South Wales 'Metro' updates

[Del1977]

You can persistently argue about economics all you like, but the number one compliant from passengers and commuters above all else on the Cardiff & Valleys local routes is not having a seat. Followed by poor Sunday service frequencies. Even from Radyr people expect to have a seat. If people don't get a seat, their expectations won't have been met and the SWM project, esp LR conversion, will have failed to meet commuter expectations.

If 50m trams are going to run doubled up (or even on their own), street running won't be possible, which takes away the biggest part of the argument for LR conversion, so the only benefit is 4tph to the HoV instead of in the peak, 6 car 2tph. There's still going to be a crush for the tram that gets people into Cardiff for their 9am start at the office.

Expecting a seat from Radyr, 10 minutes from the city centre at peak commuting hours is absurd. No system operates this way with guaranteed seats and no standing for a 10 minute ride.

 

[gareth950]

Expecting a seat from Radyr, 10 minutes from the city centre at peak commuting hours is absurd. No system operates this way with guaranteed seats and no standing for a 10 minute ride.

Penarth is a 10 minute ride from Cardiff. Should any future rolling stock (tram or train) for Penarth services be specified with no seats?

I'm being facetious, but the point is that Cardiff is not Manchester or London and commuter expectations are different if the suppressed demand on the network can be tapped in to and people persuaded to get out of their cars.

 

[Dai Corner]

Penarth is a 10 minute ride from Cardiff. Should any future rolling stock (tram or train) for Penarth services be specified with no seats?

I'm being facetious, but the point is that Cardiff is not Manchester or London and commuter expectations are different if the suppressed demand on the network can be tapped in to and people persuaded to get out of their cars.

The WG's aspiration is only "to provide sufficient capacity to meet a forecast 74% growth in ridership by 2030, so that ‘even on the busiest services, passengers do not have to stand for more than 20 min’. "

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...nment-sets-out-rolling-stock-aspirations.html

Welsh Government sets out rolling stock aspirations
10 Nov 2016






UK: The Welsh Government’s key priorities for the new rolling stock which is to be procured under the Wales & Borders Operator & Development Partner contract have been set out by Cabinet Secretary for Economy & Infrastructure Ken Skates.

The Welsh Government says that passengers’ perception of the quality of the trains they use is ‘a fundamental aspect of their overall satisfaction with the service provided’. Bidders for the DOP contract which is scheduled to start in late 2018 must submit proposals for ‘high-quality’ rolling stock which would meet increasing expectations for mobile working and connectivity, passenger information and the provision of space for luggage and bicycles.

All rolling stock will be required to comply with the Persons with Reduced Mobility TSI, and controlled-emission toilets must be provided ‘wherever appropriate’.

Bidders must plan to provide sufficient capacity to meet a forecast 74% growth in ridership by 2030, so that ‘even on the busiest services, passengers do not have to stand for more than 20 min’. Vehicles for the South Wales Metro area must be capable of allowing rapid boarding and alighting.

Diesel-only traction is to be phased out on the Core Valley Lines around Cardiff, with conventional electrification, stored energy systems and hybrid systems to be considered as alternatives.

Bidders would be expected to minimise the impact of rolling stock and maintenance depots on the environment. Possibilities include the use of regenerative braking and energy monitoring systems, while depots could make use of solar energy and water harvesting as well as improving noise and lighting management.

Transport for Wales will now work with prequalified bidders Abellio, Arriva, KeolisAmey and MTR Corp to explore how these minimum requirements can be incorporated into the detailed specification for the ODP contract.

In the meantime, it is to work with current franchisee Arriva Trains Wales to identify shorter-term options for providing additional capacity on busy services.

 

[Envoy]

Expecting a seat from Radyr, 10 minutes from the city centre at peak commuting hours is absurd. No system operates this way with guaranteed seats and no standing for a 10 minute ride.

If people getting on at Radyr are having to stand at peak times, then there is a good chance that those waiting to board at Llandaff (north) will not be able to board due to overcrowding.

What we don’t really know is how many seats they plan to provide at peak times on the high demand sections of the network or the type of ‘vehicles' that the contenders for the contract are proposing. Assuming that the system attracts large numbers of travellers, how easy will it be to provide more ‘vehicles’?

 

[NotATrainspott]

But we don't have "Land Value Tax" and I see no proposals to introduce anything like it, so why you are mentioning it I do not understand.

I know we don't have it. However, it helps to demonstrate my point. It's the most effective way of funding public works. Quite arguably, we should abolish public transport fares and use it to fund it instead. It's the most effective way of collecting tax revenue, because it works on the one ultimate thing that good public investment does - raising land values. Gareth is apparently claiming that I'm against the idea of public transport investment altogether, which is simply not true. He says that I'm missing the point about the other benefits of public transport which can't be easily captured by ticket revenues (and thus why we decide to subsidise it), like reduced congestion or easier access to jobs. All of these benefits are ultimately captured by a land value tax. A system which costs more to run than it brings in in LVT revenue is quite clearly one which isn't efficient. From a land value perspective, there is no good reason why LR wouldn't provide the same benefits, or more, compared to HR at reduced cost. It seems highly likely that the absolute most optimum way to serve the Valleys is with LR technology, for all of the reasons I've explained in great detail over the past dozen or so pages.

"Parento principle"; never heard of it so perhaps you could explain it?

The Pareto Principle is better known as the '80-20 rule'. That is, 20% of something is responsible for 80% of the effect. On any transport network it is likely that 20% of the total track kilometres are responsible for 80% of the passengers. Business cases and the reason for public investment are driven by the effects, not the amount. If you only need to fiddle with a portion of the network to get most of the benefit, then that's what governments or private sector bodies or anyone will do.

You can persistently argue about economics all you like, but the number one compliant from passengers and commuters above all else on the Cardiff & Valleys local routes is not having a seat. Followed by poor Sunday service frequencies. Even from Radyr people expect to have a seat. If people don't get a seat, their expectations won't have been met and the SWM project, esp LR conversion, will have failed to meet commuter expectations.

If 50m trams are going to run doubled up (or even on their own), street running won't be possible, which takes away the biggest part of the argument for LR conversion, so the only benefit is 4tph to the HoV instead of in the peak, 6 car 2tph. There's still going to be a crush for the tram that gets people into Cardiff for their 9am start at the office.

You put an extraordinary amount of emphasis on what people said in a simple survey. The thing is that most human progress has come about from people finding new things for the public to want, not just what they want at that moment. If Henry Ford asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse. So long as people have a chance to say that they don't like what they're getting, there's no problem. Democracy is more about being able to chuck out people who make bad decisions, rather than active public choice of what decisions should be made.

With nothing else changing, passengers are clearly very reasonable in wanting a seat as a top priority. However, what the Welsh government are trying to do is to change a lot more than that, to get something better overall. If you're already a passenger, then clearly the frequency of trains is not a problem for you, because if it was, you wouldn't be as able to use the train. Increasing frequency is really rather important to encourage people out of cars, even though it won't come up in a survey. People don't know what they don't have.

The WG's aspiration is only "to provide sufficient capacity to meet a forecast 74% growth in ridership by 2030, so that ‘even on the busiest services, passengers do not have to stand for more than 20 min’. "

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...nment-sets-out-rolling-stock-aspirations.html

IIRC that's pretty much the same aspiration as the DfT and TS. If the Welsh government is doing the same thing as the other transport bodies in the UK, they're probably following best practice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, that's not true. The unique economics of land mean that landlords cannot pass on the costs of an LVT.

Are you suggesting that increasing the rent to cover the LVT would cause the value of the land to increase thus taking up the tax? Because it wouldn't do anything of the sort.

 

[gareth950]

You put an extraordinary amount of emphasis on what people said in a simple survey.

No, I put emphasis on what I hear passengers complaining about every day on overcrowded trains, what I see them tweeting ATW about, and what commuters complain about daily on the 'Arriva Trains Fails' FB page.

 

[Del1977]

But that isn't what you said, is it? You said "council tax" not general taxation.
And at the moment the Assembly do not have any tax raising powers.

And again, you didn't mention tax but Council Tax and the people of Londdon do not support the population of any other place with their COUNCIL tax.

On Council Tax

I'll forgive you for not understanding how tax and funding works in general.

In 2005, the Welsh Assembly ordered a re-banding of all properties in Wales. The band limits were all adjusted. In addition, they added an additional band I. To say they don't exercise control of the levying of Council Tax just isn't correct.

What local authorities have to spend is made up of direct grants from the Welsh Assembly (80% of their funding) and the remainder comes from Council tax (and other bits and pieces like parking etc. etc.).

Since Wales generates less tax revenue than it spends, part of the 80% grant which local authorities have to spend does in fact originate from taxpayers elsewhere in the United Kingdom.


Local authorities use their resources for various public services and improvement schemes, including subsidising transport.

So it's really not impossible to see how funding for a regional public transport system could work.



On the WAG's tax raising powers

From the WAG's own site: http://gov.wales/funding/fiscal-reform/welsh-taxes/?lang=en


"We now have powers to manage and collect our own specifically Welsh taxes.

The Wales Act 2014 devolved to Wales:

• stamp duty land tax
• landfill tax.

In 2016, legislation was introduced to the National Assembly to replace stamp duty land tax with land transaction tax, and landfill tax with landfill disposals tax. The new taxes will operate from April 2018.


Welsh Revenue Authority

The Tax Collection and Management (Wales) Act 2016 provides us with the powers to collect and manage fully-devolved Welsh taxes. The Welsh Revenue Authority (WRA) is being established to collect and manage land transaction tax and landfill disposals tax from April 2018. The WRA will work with Natural Resources Wales on compliance and enforcement of landfill disposals tax.


Income Tax

The Wales Act 2014 and Wales Act 2017 provide for the partial devolution of income tax, which means the National Assembly will decide the income tax rates to be paid by Welsh taxpayers. Other aspects of income tax will continue to be decided by the UK government, and the tax will be collected by HMRC."


So that's stamp duty, landfill tax and income tax.


And if you're still quibbling about council tax, I suggest you refer to this BBC Wales report stating, "It is also responsible for business rates and council tax."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-38345168

 

[Del1977]

Penarth is a 10 minute ride from Cardiff. Should any future rolling stock (tram or train) for Penarth services be specified with no seats?

I'm being facetious, but the point is that Cardiff is not Manchester or London and commuter expectations are different if the suppressed demand on the network can be tapped in to and people persuaded to get out of their cars.

Penarth is at the end of the line. Of course there'll be empty seats when the train starts its journey.

You keep saying it's not Manchester or London and that commuter expectations are different. That's fine. My position is their expectations need to be changed.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Are you suggesting that increasing the rent to cover the LVT would cause the value of the land to increase thus taking up the tax? Because it wouldn't do anything of the sort.

No. Why can't a landlord just double the rent when they feel like it? Because they will be charging as much as the market will bear right now. Unless prospective renters' ability to pay increases (and it has in London, with professionals now considering bits of the city previously unthinkable as places to live), any increase will result in that property going empty as no one will be able to pay. Therefore, there's a natural limit on what rent can be extracted from a property.

When an LVT is implemented, it affects all properties. Sure, the landlord can try to increase the rent to compensate, but so will every other landlord nearby. Since tenants' ability to pay hasn't increased, there's no way for the market to bear that universally higher rate. Landlords are then forced to reduce the rent back down to how much the market could bear, which means the same amount as it is today. The reason why this doesn't work for Council Tax is that the imposition of an LVT cannot result in the supply of properties to rent decreasing. If property taxes are increased and levied on the landlord, it will result in fewer properties being offered for rent. Supply goes down, demand stays the same, so rent goes up. The reduction in supply filters through as inflationary pressure on wages.

I'm not making this up. It's not well-known in normal people circles but economists have known since Adam Smith and Daniel Ricardo that taxes on the value of land are special.

No, I put emphasis on what I hear passengers complaining about every day on overcrowded trains, what I see them tweeting ATW about, and what commuters complain about daily on the 'Arriva Trains Fails' FB page.

Is that meaningfully different to a survey?

"@arrivatw you're service is crap why 15 minutes between trains not 10 #sadface #trainfail"

Is that a tweet we're likely to see? No. Unless the train company has promised people something, people won't expect it. People won't get too annoyed about trains the timetable said didn't exist, especially if the existing timetable is halfway reasonable. That is, people might notice a 3 hour gap at peak time, but they won't pick up on a 2tph service existing rather than 4tph. People get annoyed about seats because there's an implicit expectation that they'll be able to sit down, as trains are equipped with seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No. Why can't a landlord just double the rent when they feel like it? Because they will be charging as much as the market will bear right now. Unless prospective renters' ability to pay increases (and it has in London, with professionals now considering bits of the city previously unthinkable as places to live), any increase will result in that property going empty as no one will be able to pay. Therefore, there's a natural limit on what rent can be extracted from a property.

When an LVT is implemented, it affects all properties. Sure, the landlord can try to increase the rent to compensate, but so will every other landlord nearby. Since tenants' ability to pay hasn't increased, there's no way for the market to bear that universally higher rate.

Yes, there is. The market bears it, or the people don't live there. It's a largely captive market that is what results in the extortionate rents in London. And if everyone puts their rent up by the amount of the LVT, which they will because it'll affect them all, there won't be a reason to go with the one who doesn't add it on because there won't be one who doesn't add it on, if you see what I mean.

A few landlords at the top of the market might lose out, but even if everyone shifts down a level (which is the only likely effect) each landlord still has a tenant.

I'm not making this up. It's not well-known in normal people circles but economists have known since Adam Smith and Daniel Ricardo that taxes on the value of land are special.

While I don't object to the idea of a LVT per-se, some people seem to think it has powers in the manner of some kind of magic wand, which it really doesn't. So far as rental goes, it would be like any other tax imposed on a landlord (e.g. if you moved Council Tax from tenant to landlord responsibility, or if you went back to water rates and made them responsible for those), rents would simply go up.

Your view works on the premise that nobody has any flexibility whatsoever in their personal finances, which is patently untrue. Some people have very little, but those are the people who will be in the lower-value properties anyway.

 

[gareth950]

Away from economics, NR's Wales Route Strategic Plan makes for grim reading.
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Wales-Route-Strategic-Plan.pdf

I've selected the bits relevant to the South Wales area. I've emboldened bits to take note of.

• Uncertainty on future franchise arrangements: The procurement process for the new Wales & Borders franchise is currently underway and is due to come into effect in 2018. This could include an asset divestment on the Core Valley Lines (CVL) which would see the roles and responsibilities of the Wales Route and the lead TOC change. We have been working with Transport for Wales (TfW) to support them with their procurement.
• At this point, our working assumption is that OMR of the CVL remains the responsibility of the Wales Route.
• Uncertainty on enhancements: The Wales Route Study (2016) sets out 14 potential schemes for funders to deliver capacity and connectivity enhancements in CP6. Following the UK Government announcement to cancel electrification from Cardiff to Swansea in June 2017 there are currently no committed enhancements within the Wales Route in CP6. This is the basis of our CP6 submission on OMR.

• Award of the Wales and Cross Borders Franchise: The contract for the new franchise is currently being competed and will come into effect from 2018. The contract has the potential to include major infrastructure investment in the CVL with a new Operator Delivery Partner (ODP) being appointed. At the conclusion of the ODP process, the roles and responsibilities of the Wales Route may change in respect of the CVL infrastructure. The ongoing nature of the competition means that there is a high degree of uncertainty as to the identity of our principal customer in CP6 and what their priorities will be. Other Routes such as Wessex and Anglia, where franchise competitions have recently been concluded, are operating in an environment of greater certainty.

5.3.2. Route operations strategy

The Wales Route operating strategy is assumed to not significantly change prior to the new franchise agreement, which is due to be let towards the end of CP5. The Cardiff Area Re-signalling Scheme (CASR) is completed and offers a step change improvement in capacity on the Cardiff Valley Lines network, with the opportunity to run 16 trains per hour through the central core between Cardiff Queen Street station and Cardiff Central station.

CASR allows train services, particularly in the peak, to be optimised through the provision of new platforms and new turn-backs at Cardiff, Barry, Caerphilly, Tir-Phil and Pontypridd. The realisation of these benefits for passengers in the Cardiff journey-to-work area rests with Welsh Government who will be the awarding authority for the next Wales and Borders passenger franchise.

Network Rail is working extensively with Welsh Government to inform their aspirations around future capacity and capability on the core Valley Lines network (those routes which radiate North of Cardiff Queen Street), for which they are developing proposals which may include new modes of transport and different connectional strategies.

Wales Route is actively working with TfW to evaluate models which include deeper collaboration with the ODP as part of the Re-franchise, these range from ‘soft’ and ‘deep’ alliances to full integration.

We will improve operations in CP6 through:

Leveraging the benefits of the CASR which will allow train services, particularly in the peak, to be optimised through the provision of new platforms and new turn-backs at Cardiff, Barry, Caerphilly, Tir-Phil and Pontypridd.

9.1. Current and planned third party funding

Wales Route is the smallest in Network Rail by several measures, but since its formation in 2011 it has been very successful in capturing third party funding for railway enhancements, in particular from the Welsh Government, which has the right to invest money into rail infrastructure under the terms of the 2014 and 2017 Wales Acts (arising from the St David's Day Agreement, 2015) and has invested £185m to date. Examples of this investment & projects in CP5 are:

 Taff Rhonda turn back facility,

 Redoubling of track between Wrexham and Chester and upgrading of level crossings on sections of this track,

 Platform height raising enhancement scheme,

 Talerddig footbridge to replace level crossings on the Cambrian line,

 Substantial station enhancement schemes at Rhyl, Ystrad Mynach, Port Talbot, Aberystwyth and Pontypridd,

 Station access improvements, including new footbridges, lifts or ramps, at Chirk, Llandaff, Ystrad Mynach, Machynlleth & Radyr.

Disposals and Income Generation

The route will work together with Property, helping to fund Network Rail’s Railway Upgrade Plan by selling assets not core to Network Rail operations and seeking to release surplus railway land for housing to achieve Welsh Government aspirations. In line with the steering group for integrated land disposal for housing use has been formed between Network Rail and Welsh Government. Key sites being worked on include Cogan, Newport and Swansea Burrows sidings.

------------------------------------------------------------------
If land they are considering disposing of at Cogan is not the land in the station car park that has already been cleared for housing, it can only be the land alongside the track between the Taff Ely bridge and Cogan junction, which is used for storage of large amounts (e.g. mountains) of ballast, sections of track, machinery and other railway materials. To build housing there is bonkers, not just because of the loss of crucial railway land but where the housing will be - on a thin strip of land sandwiched between a busy railway line and a river.

 

[Del1977]

Interesting, but it doesn't really tell us anything new.

I guess they - like us - are waiting to see what the result of the franchising process will be.

 

[Llanigraham]

NotATrainspot.
Let me gets this clear.
You want to change the complete Local Authority revenue system to fit into your ideals?

Del1977.
You might note that I live in Wales so know exactly how the rebanding worked, thank you. Funnily enough my house, like many others was not affected due to it's value.
And I am fully aware of the things the Assembly can raise money from taxation, however that cannot involve Income Tax until 2019.
The things you mention are not direct taxation.

 

[Dai Corner]

http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/Resources/METRO phase_02.pdf
I just came across this map on the Projectmapping site, which they describe as Welsh Govt Metro Phase 2' . Make of it what you will.

Various other maps at http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/valley_lines_south_wales.html

 

[Del1977]

NotATrainspot.
Let me gets this clear.
You want to change the complete Local Authority revenue system to fit into your ideals?

Del1977.
You might note that I live in Wales so know exactly how the rebanding worked, thank you. Funnily enough my house, like many others was not affected due to it's value.
And I am fully aware of the things the Assembly can raise money from taxation, however that cannot involve Income Tax until 2019.
The things you mention are not direct taxation.

Income tax from 2019 and ooh - wait - the new franchise is due to start at the end of 2018. Perfect - so it can be used to finance the new Metro after a couple of months.

 

[gareth950]

Income tax from 2019 and ooh - wait - the new franchise is due to start at the end of 2018. Perfect - so it can be used to finance the new Metro after a couple of months.

Except that Welsh Labour have committed to no increases in income tax in this Assembly and want the Barnett formula changed before committing to increasing any taxes, so don't expect any Wales only tax increases anytime soon.

 

[Envoy]

I wonder what, if anything, will be done regarding rail access to Cardiff Airport? Surely, the options are:>
1. Bring a new line off east of the Porthkerry viaduct into the terminal area. (This has the disadvantage of not providing a through service going west).
2. Do 1 but than bring a line back to the line to Rhoose west of the viaduct - thus forming a triangle. (This has the disadvantage of extending journey times on the Vale of Glamorgan Coast Line).
3. Do 1 but then also build a new line running alongside the B4265 to rejoin the present line at Aberthaw. (This has the a advantage of saving the airport directly from both the east and west but the disadvantage of removing the stop at Rhoose station. A cut and cover tunnel could be done under the airport car parks).
4. Build a new station on the present route just west of the Porthkerry Viaduct and then have a bus link into the terminal - which would be a very short distance.
5. Do nothing and keep the present arrangement of the bus link from Rhoose station.

If nothing is done now, I would hope that land protection takes place so that the various options would be available at some point in the future. I understand that it is not the intention to build a new airport on the south side - where the present railway could have a station within/near the terminal. Much new housing has taken place to the south of the Airport.

Here is a map of the area for those that are interested:>https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3951244,-3.3459106,14.34z/data=!5m1!1e1

 

[Gareth Marston]

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You've picked the slant on the statistics which you want to serve your argument. Another, equally or more valid, slant on those same statistics is about the percentage of passenger journeys that would be covered by the SWM. The Pareto principle means that a small part of the rail network is responsible for a large proportion of all journeys - this statement is valid on essentially all levels. A system serving a small proportion of places in South Wales would carry a disproportionately large portion of travellers, and it's the number of travellers which makes the business case.

Yet again your applying theory to an area you continually demonstrate you have little actual knowledge of. My 40% figure of current users only covered by Core Valley Lines is actually verifiable so your Pareto theory that they are converting the part used by the majority is a total tosh. If you care to look at http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/station-usage-estimates you'll find your able to filter by UA area and SRS Route. The 10 Unitary Authority's in SE Wales currently produce a footfall of c 39 million. This is split almost evenly between "South Wales Valleys" and the rest. You then deduct the Vale of Glamorgan and the stations in Cardiff that are not part of Core Valley Lines away from South Wales Valleys and your left with 38.5% of the footfall in SE Wales. The reality is that current usage is fairly evenly spread around the 9 UA authority's away from Cardiff.

When you take into account that the line to Swansea is not being electrified then this core valley lines proposal is only covering a third of of current users in Glamorgan/Gwent and around a third of the route miles. Hard facts NotATrainspott not airy fairy theory.

As we have been continually pointing out most place sand most users in South Wales are left out.

 

[Dai Corner]

Except that Welsh Labour have committed to no increases in income tax in this Assembly and want the Barnett formula changed before committing to increasing any taxes, so don't expect any Wales only tax increases anytime soon.

Welsh Labour seem happy to fiddle with minor taxes like Land Transaction Tax though. I find it rather ironic that they seek greater political independence from England at the same time as greater economic dependence.

 

[Del1977]

Except that Welsh Labour have committed to no increases in income tax in this Assembly and want the Barnett formula changed before committing to increasing any taxes, so don't expect any Wales only tax increases anytime soon.

So that is a political choice. It's not they can't raise money - they choose not to!

 

[Del1977]

Yet again your applying theory to an area you continually demonstrate you have little actual knowledge of. My 40% figure of current users only covered by Core Valley Lines is actually verifiable so your Pareto theory that they are converting the part used by the majority is a total tosh. If you care to look at http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/station-usage-estimates you'll find your able to filter by UA area and SRS Route. The 10 Unitary Authority's in SE Wales currently produce a footfall of c 39 million. This is split almost evenly between "South Wales Valleys" and the rest. You then deduct the Vale of Glamorgan and the stations in Cardiff that are not part of Core Valley Lines away from South Wales Valleys and your left with 38.5% of the footfall in SE Wales. The reality is that current usage is fairly evenly spread around the 9 UA authority's away from Cardiff.

When you take into account that the line to Swansea is not being electrified then this core valley lines proposal is only covering a third of of current users in Glamorgan/Gwent and around a third of the route miles. Hard facts NotATrainspott not airy fairy theory.

As we have been continually pointing out most place sand most users in South Wales are left out.

Many of these passenger loadings elsewhere e.g. Newport, Abergavenny, Bridgend etc. may be for journeys to non-Metro locations, e.g. London Paddington.

That methodology is hopelessly flawed.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Why would HR be cheaper at providing the same capacity?

The Urbos 3 Trams ordered for Midland Metro were £1.9 million per 33 meter set. 54 seat and 156 standing.
A 3 car Civity DMU (72 metres) with c200 seats and 200 +standing is c£4 million.
As a rough rule of thumb 2 Tram Cars = 1 x 3 Car DMU in terms of cost. Trams have 50% less seats but 50% more standing. You have to buy more trams to equal the seating capacity of the DMU, OK you'll tell me that you can reconfigure the tram layout to get some more seats in like the Class 399 in Rotherham 37 metres 90 seats, 150 standing but these have cost more then the Urbos 3's, reportedly nearer £3 million.

So c £ One Million in roiling stock buys you

DMU/EMU = c 50 seats
Tram Train = c33 seats
Tram = c27 seats

Heavy Rail wins every time in terms of seating capacity.

However you prefer the term "capacity" which is part of the dishonesty agenda that we are having from Welsh Government with Light Rail. People have repeatedly said that getting a seat is a priority however they are not being given any information about the pros and cons of the various options they will just be presented with the winning bid which they will be told is magically the best in the whole world. When they find out that they have been given better bespoke standing space not the seats they wanted they will not be so inclined to use the system and then the supposed benefits of Light Rail will not be realised due to lesser revenue and usage.

 

[Del1977]

Right. I've downloaded the usage of stations spreadsheet, from the ORR and have used some pivot tables in Excel to sub-divide the total entries/exits.

I've stripped out the following stations as there's likely to be significant flows of passengers that are not using local services e.g. Bridgend, Cardiff Central, Newport. I've then also taken out Cardiff Queen Street and Cardiff Bay.

What's left is:
- Stations to Maesteg and the intermediate stations on the SWML.
- Chepstow, Caldicot and STJ.
- The Marches line stops: Abergavenny, Cwmbran and Pontypool,
- Ebbw Vale line
- Valleys (North of CDF Central)
- Vale

And the numbers are:

Valleys North - 11,805,918 - 62%
Marches line - 883,886 - 4.6%
Ebbw Vale line - 914,294 - 4.8%
Vale of Glam/Penarth - 3,771,612 - 19.8%
Maesteg / SWML stoppers - 1,048,618 - 5.5%
Gloucester Line - 356,262 - 1.9%
Severn Tunnel Junction - 253,918 - 1.3%


So IF the WAG only have improvements covering the so-called 'Core' Valley Lines, that still makes up 60% of all passengers starting a journey in SE Wales, excluding the three mainline InterCity stations, and Cardiff Queen Street.

If the improvements were also extended to the Vale of Glamorgan line - which I think they ought to be - then that would account for 82% of all passenger journeys.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Class 399s are not more expensive because they have more seats. They are more expensive because they are basically a train in tram's clothing - a bit like a Stadler GTW or something with street running features - perhaps a bit like a Swiss narrow gauge EMU. They are also dual-power which a classic tram is not.

Unless you go for 3+2 seating, which I imagine would not be popular, you will get the same number of seats in a given length of tram as a given length of train. They are both rail vehicles. The technology makes no difference whatsoever to the arrangement of the seats, nor to where you put the doors or any toilet facility, nor to how big the cabs are, nor to the seat pitch, nor to the type of seat chosen. All those decisions are completely independent of the underlying technology, and those factors are the only things that dictate how many seats (assuming 2+2) you get in a given length.

One thing I am very certain we should not be building, though, is traditional DMUs. Electrification is important as diesel is increasingly deprecated. At a push they could be bi-modes with a long-term electrification plan - but if for the price of those (or a little more) we can have a fully electrified light rail network we absolutely should in my book.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Many of these passenger loadings elsewhere e.g. Newport, Abergavenny, Bridgend etc. may be for journeys to non-Metro locations, e.g. London Paddington.

Exactly the South Wales rail network is connected to the rest of the UK. Like any system (even @ Canada Water) there will be people traveling further afield but the local network has to carry them even in the Valleys along with the Metro only customers. In fact these passengers contribute far more to the railways coffers than the metro only passengers do- yet the investment is being funneled into one corner of the South Wales rail network.

The footfall for Merthyr UA is 732K yet the Vale of Glamorgan's is 3,056K and Bridgends 2,215K What did they do wrong?

 

[Del1977]

Exactly the South Wales rail network is connected to the rest of the UK. Like any system (even @ Canada Water) there will be people traveling further afield but the local network has to carry them even in the Valleys along with the Metro only customers. In fact these passengers contribute far more to the railways coffers than the metro only passengers do- yet the investment is being funneled into one corner of the South Wales rail network.

The footfall for Merthyr UA is 732K yet the Vale of Glamorgan's is 3,056K and Bridgends 2,215K What did they do wrong?

I've already supplied you with the figures for the lines being upgraded and 62% of the total footfall comes from passenger entries and exits on lines being upgraded. Should the Vale also be upgraded? Yes, of course. I think Barry and Penarth should be part of the project.


But I hope you're not disputing my figures from the ORR?

 

[Dai Corner]

Exactly the South Wales rail network is connected to the rest of the UK. Like any system (even @ Canada Water) there will be people traveling further afield but the local network has to carry them even in the Valleys along with the Metro only customers. In fact these passengers contribute far more to the railways coffers than the metro only passengers do- yet the investment is being funneled into one corner of the South Wales rail network.

The footfall for Merthyr UA is 732K yet the Vale of Glamorgan's is 3,056K and Bridgends 2,215K What did they do wrong?

Merthyr currently gets two trains an hour to Cardiff
Vale of Glamorgan gets eight
Bridgend gets five

 

[Del1977]

Merthyr currently gets two trains an hour to Cardiff
Vale of Glamorgan gets eight
Bridgend gets five

Exactly. And Bridgend also gets long distance services with first class which run non-stop. If you exclude Bridgend station from Gareth's UA figures for Bridgend, the local authority footfall is 691,000. Bridgend itself accounts for 1.5m of Gareth's 2.2m total.

Less people use the stations between Maesteg-> Wildmill than use say Ystrad Mynach.

 

[gareth950]

Merthyr currently gets two trains an hour to Cardiff
Vale of Glamorgan gets eight
Bridgend gets five

Vale of Glamorgan via Rhoose and Llantwit Major gets one train per hour.
Barry gets 4 as it's double track all the way, Penarth gets 4.