South Wales 'Metro' updates

[Dai Corner]

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.

That's a pretty good argument for concentrating on increasing the capacity in the Valleys and Barry-Bridgend I would have thought?

 

[gareth950]

That's a pretty good argument for concentrating on increasing the capacity in the Valleys and Barry-Bridgend I would have thought?

Apart from the fact that the 2 car 150s that will be running Barry - Cardiff for the foreseeable future are hopelessly inadequate in meeting peak time demand and for providing enhanced capacity for suppressed and future demand.

 

[Dai Corner]

Apart from the fact that the 2 car 150s that will be running Barry - Cardiff for the foreseeable future are hopelessly inadequate in meeting peak time demand and for providing enhanced capacity for suppressed and future demand.

You refurbish the 150s displaced from the Valleys and use them to strengthen the Vale services initially. Brand new EMUs everywhere would be great but pragmatism has to come in to play.

 

[gareth950]

You refurbish the 150s displaced from the Valleys and use them to strengthen the Vale services initially. Brand new EMUs everywhere would be great but pragmatism has to come in to play.

There's no need for brand new EMU's when Greater Anglia are releasing enough EMUs to replace the current Valleys & Vale of Glamorgan fleet at least twice over.
But it has to be shiny and new north of Queen St. Got to keep the heartlands happy (at least initially).

 

[Dai Corner]

There's no need for brand new EMU's when Greater Anglia are releasing enough EMUs to replace the current Valleys & Vale of Glamorgan fleet at least twice over.
But it has to be shiny and new north of Queen St. Got to keep the heartlands happy (at least initially).

Ok, whatever EMUs are available at the appropriate time. Shiny newness is likely to be the priority over long term planning unfortunately. I'm just hoping (against hope?) we don't get shiny new buffer stops at Queen Street which are still there and rusty in ten years time!

 

[Gareth Marston]

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?

The ORR figures do not tell you where those journeys are going to/from though do they? They just give estimates of usage at each station.

I was sensible enough to print off a hard copy of the Welsh Government Rail Planning Assessment (2007) document which you can no longer find on their website and very useful it is too. Whilst admittedly a little old now, this does break down by UA area in Wales where people go to/from. For the 10 UA's in SE Wales 80% was within the SE Wales area, 17% to England and 3% to the rest of Wales (Scotland was very tiny). Assuming that these figures are still broadly correct unless you have any evidence of a mass change in train travel habits for SE Wales in the last decade.

So with 40% of all journeys in SE Wales made in the Core Valley Lines area those statistics would suggest that 32% of all journeys in SE Wales are intra region from the Core Valley Lines. However the figures for the UA's covered by Core Valley Lines show c95% of traffic as being intra regional so c38% of all journeys in SE Wales are done by intra region journeys from Core Valley Lines and this of course includes journeys within region beyond core valley Lines.
Expressed as % of all intra region journeys 48% involve core valley lines with the proviso that some of these go beyond core valley lines.

The one thing we can all agree on is that Penarth & Barry should be included. The 3,056 journeys from there fitted the average destination profile closer than the northern valleys UA's including Blaenau Gwent (Ebbw Vale line). Bridgend was close to average as well.

Another interesting thing from the UA analysis is relationship to population. There are roughly 50% more journeys per head of population from VOG, Bridgend and Caephilly than RCT & Merthyr.

 

[Del1977]

The ORR figures do not tell you where those journeys are going to/from though do they? They just give estimates of usage at each station.

Someone boarding the train at Merthyr Tydfil or Bargoed has to be using the Valley Lines North. Someone boarding the train at Barry Island has to be using the Vale of Glamorgan line. I've already deducted off the stations where there'll be significant usage of other lines / operators.

You repeat that it's 40% of all journeys made in the Core Valley Lines area, but this figure is incorrect as to get to the 40% figure you are including the massive number of entries and exits at Cardiff Central, Newport etc. - many of whom are not using the Valley Lines or other local services. Services to Portsmouth Harbour, London Paddington etc. are beyond the scope of the Metro project.

In any event - even if we included Cardiff Central et al, which you've used to get your 40% figure, someone getting on at Merthyr Tydfil would be counted as Core Valley Lines entry, but when they get off at Cardiff Central they are then counted as an exit and classed as non-Core Valley Lines. That's just incorrect.


Agree on Penarth/Barry. Ebbw Vale line has had high passenger numbers since opening. The Maesteg line, beyond Bridgend - which is served by other operators, doesn't have high passenger numbers, though Pencoed/Pontyclun etc. do have reasonable loadings.

I'd limit my changes to the following:

1tph Swansea to Cardiff Central (stopping) (or onwards) giving 2tph to Pontyclun etc.
Enhance VoG via Rhoose to 2tph.
Ebbw Vale to 2tph.
Metro project for all 'proper' Valley Lines (i.e. to include Barry Island and Penarth)
Leave Maesteg as it is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's no need for brand new EMU's when Greater Anglia are releasing enough EMUs to replace the current Valleys & Vale of Glamorgan fleet at least twice over.
But it has to be shiny and new north of Queen St. Got to keep the heartlands happy (at least initially).

Shiny new EMUs are quite cheap at the moment, hence why the likes of Abellio are replacing shiny new EMUs with shiny slightly newer EMUs on GA and WMT (releasing shiny new EMUs like 350/2s which would probably do quite well on the Valleys if the leaseco owning them can be bothered to offer a reasonable price). But the wires aren't, unfortunately.

 

[gareth950]

Shiny new EMUs are quite cheap at the moment, hence why the likes of Abellio are replacing shiny new EMUs with shiny slightly newer EMUs on GA and WMT (releasing shiny new EMUs like 350/2s which would probably do quite well on the Valleys if the leaseco owning them can be bothered to offer a reasonable price). But the wires aren't, unfortunately.

According to Carwyn Jones and Ken Skates, almost £3 billion is available for 2 fantastically expensive road schemes in South Wales. So the magic money tree can be found for road schemes but not to do a proper job with the rail infrastructure.
What decade are we in again?

 

[Dai Corner]

According to Carwyn Jones and Ken Skates, almost £3 billion is available for 2 fantastically expensive road schemes in South Wales. So the magic money tree can be found for road schemes but not to do a proper job with the rail infrastructure.
What decade are we in again?

With over £725 million available for rail in the City Deal on top of the £300 million already spent on the resignalling scheme, and the electrification and new trains for the main line I don't think you can argue that the railways aren't getting a fair share. It's important that it's spent wisely though.

http://www.cardiffcapitalregioncitydeal.wales/Cardiff_Capital_Region_City_Deal.pdf

 

[gareth950]

With over £725 million available for rail in the City Deal on top of the £300 million already spent on the resignalling scheme, and the electrification and new trains for the main line I don't think you can argue that the railways aren't getting a fair share. It's important that it's spent wisely though.

http://www.cardiffcapitalregioncitydeal.wales/Cardiff_Capital_Region_City_Deal.pdf

I know, £300 million spent on a re-signalling and infrastructure enhancement scheme which could soon all be binned just 2 years later. Great plan isn't it?
The £3 billion on roads figure is Wales only spending. The Class 800s mainly benefit England. The electrification from Cardiff to STJ is all of 19 miles.

 

[Dai Corner]

I know, £300 million spent on a re-signalling and infrastructure enhancement scheme which could soon all be binned just 2 years later. Great plan isn't it?
The £3 billion on roads figure is Wales only spending. The Class 800s mainly benefit England. The electrification from Cardiff to STJ is all of 19 miles.

That would be a scandal and lower my opinion of the WG's strategic planning still further.

The A465 and M4 schemes and the 800s are as much about travel to/from England as within Wales. As far as I know there are no plans for significant improvements to roads into central Cardiff. The Metro will have to provide all the extra capacity needed.

 

[Gareth Marston]

That would be a scandal and lower my opinion of the WG's strategic planning still further.

The A465 and M4 schemes and the 800s are as much about travel to/from England as within Wales. As far as I know there are no plans for significant improvements to roads into central Cardiff. The Metro will have to provide all the extra capacity needed.

But the Metro is going off half cocked under funded because of the dinosaur road schemes.

 

[Gareth Marston]

With over £725 million available for rail in the City Deal on top of the £300 million already spent on the resignalling scheme, and the electrification and new trains for the main line I don't think you can argue that the railways aren't getting a fair share. It's important that it's spent wisely though.

http://www.cardiffcapitalregioncitydeal.wales/Cardiff_Capital_Region_City_Deal.pdf

The A465 project is suppose to connect industry's that no longer exit. and the duplicate motorway around Newport will just induce worse traffic congestion elsewhere.

 

[gareth950]

That would be a scandal and lower my opinion of the WG's strategic planning still further.

You should be preparing then for your expectations of WG strategic planning to be shattered in the coming months. They will put a whole new meaning to the phrase 'wasting taxpayers money', and Network Rail's time.

 

[Dai Corner]

But the Metro is going off half cocked under funded because of the dinosaur road schemes.

Are you saying £1 billion isn't enough? It would be great to have even more, but I think it's quite generous for the number of voters (as that's what matters in a democracy) who will benefit.

The A465 project is suppose to connect industry's that no longer exit. and the duplicate motorway around Newport will just induce worse traffic congestion elsewhere.

The original A465 was built to connect the heavy industry of South Wales with the manufacturers in the English midlands I know. But things have moved on since and now its things like goods to/from the vast Amazon warehouse in Swansea, food to shops, commuting and social trips.

Yes, the improvements to the M4 may shift congestion elsewhere (and in my opinion it would be better to get the intra-Newport traffic off the existing road, leaving it for through traffic). Road improvements are a continuous process which will have to continue until we can persuade everyone to live within walking distance of work, buy only locally produced goods, move out of rural areas where the railways mostly gave up decades ago and buses are doing the same as they're hopelessly economic and so on.

But let's not have another roads v railway debate.

I'm off to take a rare opportunity to travel from Pye Corner to Newport direct by train. Maybe at some point in the future I'll be able to do it any day?!

 

[Gareth Marston]

Improved services utilizing the expensive infrastructure provided under CASR should be running now. Instead the Welsh Government have decided to rip it all up and convert it to Light Rail so any improvements will be early to mid 2020's at the earliest.

Given how much they want to to control whats going on despite the weasel words about competitive dialogue they could have made sure additional rolling stock was acquired that was either temporary in nature i.e a few local hauled sets for long distance services allowing a cascade to put units into the Valleys or a new build fleet that would have shelf life elsewhere in the franchise.

 

[Dai Corner]

Improved services utilizing the expensive infrastructure provided under CASR should be running now. Instead the Welsh Government have decided to rip it all up and convert it to Light Rail so any improvements will be early to mid 2020's at the earliest.

Given how much they want to to control whats going on despite the weasel words about competitive dialogue they could have made sure additional rolling stock was acquired that was either temporary in nature i.e a few local hauled sets for long distance services allowing a cascade to put units into the Valleys or a new build fleet that would have shelf life elsewhere in the franchise.

I agree with you there Gareth. £300m would have probably been enough to replace the 150s and Pacers and electrify to Swansea (if costs weren't as inflated as the current works. The 140mph capability wouldn't have been necessary, for example).

 

[Envoy]

I agree with you there Gareth. £300m would have probably been enough to replace the 150s and Pacers and electrify to Swansea (if costs weren't as inflated as the current works. The 140mph capability wouldn't have been necessary, for example).

I agree, it is appalling that millions could well have been spent putting in the modern signalling system in the valleys for all of this to now be ‘thrown away,’ if indeed, they do go for a light rail system that does not utilise the signalling system. This money could have been spent electrifying the mainline to Swansea. Why did the Welsh Government not make clear their possible intentions prior to Network Rail doing all this work at great expense?

However, I beg to differ regarding making the GWML across southern England having electrification capable of delivering 140mph. It was in the mid 70’s when the HST’s were introduced with their 125mph max speed running on these fastest sections. It would be a great shame if since those days, we are not able to see an increase in maximum speeds on this route. Even once the Class 800’s start running at up to 140mph, this will still be significantly below the 220 mph (or thereabouts) mentioned as being the speeds on HS2. From January 2019, about 15 minutes will be knocked off the Cardiff to London timings with the 800’s limited to 125mph. Once 140mph comes into being, this will be reduced still further. Increased speed = shortened journey times which should entice more people off the M4 and onto the trains - something that is surely desirable.

 

[B&I]

That isn't where I'm coming from, at all.

The most effective way to fund public transportation (and, as it happens, all public expenditure) is to have a land value tax. Good public expenditure (whether it be public libraries or defence or social security systems) ultimately increase the value of land. The fixed supply of land is an absolute, and is essentially what defines a state in the first place. Land is pretty much unique in economic terms and it is well understood by proper economists that taxes on land value are economically efficient unlike almost all other taxes.

The mechanism by which LVT can fund public spending is that this public spending increases the economic usefulness of the land it serves. If you provide good public transport in the Valleys, it'll make them nicer places to live with better access to jobs, education and entertainment. These increase land values, and as LVT means landowners (and not tenants - another lovely effect) pay a proportion of their land value as a regular tax, it causes tax receipts to increase.

What does this have to do with LR? Because the tax receipt increase comes from the economic effect of the public spending, not the amount of public spending itself. What I've been saying is that LR can be used in the Valleys to create a system with either the equivalent, or more, benefit of any possible HR system but for less money. If we had the perfect funding system implemented, this would still be true. Unless you can prove that HR is going to increase land values by more than its increase in costs, there's no case to be made for it. There are, however, plenty of cases where that will be true. If you tried to turn busier and faster HR networks (e.g. London commuter routes) into LR you could plausibly end up reducing land values and tax receipts if the end result is a worse transportation system.

What evidence is there that a. the LR system.propised by the Welsh Govt b. any replacement of HR with LR will bring about an increase in land value? And as there is about as mich chance of a land value tax this side of a political revolution in this country as there is of me being the first man to land a hot air balloon on thr surface of the sun, how is any of this relevant?

 

[HowardGWR]

........ buy only locally produced goods, move out of rural areas where the railways mostly gave up decades ago and buses are doing the same as they're hopelessly economic and so on.

Just picking up on the one point about 'locally produced goods'. I can see no logical argument why that should make any difference to the twice daily commuting /school run congestion around Newport. Yes, the 'white flight' to rural villages, near cities, in the 60s, is a cause of car commuting, but I don't see the middle classes returning to city centres. In fairness, it appears their grandchildren are doing so. Perhaps the duplicate M4 will be built just in time to see it result as another white elephant.

 

[HowardGWR]

I wanted to edit the post #1491 but the system gives a 'hanging' symbol top right. I have to report it this way, as the post cannot be reported itself! Anyone else get this problem?

 

[Dai Corner]

I agree, it is appalling that millions could well have been spent putting in the modern signalling system in the valleys for all of this to now be ‘thrown away,’ if indeed, they do go for a light rail system that does not utilise the signalling system. This money could have been spent electrifying the mainline to Swansea. Why did the Welsh Government not make clear their possible intentions prior to Network Rail doing all this work at great expense?

However, I beg to differ regarding making the GWML across southern England having electrification capable of delivering 140mph. It was in the mid 70’s when the HST’s were introduced with their 125mph max speed running on these fastest sections. It would be a great shame if since those days, we are not able to see an increase in maximum speeds on this route. Even once the Class 800’s start running at up to 140mph, this will still be significantly below the 220 mph (or thereabouts) mentioned as being the speeds on HS2. From January 2019, about 15 minutes will be knocked off the Cardiff to London timings with the 800’s limited to 125mph. Once 140mph comes into being, this will be reduced still further. Increased speed = shortened journey times which should entice more people off the M4 and onto the trains - something that is surely desirable.

I meant I didn't think there would be any point in providing 140mph OHLE between Cardiff and Swansea. I don't think there's any likelihood of raising the line speed there?

 

[Dai Corner]

Just picking up on the one point about 'locally produced goods'. I can see no logical argument why that should make any difference to the twice daily commuting /school run congestion around Newport. Yes, the 'white flight' to rural villages, near cities, in the 60s, is a cause of car commuting, but I don't see the middle classes returning to city centres. In fairness, it appears their grandchildren are doing so. Perhaps the duplicate M4 will be built just in time to see it result as another white elephant.

We're getting a bit off topic now, but I was referring to the trucks and vans delivering goods over long distances to shops and homes.

 

[bastien]

What evidence is there that a. the LR system.propised by the Welsh Govt b. any replacement of HR with LR will bring about an increase in land value? And as there is about as mich chance of a land value tax this side of a political revolution in this country as there is of me being the first man to land a hot air balloon on thr surface of the sun, how is any of this relevant?

It's very relevant if you don't want to spend any money now (see also, autonomous cars). Basically it's the political equivalent of drawing up a brightly-coloured exam revision timetable... Then going down the pub.

 

[B&I]

View attachment 42836 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

What I make of that is that
a. There is no prospect of the light rail network covering the entire current Valleys Lines that the pro-light rail faction here has based its arguments on
B. The Welsh Government is so obsessed with roads that it can't even keep them off public transport maps.

 

[B&I]

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.

Another way in which it is not like London is that IF PEOPLE ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH PUBLIC TRANSPORT, THEY WILL DRIVE. They have a choice Why is there a group of people on this thread who seem to be trying to make a virtue out of deliberately not recognsing what potential travellers have said is most important to them?

 

[B&I]

It's very relevant if you don't want to spend any money now (see also, autonomous cars). Basically it's the political equivalent of drawing up a brightly-coloured exam revision timetable... Then going down the pub.

An awful lot of the discussion on here has struck me as the transport planning equivalent of this. Just keep saying 'light rail, light rail, na-na na-na naaaah' over and over, and avoid answering anyone's questions, or taking any account of real life conditions, passenger wishes, local geography, the laws of physics etc.

 

[B&I]

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.

In what ways would
a. substitution of LR for HR in general (as opposed to electrifying HR routes and increasing frequencies, which as has been pointed out repeatedly, is entirely possible in south Wales, some of the money enabling this havig already been spent)
b. anything actually proposed as part of thr South Wales Metro (see map previously posted for realistic likely extent, rather than your own unevidenced suppositions)
actually bring about a service which the average passenger is likely to consider better? That's BETTER, not cheaper.

Clearly, your view is that there is no actual reason to listen to public transport users, or anyone else, and that it is more desirable for politicians to impose whatever suits them, than what people actually want. However, have you considered that, if you igbore people's expressed choices re pu lic transport, they will express their choice in different ways, by DRIVING EVERYWHERE instead of using public transport? Do the lower upfront costs of your Kwik Save standard public transport thereby achieve a more efficient overall result?

 

[NotATrainspott]

In what ways would
a. substitution of LR for HR in general (as opposed to electrifying HR routes and increasing frequencies, which as has been pointed out repeatedly, is entirely possible in south Wales, some of the money enabling this havig already been spent)
b. anything actually proposed as part of thr South Wales Metro (see map previously posted for realistic likely extent, rather than your own unevidenced suppositions)
actually bring about a service which the average passenger is likely to consider better? That's BETTER, not cheaper.

Clearly, your view is that there is no actual reason to listen to public transport users, or anyone else, and that it is more desirable for politicians to impose whatever suits them, than what people actually want. However, have you considered that, if you igbore people's expressed choices re pu lic transport, they will express their choice in different ways, by DRIVING EVERYWHERE instead of using public transport? Do the lower upfront costs of your Kwik Save standard public transport thereby achieve a more efficient overall result?

People want transport which is cheap and quick. HR by definition will be more expensive than LR. That means it can't be as cheap, with all else being the same. Either fares have to be higher, or there has to be more government subsidy. Unlike what some people seem to think, I don't think government subsidy is bad, because there are lots of societal benefits from public transport which aren't fully captured by government today. That's why I bring up Land Value Tax - it is uniquely able to capture all benefits that public transport investment can provide. When the total captured benefit of LR will be as high, or higher, than HR while costs are lower, there is no justifiable economic reason to go for HR. Going for HR at that point is explicitly about wanting to waste money which could be better spent on other needy causes.

Whether you like it or not, 25kV AC electrification of the Valleys is going to cost a lot more money than LR conversion. When that's the case, there really isn't much you can do. It doesn't matter if the Welsh Government could buy the entire 315 fleet for £1 if it'll cost hundreds of millions of pounds more to make them move. The only way you can justify spending more on HR electrification is if it'll be able to provide more benefit than an alternative. 750V DC LR electrification and doubled-up 100m long LR trains will do just as much good, for less money.

Money influences everything, because while it is possible to do pretty much anything, it isn't possible to do everything at any reasonable cost. If you reject this, then there's no point debating.

There's an obsession in this thread with the maximum possible capacity of HR trains versus presumed LR trains. There seems to be a belief that adding more seats absolutely means more benefits. That is true when services are busy, and it is true that more seats will increase ticket revenue when there's suppressed demand. What is also true, and much more important for the economics, is the capacity over the entire day. All that infrastructure and all those vehicles you might want to shift peak loads have to continue existing outside of the peak, costing money. You can't buy a train for only three hours' use each day at the time when everyone else wants one too. If you optimise for peak capacity, you are unoptimised most of the time.

What does this mean for passengers? Once everyone who might use a train is on it and has space to sit, there is no benefit in providing additional seating beyond this. Unless there's significant suppressed demand, additional seating will not result in higher ticket revenues. More seats will not make peoples' lives better. What will make people's lives better is having more services. Going from 2tph to 4tph, or 4tph to 6tph, or 6tph to 8tph, actually makes rail more useful for people. If you go from a 2tph service with a full-but-not-too-full 40m long train to a 4tph service, you will find a 30m long train will do the job. The frequency doubled, so total capacity could be kept the same by halving the train length. Since that extra frequency makes rail more attractive for prospective passengers, you then need to add a little more capacity on top. You will always do more good by increasing frequency and then reducing train lengths. The problems with higher frequencies and shorter trains only come about when there's no mechanism to start lengthening them again.

If you stick with HR, you can often increase frequency but you can't cut costs by enough to make shorter vehicles feasible. With high frequency, there are fewer passengers per train, so the fixed costs of that train are more important. Since there is not unlimited money, it is rather hard to justify massively excess capacity to keep frequencies high. Outside of peak periods HR means going down to low frequencies, meaning worse services for passengers. Sure, you can make each train slightly longer, but people want good frequency and enough capacity, not poor frequency but an excess of capacity. All your expensive infrastructure gets used for less and less. Services can't run as early, nor as late. In the evenings and weekends branches get a minimal service, rather than the one which will be best for them.

Remember that the people who use the Valley Lines are also the people who would be subsidising any HR service, via their taxes. They will only accept this subsidy if they can see a clear benefit as a result. If the benefit consists only of providing huge amounts of empty seats and jobs for guards on off-peak services, then they're not going to be happy. Even when they like the idea of public spending, they would rather that money is spent on any number of other issues like health or education. There is always going to be a useful way to spend taxpayer's money. Just spending money for the sake of 'high investment' doesn't help anyone at all.