cascaded EMUs for a few years (just direct DMU replacements).

 

[anthony263]

I personally think the X4/T4 is a good express service. Ideally I think these should be the only buses running between Pontypridd & Cardiff the service's from Aberdare and Maerdy dont really seem to carry that many passengers between Pontypridd & Cardiff anyway.

The T4 also provides a link between Brecon & Merthyr and the X4 is good in that is a long distance service and I think overcrowding and congestion would be worse on the trains from Merthyr Tydfil and Pontypridd as well as on the A470 to Cardiff if they cut or scrapped the X4/T4 express.

 

[Greenback]

We're talking about the X4? The Ian Duncan Smith route?

AIUI there simply isn't capacity for the half hourly Pacers to Merthyr to deal with the number of bus passengers too.

In an ideal world, a properly planend public transport system would mean that you wouldn't have duplication of rail and road routes; rather they should be complementary.

I think the whole point of this discussion is that increased capacity is desperately needed, and that electrification is one of the ways to bring that about. Then, capacity on routes to places like Merthyr or Aberdare could not be used as justification for what are wasteful parallel services.

Plus aren't you saying elsewhere that fast direct public transport is important in the Valleys? So an express service is a good thing? (since the trains stop everywhere on the route to Cardiff)

I think what I have been saying in this thread is that improved acceleration brought by electric trains would improve joureny times, which would lead to deprived places such as Merthyr Vale becoming more attractive as places to live. As an express bus does not stop at the places served by the railway, I think it is unlikely that people living in these communities benefit at all from the bus service, yet they could from electrification.

I have not agreed with express train services missing out smaller stops. To me, that defeats the whole purpose, and would only lead to economic growth in the larger towns, whereas it is the former mining villages that are most in need of regeneration.

Where buses can best serve the valleys is in providing links to non rail served communities, and cross valley services, rather than running fast between places that are already served by trains.

 

[merlodlliw]

The key document for rail will be the DfT's SoFA due out in July, detailing what it will fund in NR's CP5 (2014-19).
This includes spending for Wales (infrastructure, rolling stock etc).
The WG would not be allowed to "announce" it in advance when Justine Greening wants the glory.

I see the £45m for Wrexham-Chester doubling is in the WG plan appendix as for delivery 2012-15.

Well the Wrexham redouble will happen,however I suspect its opening will coincide with the next WG elections,Lesley Griffiths & Carl Sargent knocking in the golden bolt at each end(the middle is of course in Cheshire you are spot on with glory hunters. All the hype about the Cambrian from previous WG Ministers certainly hit the buffers, 22 miles of new track but not a new service.

Bob

 

[cogload]

Why should they put a penny towards rail electrification? Westminister in the proportion of tax revenue they give to WAG don't give WAG a single penny to spend on rail electrification.

It is a scandal that both WAG and Westminster continue to throw money at road dualing etc. to help fuel climate change though. In my opinion, the road 'improvement' budget (paying for things like A465 dualing) should be split between public transport, small road saftey schemes for pedestrians (installing zerba/puffin/pelican crossings and widening pavements) and road maintenance (resurfacing).

Are Barnett formula and it's consequentials hypothecated by the Westminster government then? AFIAK Westminster does not hypothecate it's own tax revenue (it will allocate money toward individual spending if asked but that is not hypothecation) - and the various deals being stuck with the likes of Manchester et al in terms of Tax Increment Financing have a business plan, but no strict hypothecation attached.

In broad terms, if WAG wishes to blow £3bn on a huge party can Westminster actually stop it after the money has been allocated? If the answer is no, then what is to stop WAG spending the infrastructure plan cash on wiring up the Valleys lines.

 

[Rhydgaled]

In broad terms, if WAG wishes to blow £3bn on a huge party can Westminster actually stop it after the money has been allocated? If the answer is no, then what is to stop WAG spending the infrastructure plan cash on wiring up the Valleys lines.

I've no idea what hypothecated means, and I can't claim to understand how the Barnet formula thingy works (or what it is) but in answer to the quoted section of your post, this is what I think happens (I could be wrong):

Westminster allocates a chunk of money to WAG for road projects, another for NHS capital costs etc. (of which rail infrastructure is not something they give WAG money for). WAG are then free to divert the money which has been allocated for one of these into rail infrastructure if they see fit (hence Gowerton and Wrexham re-doubles and Fishguard & Goodwick station) but this means they can't spend that money on whatever it was Westminster gave it to them for (eg. building schools). It is therefore Westminster's official responcibility to pay for electrification in Wales, but WAG could do it if they sacrifice money given to them for school or road projects to pay for it.

 

[anthony263]

Just read this and it does seem interesting:

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publicatio...on-report/low-cost-electrification-report.pdf

 

[Rhydgaled]

Just read this and it does seem interesting:

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publicatio...on-report/low-cost-electrification-report.pdf

750v DC OHLE? Isn't 750v DC the current used for 3rd rail electrification, so would have the same problem with feeder station spacing? If it is the same current as our 3rd rail systems, I cannot see why 750v DC OHLE would be cheaper than 750v DC 3rd rail, why not electrify with 3rd rail instead (more suitable for rural branch line in my opinion, if it is as cheap). Then existing 3rd rail units could be used, no need to have stock with capability for yet another form of electrification.

 

[merlodlliw]

I've no idea what hypothecated means, and I can't claim to understand how the Barnet formula thingy works (or what it is) but in answer to the quoted section of your post, this is what I think happens (I could be wrong):

Westminster allocates a chunk of money to WAG for road projects, another for NHS capital costs etc. (of which rail infrastructure is not something they give WAG money for). WAG are then free to divert the money which has been allocated for one of these into rail infrastructure if they see fit (hence Gowerton and Wrexham re-doubles and Fishguard & Goodwick station) but this means they can't spend that money on whatever it was Westminster gave it to them for (eg. building schools). It is therefore Westminster's official responcibility to pay for electrification in Wales, but WAG could do it if they sacrifice money given to them for school or road projects to pay for it.

I wont get into the payment formulas either,but we have fully devolved(NHS,Education etc) & semi devolved, as far as the Wrexham dual tracking is concerned,almost £30M was already ring fenced from previous years, so the new money is around £12m,a lot of the money for roads is known as "funny Money" from Europe, Gareth will know better then me.
Gowerton BTW was all new money, Goodwick was a mixture of County Council & WG funding.
It was always a custom of diverting money by WG & County Councils to other areas unless ring fenced, The Valley Electrics & main line would have to be open & transparent ,In Wrexham after many a battle we got all A.Ms & M.Ps plus the County Council & others to ensure the Minister got the money ring fenced, which occurred.

Bob

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Gowerton BTW was all new money .....

Bob

Whether it was or not is unimportant since nothing has been done yet.

 

[swtandgw]

750v DC OHLE? Isn't 750v DC the current used for 3rd rail electrification, so would have the same problem with feeder station spacing? If it is the same current as our 3rd rail systems, I cannot see why 750v DC OHLE would be cheaper than 750v DC 3rd rail, why not electrify with 3rd rail instead (more suitable for rural branch line in my opinion, if it is as cheap). Then existing 3rd rail units could be used, no need to have stock with capability for yet another form of electrification.

But wouldn't there be problems with inter-running, especially if 25kV AC electrification is used on the joining line? Also, wouldn't that necessitate train-trams to be dual-voltage? I've never heard of such vehicles being dual voltage, since they almost always use 750v DC OHLE.

 

[merlodlliw]

Whether it was or not is unimportant since nothing has been done yet.

I was under the impression a year had been set.Gowerton was announced before Wrexham,which set the A.Ms rounding on the Minister

Bob

 

[Rhydgaled]

I was under the impression a year had been set.Gowerton was announced before Wrexham,which set the A.Ms rounding on the Minister

Bob

Someone said they were talking to someone at the Fishguard & Goodwick re-openning event and it emerged that Gowerton redouble would be done using a possession of a few weeks in Easter 2013.

 

[HSTEd]

Just read this and it does seem interesting:

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publicatio...on-report/low-cost-electrification-report.pdf

Indeed it does..... I got this released by an FOIA request some time ago.
Although dual voltage 750v/15kV AC tram-trains do exist in Germany and there seems to be no reason why a 25kV derivative could not be created there is little point as far as I can tell.

I have contacted TramPower( the designer of the equipment which is mentioned in the report) and they are of the opinion that relatively small modifications to the equipment they designed for tram voltages would enable it to be used for 25kV AC. (Replace the tubular steel register arm with GRP and the stainless steel strap wire with parafil).

So we can get 25kV catenary extremely cheap and supposedly good to 90-100mph.

 

[Ivo]

Just read this and it does seem interesting:

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publicatio...on-report/low-cost-electrification-report.pdf

I hope they aren't seriously considering the two branches they have chosen for the report for trial projects. Lines such as Sudbury and especially Severn Beach would be far more worthwhile, efficient and ultimately economically sound options.

 

[anthony263]

Someone said they were talking to someone at the Fishguard & Goodwick re-openning event and it emerged that Gowerton redouble would be done using a possession of a few weeks in Easter 2013.

Confirmed and would result in Milford Haven - Manchester services running via the Swansea district line with I believe the Pembroke Dock - Swansea services terminating @ Llanelli although some may also be extended to Cardiff.

I would like to hop that there will be additonal services between Cardiff & Swansea to cover for the loss of the Manchester services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I hope they aren't seriously considering the two branches they have chosen for the report for trial projects. Lines such as Sudbury and especially Severn Beach would be far more worthwhile, efficient and ultimately economically sound options.

I have to agree Ivo althgouigh there have been rumnours that the Severn Beach branch would be getting wired as part of the GW electrification with the branch to Portbury also being included (That would certainly help the push for the short short link between Pil & Portishead to be re-instated.)

That said I have made it my opinion that I beleieve it to just be a rumour although someone did point out that it was made by someone from Network rail although if it does prove to be true it will be a good thing although you have to ask where are the emu's going to come from unless you could nick some displaced class 315's from east anglia.

 

[Ivo]

Confirmed and would result in Milford Haven - Manchester services running via the Swansea district line with I believe the Pembroke Dock - Swansea services terminating @ Llanelli although some may also be extended to Cardiff.

I would like to hop that there will be additonal services between Cardiff & Swansea to cover for the loss of the Manchester services.

Surely such a suggestion would only strengthen the case for wiring the South Wales route? If CDF-MFH, a non-leccy route, was to be replaced on the core Swan Line section then why not do so with an EMU? Or is that too "sensible" for the railways of Great Britain?

I have to agree Ivo althgouigh there have been rumnours that the Severn Beach branch would be getting wired as part of the GW electrification with the branch to Portbury also being included (That would certainly help the push for the short short link between Pil & Portishead to be re-instated.)

That said I have made it my opinion that I beleieve it to just be a rumour although someone did point out that it was made by someone from Network rail although if it does prove to be true it will be a good thing although you have to ask where are the emu's going to come from unless you could nick some displaced class 315's from east anglia.

[shudder]

No thank you