South Wales 'Metro' updates

[IanXC]

Yes, CASR, about that.....

Welsh Govt agreed and specified with Network Rail on CASR in 2011-12. Welsh Govt specified the extra turn back platforms across the network at Pontypridd, Barry, Caerphilly, the new station at Energlyn & Churchill Park.
The 3 new platforms at Queen St, Platform 8 at Central. Linking P4 up to Queen St at Central.
Doubling the City line around Canton.
Platform lengthening (many Valleys platforms are ready now for 6 car trains and 'Stop' markers are in place on platforms).
Welsh Govt specified that capacity between Queen St - Central be increased to 16tph + freight paths.
Widespread renewal of signalling across the Valleys and the Vale and in the City line.
Transfer of all Valleys signalling to NR's Cardiff ROC.

But mid-way through CASR being undertaken, Welsh Govt started to change their minds.

Now all the CASR upgrade work is complete, can you defend all of that work and hundreds of millions spent by NR 'future proofing' and upgrading the Valleys and Cardiff local network, getting it ready for what was assumed would be HR electrification, never being used and being torn up? I'd love to hear a defence of that.

There is more than one way into Cardiff Central. Trains starting from Aberdare / Merthyr / Treherbert could run via the City line from Radyr, easing congestion into Queen St, with stoppers starting at Pontypridd or Radyr going via Cathays and Queen St.

I concur with everything Gareth Marston has said regarding seating. The number one compliant from Valleys and local Cardiff commuters is getting a seat. Even from Radyr or Llandaff, people want a seat. ATW introduced peak AM trains starting from Radyr last year to give more people getting on there a seat!

I know some of this stuff has changed recently, but I do wonder what kind of payment (and more importantly by who) will be required to extract these assets from Network Rail's Regulated Asset Base. Perhaps Grayling will be our saviour by demanding an impossibly high payment for the Core Valley Lines assets?

 

[Dai Corner]

I know some of this stuff has changed recently, but I do wonder what kind of payment (and more importantly by who) will be required to extract these assets from Network Rail's Regulated Asset Base. Perhaps Grayling will be our saviour by demanding an impossibly high payment for the Core Valley Lines assets?

I wonder how one would value such assets? What thought has been given to paying for a major failure? Network rail have just fixed things like Dawlish without delay but a private company couldn't afford to do that and I doubt if any insurer would cover it so it would be down to the Welsh Government to pay if, say, there was a collapse of Caerphilly tunnel.

 

[IanXC]

I wonder how one would value such assets? What thought has been given to paying for a major failure? Network rail have just fixed things like Dawlish without delay but a private company couldn't afford to do that and I doubt if any insurer would cover it so it would be down to the Welsh Government to pay if, say, there was a collapse of Caerphilly tunnel.

Well the signalling assets are probably easiest; they will have an expected lifetime and therefore following accounting principles their value can be written down and thus at any given time a value assigned.

That is all before we get to the question of whether the Wales Route of Network Rail is viable with a yet smaller geography...

 

[snowball]

The Manchester Metrolink operates at 6 minute headways at its most frequent away from some very short sections in the centre of the city.

Why would the Taffs corridor be limited to the branch frequency of the Metrolink service?

The reason Metrolink operates on a 6-minute clock-tick is the single-track section at Navigation Road near Altrincham. Before Metrolink there was a 2-track heavy rail line; a section of this (passing though a station and two level crossings) became two single bidirectional lines, one for heavy rail and one for Metrolink. Trams every 6 minutes in each direction (and occasional trains) is the highest frequency this can cope with.

It's no longer the case that sections with more than 10 trams per hour are confined to the city centre. For example if you go in from the airport you start with 5 trams per hour, then you merge with the Didsbury line (10 more making 15), then with the Altrincham line (10 more making 25), then with the Eccles line, and in a few years there'll be the Trafford Park line adding to that.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The reason Metrolink operates on a 6-minute clock-tick is the single-track section at Navigation Road near Altrincham. Before Metrolink there was a 2-track heavy rail line; a section of this (passing though a station and two level crossings) became two single bidirectional lines, one for heavy rail and one for Metrolink. Trams every 6 minutes in each direction (and occasional trains) is the highest frequency this can cope with.

It's no longer the case that sections with more than 10 trams per hour are confined to the city centre. For example if you go in from the airport you start with 5 trams per hour, then you merge with the Didsbury line (10 more making 15), then with the Altrincham line (10 more making 25), then with the Eccles line, and in a few years there'll be the Trafford Park line adding to that.

Metrolink is of course cross city service bar the ones that turnaround in the under croft at Piccadily. The Welsh Government "Core Valley Lines" LRT plan is a system that terminates in the city center not a cross city one. Any service will have to turnaround and then get a path across the face of incoming services. This limits capacity, whilst the frequencies south of Pontypridd look like they can be increased in reality its terminating in the city center that drives the available paths. The Midland Metro is currently a straight line system and runs at 6-8 minute frequency. Stand outside New St station on Stephenson Street and watch whats involved and the time taken and then go up to Manchester and see how a cross city network operates unconstrained.

The other constraining factor is the Newport Rd bridge in between the merging of the Taff & Rhymney lines and Queen St station - its double track. Currently services split 50/50 between heeding for Llandaff and the Heath - yes you may well get 24 an hour over it but remember only 12 will head up toward Pontypridd (Treherbert/Aberdare/Merthyr). The other 12 will be 4 to Coryton, 8 to Caerphilly with 4 going on to Rhymney. Adding extra tracks is not simple due to the topography and would be very expensive and also very disruptive as the Newport Rd is the main road thoroughfare into Cardiff City Center from the east.

To allow 24 services an hour to turn around you will probably have to split them 50/50 between the Bay and Central. This of course then reduces the frequency of services to Central back to what it is now......

 

[Gareth Marston]

I wonder how one would value such assets? What thought has been given to paying for a major failure? Network rail have just fixed things like Dawlish without delay but a private company couldn't afford to do that and I doubt if any insurer would cover it so it would be down to the Welsh Government to pay if, say, there was a collapse of Caerphilly tunnel.

Likewise being part of national system means the Conwy Valley keeps getting put back when it washes out. I don't suppose this network benefit has been thought of at all down in the Bay.

 

[Gareth Marston]

On Cardiff Queen Street, I don't think there's the space anymore for expanding that bridge. From the QS side of the bridge, you might do it, but not the north side, buildings were stuck up in the 80s on the west side, on Dumfries Place. Though could be demolished...

Actually looking at the Google 3D satellite images, it's all pretty packed in around Cardiff Central too, though there are a few car parks to its south that could be lost. It's going to be quite a challenge restructuring public transport operations around the core of Cardiff.

Let alone the disruption on the main road into the city form the east.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Why would the Taffs corridor be limited to the branch frequency of the Metrolink service? If the Metrolink core has a higher frequency than that, why wouldn't Cardiff's? All of the trams/trains along this corridor would have the same stopping pattern.

Because they have nowhere to go in central Cardiff see my post #665

 

[Del1977]

Here's what I would do in the next phase, dealing with the existing network and extensions:

All services are all stations. There's no skip stopping.

I'd turn the Radyr->Fairwater->Central->Queen Street->Cathays loop into a City Circle.



Taff Lines

Merthyr/Aberdare/Treherbert -> 4 each per hour to Pontypridd. (Plus 4 optional starting at Pontypridd.)

So that's 16tph from Pontypridd of which:

50% of these go clockwise around the City Circle (QS then Cardiff Central) and 50% go anti-clockwise and the City Circle (Central then QS). They are then routed to return to their destinations without having to terminate in central Cardiff.

Use platforms 6/7 at Central.


Extensions:

Tens of thousands of houses are planned for north west Cardiff, which would be poorly served by existing public transport and infrastructure. A spur running through this development area, picking up the old alignment where possible from Fairwater. (acknowledging difficulties with embankments etc. already noted in the thread). Line continues to a new P&R at Junction 33 of the M4 and then onwards to Creigiau/Llantrisant terminating at Pontyclun. Proposed 4tph terminating at Platform 8 at Cdf.


Rhymney Lines

Rhymney/Bargoed/Ystrad Mynach (Bedlinog ext.) to central Cardiff -> each of 4tph, 2tph, 2tph of which all run through to Cardiff Queen street & Cardiff Central and then serve:

- Penarth or International Sports Village

Use platforms 6/7 at Central

Extensions:

HR already exists to Bedlinog/Trelewis/Nelson an area currently not well served by public transport. The onward stretch to Dowlais is remote and sparsely populated so I don't think going beyond Bedlinog makes any sense.

Penarth/Sports Village - open to routing ideas.


Coryton lines

Diverted to run to / from Cardiff Bay - 4tph


Barry lines (I'd electrify the HR) and run EMUs

Newport -> Bridgend stopper (relief lines on SWML) 5tph, of which - 3tph terminate at Barry Island, 2 tph to Bridgend via Llantwit Major

New stations at Newport West, St Mellons, Rumney



Summary of frequencies:

So that gives Pontypridd/Radyr to central Cardiff 12 or 16tph, clockwise/anti-clockwise.

Caerphilly - 8tph

Barry (Town) 5 tph, Penarth 4tph / Sports Village 4tph

Coryton->Bay 4tph



So at the crunch points:

Queen Street: There'd be 18 or 20 services north from Queen Street (assuming Coryton-Bay is through QS), 4tph south to Cardiff Bay, 8 to Cardiff Central from Caerphilly, 6 or 8 from Pontypridd.

Cardiff Central to Fairwater: North and Westbound: the 6 or 8 tph to Pontypridd + 4 tph to Pontyclun.

Cardiff Central to Grangetown: 8tph from Rhymney Valley + 5 from Newport (stopper)

 

[158756]

You could probably manage 24tph north out of Queen Street with trams- see how many there are between Cornbrook and St Peter's Square in Manchester. As Del1977 says you could split trams from Pontypridd both ways around Cardiff which would allow up to 24tph between Cardiff and Pontypridd, which would probably be manageable with on line of sight. This might slow the permitted speeds, but the trams would have much better acceleration than a DMU to make up for it. A tram can easily have the same capacity as a 2 car train, and more than a Pacer, so doubling frequency would double capacity, far more than anything heavy rail could deliver.

On top of that staffing and infrastructure costs would be slashed, there would be disruption for electrification, but that'll probably cost peanuts compared to a Network Rail job.

As for fears over funding maintenance - Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Nottingham, Sheffield have managed it, and those cities have much less power than the Welsh Government.

 

[Gareth Marston]

You could probably manage 24tph north out of Queen Street with trams- see how many there are between Cornbrook and St Peter's Square in Manchester. As Del1977 says you could split trams from Pontypridd both ways around Cardiff which would allow up to 24tph between Cardiff and Pontypridd, which would probably be manageable with on line of sight. This might slow the permitted speeds, but the trams would have much better acceleration than a DMU to make up for it. A tram can easily have the same capacity as a 2 car train, and more than a Pacer, so doubling frequency would double capacity, far more than anything heavy rail could deliver.

On top of that staffing and infrastructure costs would be slashed, there would be disruption for electrification, but that'll probably cost peanuts compared to a Network Rail job.

As for fears over funding maintenance - Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Nottingham, Sheffield have managed it, and those cities have much less power than the Welsh Government.

No you can't as the city line runs across the back of Canton and straight into a tangle of heavy rail lines leading from Central into Canton and the Vale lines.

 

[Del1977]

No you can't as the city line runs across the back of Canton and straight into a tangle of heavy rail lines leading from Central into Canton and the Vale lines.

It can be remodelled though. This isn't like the Queen Street problem where there's a two track bridge and impossible to change without knocking down office and apartment blocks.

 

[Envoy]

I see that the so called Sports Village has been mentioned. I would like to point out that the ‘Sports Village’ (white water rafting, swimming pool & ice rink) are all within a reasonably short walk of Cogan station via the Port Y Werin footbridge over the Ely. Cogan station is of course served by frequent direct trains from the valleys - something that would not happen if the system gets ‘split’ in central Cardiff. The trouble with Cogan station is that the former underpass under the main road got filled in and anybody wishing to get from the station to the footbridge has to take their life in their hands to cross the busy main road:> something that could be easily fixed by having a new footway coming from the Cardiff bound platform, passing through an arch under the main road and then up over the tracks to link with the footbridge over the Ely. This is something that would be a quick relatively cheap fix. It is regrettable that no station was built on the Penarth line at this location and that the land was given over to Tesco. (The Tesco car park would have been a great P&R for people from the Penarth Marina area). Another goof-up by planners - this time around 1990! See map:>https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4488169,-3.1851707,741m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1

 

[MarkyT]

You could probably manage 24tph north out of Queen Street with trams- see how many there are between Cornbrook and St Peter's Square in Manchester.

New Thameslink signalling is designed for 24tph with 12 cars, including a service split something like 16/8 through the flat junction south of Blackfriars. Cab signalling in the form of ETCS, and ATO, is required to achieve that reliably though. Using SelTrac, TfL are planning to exceed even this frequency with 30+ tph on London's subsurface lines, albeit with shorter trains. There are numerous flat junctions involved there too. 20+ tph is not the sole preserve of light rail operations clearly, but signalling required for high frequency LR operations is much simpler than metros or similar though. Something that could be done very easily at Queen Street and Central with better braking vehicles is to allow a second train to enter a platform before the first has fully cleared it. This was once a common feature of heavy rail operations but has been generally phased out more recently on safety grounds. A 'tram permissive' aspect could be added, displayed with the standard red, to existing signals protecting the busiest platforms to allow this, and it would achieve an improved throughput without an expensive cab signalling overlay. That would retain compatibility for any remaining HR traffic too which might continue to run at quiet times. Such HR trains would not take any notice of the tram permissive aspect of course. Out on the plain line between Radyr and Pontipridd, continuous 3 aspect signal spacing is at around 1/2 mile or 800m, which is sufficient for the variable speed limits through this section, typically in the 45 to 60 mph range. Using the standard formula for 3 aspect, signalling headway (as a distance) is 2BD+S+O+L, where BD is the braking distance (equal to the signal spacing in this case) and S,O,L are Sighting (nominal), Overlap and train Length. Trains can thus follow each other at full linespeed at a physical spacing of typically 1600+400+200+100 = 2300m. The time a train takes to cover this distance is the peak signalling headway capability. At 60mph that is 86 seconds, at 50 it is 103 seconds. Even at the lower speed this could support 35 train per hour continuously so the existing plain line signalling is no constraint to more frequent operations. It is the station stops and junction conflicts that are the primary limitations on capacity, as well as the single line sections higher up the valleys. These clearly don't go away with LR vehicles but permissive running for trams alone into platforms could help.

... there would be disruption for electrification, but that'll probably cost peanuts compared to a Network Rail job.

Most of the savings would be down to the comparatively low service speed and choosing a lower voltage system. There would be smaller structures required and easier clearances to engineer through bridges etc, whoever actually managed the job. On lower voltage DC systems, safety earthing is not required generally although there will be complexities with 25kV in areas where transitions take place and also where DC runs lines run closely parallel with AC, as may be the case around Cardiff Central.

 

[gareth950]

I wonder how one would value such assets? What thought has been given to paying for a major failure? Network rail have just fixed things like Dawlish without delay but a private company couldn't afford to do that and I doubt if any insurer would cover it so it would be down to the Welsh Government to pay if, say, there was a collapse of Caerphilly tunnel.

People may remember the wall collapse and associated landslip onto the mainline below between Central - Queen St in August 2012. The line between Central - Queen St was closed for 2 weeks whilst Network Rail worked to fix it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-19205533
Imagine how long it would take to fix if that happened again but with NR maintaining the mainline below funded by and answerable to DfT, and a private contractor maintaining Central - Queen St above, funded by and answerable Welsh Govt.

Here's what I would do in the next phase, dealing with the existing network and extensions:

All services are all stations. There's no skip stopping.

I'd turn the Radyr->Fairwater->Central->Queen Street->Cathays loop into a City Circle.



Taff Lines

Merthyr/Aberdare/Treherbert -> 4 each per hour to Pontypridd. (Plus 4 optional starting at Pontypridd.)

So that's 16tph from Pontypridd of which:

50% of these go clockwise around the City Circle (QS then Cardiff Central) and 50% go anti-clockwise and the City Circle (Central then QS). They are then routed to return to their destinations without having to terminate in central Cardiff.

Use platforms 6/7 at Central.


Extensions:

Tens of thousands of houses are planned for north west Cardiff, which would be poorly served by existing public transport and infrastructure. A spur running through this development area, picking up the old alignment where possible from Fairwater. (acknowledging difficulties with embankments etc. already noted in the thread). Line continues to a new P&R at Junction 33 of the M4 and then onwards to Creigiau/Llantrisant terminating at Pontyclun. Proposed 4tph terminating at Platform 8 at Cdf.


Rhymney Lines

Rhymney/Bargoed/Ystrad Mynach (Bedlinog ext.) to central Cardiff -> each of 4tph, 2tph, 2tph of which all run through to Cardiff Queen street & Cardiff Central and then serve:

- Penarth or International Sports Village

Use platforms 6/7 at Central

Extensions:

HR already exists to Bedlinog/Trelewis/Nelson an area currently not well served by public transport. The onward stretch to Dowlais is remote and sparsely populated so I don't think going beyond Bedlinog makes any sense.

Penarth/Sports Village - open to routing ideas.


Coryton lines

Diverted to run to / from Cardiff Bay - 4tph


Barry lines (I'd electrify the HR) and run EMUs

Newport -> Bridgend stopper (relief lines on SWML) 5tph, of which - 3tph terminate at Barry Island, 2 tph to Bridgend via Llantwit Major

New stations at Newport West, St Mellons, Rumney



Summary of frequencies:

So that gives Pontypridd/Radyr to central Cardiff 12 or 16tph, clockwise/anti-clockwise.

Caerphilly - 8tph

Barry (Town) 5 tph, Penarth 4tph / Sports Village 4tph

Coryton->Bay 4tph



So at the crunch points:

Queen Street: There'd be 18 or 20 services north from Queen Street (assuming Coryton-Bay is through QS), 4tph south to Cardiff Bay, 8 to Cardiff Central from Caerphilly, 6 or 8 from Pontypridd.

Cardiff Central to Fairwater: North and Westbound: the 6 or 8 tph to Pontypridd + 4 tph to Pontyclun.

Cardiff Central to Grangetown: 8tph from Rhymney Valley + 5 from Newport (stopper)

These ideas are all non-starters as trams will not be allowed into the platforms at Cardiff Central. Even if somehow Platforms 6, 7 & 8 could be segregated, where will Vale of Glamorgan trains run into? P3 & 4 are used by mainline services and trains every 10 mins into these platforms from the Vale would cause too many conflicts.

 

[gareth950]

I see that the so called Sports Village has been mentioned. I would like to point out that the ‘Sports Village’ (white water rafting, swimming pool & ice rink) are all within a reasonably short walk of Cogan station via the Port Y Werin footbridge over the Ely. Cogan station is of course served by frequent direct trains from the valleys - something that would not happen if the system gets ‘split’ in central Cardiff. The trouble with Cogan station is that the former underpass under the main road got filled in and anybody wishing to get from the station to the footbridge has to take their life in their hands to cross the busy main road:> something that could be easily fixed by having a new footway coming from the Cardiff bound platform, passing through an arch under the main road and then up over the tracks to link with the footbridge over the Ely. This is something that would be a quick relatively cheap fix. It is regrettable that no station was built on the Penarth line at this location and that the land was given over to Tesco. (The Tesco car park would have been a great P&R for people from the Penarth Marina area). Another goof-up by planners - this time around 1990! See map:>https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4488169,-3.1851707,741m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1

There won't be any underpass re-opening at Cogan station. Overgrown land has been cleared at the station that is going to be social housing flats and this will block any underpass access. There's talk of replacing the Marina roundabout with traffic lights.

 

[gareth950]

It can be remodelled though. This isn't like the Queen Street problem where there's a two track bridge and impossible to change without knocking down office and apartment blocks.

Again, it was re-modelled and double tracked to enhance HR capacity during CASR as was most of the infrastructure around Canton. I doubt very much whether any of it could be 'un-tangled'.

 

[158756]

These ideas are all non-starters as trams will not be allowed into the platforms at Cardiff Central. Even if somehow Platforms 6, 7 & 8 could be segregated, where will Vale of Glamorgan trains run into? P3 & 4 are used by mainline services and trains every 10 mins into these platforms from the Vale would cause too many conflicts.

It can't be that hard to segregate the southern platforms if you were going the whole way and closing the Vale line to heavy rail traffic. It looks like it would simplify things if you could cut the valleys and vale off from the national rail network, then you could run the existing through services.

As long as the colliery off the Rhymney line is open the whole thing would have to be tram-train anyway with signalling. Won't happen but I would suggest if the Welsh Government want tram(-trains) they buy it out and close it, then the Vale could close to freight as well (and diversions, but most of the network has few alternative routes anyway). That might be controversial, but unfortunately whats left of the coal industry probably hasn't long left and it would be wasteful to design the system around it only for it to promptly close.

 

[Llanigraham]

You can't close the Vale line to heavy rail though.
There are still loads in and out of Barry Dock, plus loads to Aberthaw.

 

[cactustwirly]

The best solution is to get a bunch of high capacity 3 car CAF DMUs (which would double up in the peaks).
Frequency is not the be all and end all, actually 16tph HR could offer more capacity overall than 24 tph on LR, since the HR vehicles will have more seating capacity.

I think the main constriant on capacity, is the single track sections at the heads of the valleys.

Trams are completely unsuitable in pretty much every way, I mean it takes 1 hour from Treherbert/Rhymmey to Cardiff, which would be extremely uncomfortable on a Tram

 

[NotATrainspott]

People may remember the wall collapse and associated landslip onto the mainline below between Central - Queen St in August 2012. The line between Central - Queen St was closed for 2 weeks whilst Network Rail worked to fix it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-19205533
Imagine how long it would take to fix if that happened again but with NR maintaining the mainline below funded by and answerable to DfT, and a private contractor maintaining Central - Queen St above, funded by and answerable Welsh Govt.

What happens any time anything else goes wrong? If a wall collapses and a landslip closes a major road, how do things get fixed? NR isn't the only entity which does emergency repairs of major infrastructure.

These ideas are all non-starters as trams will not be allowed into the platforms at Cardiff Central. Even if somehow Platforms 6, 7 & 8 could be segregated, where will Vale of Glamorgan trains run into? P3 & 4 are used by mainline services and trains every 10 mins into these platforms from the Vale would cause too many conflicts.

I will be very, very surprised if the Metro vehicles aren't specced for tram-train or equivalent operation. The Tyne and Wear Metro does it and lots of other operators are wanting to do it. The additional cost of tram-train capability is dwarfed by the benefits for a heavy rail conversion programme like this.

 

[gareth950]

What happens any time anything else goes wrong? If a wall collapses and a landslip closes a major road, how do things get fixed? NR isn't the only entity which does emergency repairs of major infrastructure.

Maybe I'm being cynical, but if you have been following the political rows and finger pointing between Westminster and Cardiff Bay over this new franchise and the rail system in Wales in general over the last 2 - 3 years, esp the rows over funding, you'll forgive me for not being optimistic about cooperation on infrastructure that will be owned by 2 different governments (as the interface between the Valleys and the mainline networks at Cardiff Central will be) who can barely agree on anything. As has already been mentioned, there' bound to be disagreements between the two 'sides' (because that's what they are) over liability.

I will be very, very surprised if the Metro vehicles aren't specced for tram-train or equivalent operation. The Tyne and Wear Metro does it and lots of other operators are wanting to do it. The additional cost of tram-train capability is dwarfed by the benefits for a heavy rail conversion programme like this.

The eye-watering cost overruns on the Sheffield tram-train project and the fact that it hasn't even entered full service yet, when it was supposed to be the pilot project for judging whether to roll it out elsewhere, doesn't fill me with hope.

 

[gareth950]

The best solution is to get a bunch of high capacity 3 car CAF DMUs (which would double up in the peaks).
Frequency is not the be all and end all, actually 16tph HR could offer more capacity overall than 24 tph on LR, since the HR vehicles will have more seating capacity.

I think the main constriant on capacity, is the single track sections at the heads of the valleys.

Trams are completely unsuitable in pretty much every way, I mean it takes 1 hour from Treherbert/Rhymmey to Cardiff, which would be extremely uncomfortable on a Tram

I agree. Welsh Govt are trying to be too fancy and have neglected the basics, like the fact that 75% of Welsh trains will be illegal in 23 months time, including the entire Valley lines fleet.
Even if new DMUs were ordered on Monday they wouldn't be ready for 1/1/2020. The 5 x 769s ordered look to be late. And the clock is ticking whilst they carry on dithering.

Any new DMUs ordered could then be cascaded to Northern in the mid-late 2020s to replace their Sprinters, by which time electrification Cardiff local lines, the Vale and the Valleys may have actually happened.

For the record, I think a Metro tram network for suburban Cardiff and surrounding areas is a great idea. But keep it separate from the existing HR network and keep the existing HR Valleys network with Network Rail. Give the private Metro contractor the job of digging up Cardiff's streets.

 

[Envoy]

I can’t see the benefit of having trams on the streets of Cardiff over buses - apart from the fact that they will not have diesel fumes. If trams are descending onto the streets of central Cardiff from all over SE Wales, surely chaos will ensue as they are not able to overtake each other - unlike buses? Just stand on Westgate Street and observe how many buses simply overtake those waiting at bus stops. Can you imagine it if these were trams - all trapped behind each other? Buses can also switch routes in the event of a problem/sporting event.

I even saw the suggestion that it might be a good idea to put a new arena in the Bay as some sort of justification for the cost involved for putting in a tram system. What certain people fail to realise is that an arena would generate a huge amount of people at once - something that the tram system would then be unable to cope with being as it would be designed for ‘normal’ flows. Any new arena needs to be within an easy walk of the transport hub at Cardiff Central so that sudden crowds of people can be dispersed in different directions as easily as possible on various transport routes.

Talking of Cardiff Central, I am amazed at close the BBC new building is to the Central station in Cardiff. The street that goes between the station and the stadium is towered over by high office blocks and is cold and gloomy - as is Wood Street north of the BBC building. It now looks like a similar situation will exist for those pedestrians going NE form the station to the shopping areas. Still, I suppose this is what you get when property developers like Rightacres design our cities. (The new bus station will be enclosed by high buildings - thus trapping fumes in calm weather).

 

[Envoy]

There won't be any underpass re-opening at Cogan station. Overgrown land has been cleared at the station that is going to be social housing flats and this will block any underpass access. There's talk of replacing the Marina roundabout with traffic lights.

The ‘arch’ to which I referred (see photo) was in fact an old rail track and it is this which I think should be used to put an elevated walkway in between Cogan station and the path leading to the Point Yr Werin footbridge.

That is a crazy idea to put a block of flats on the land leading to the blocked underpass. Surely, priority for this land should be given to increasing the size of the station car park or even as a bus parking facility for a shuttle bus up to Llandough Hospital? (Ideally, another low cost bus shuttle should operate from Heath Halt to Heath Hospital and such bus shuttles should advertised at the stations & in the hospitals).

 

[daodao]

It is regrettable that no station was built on the Penarth line at this location and that the land was given over to Tesco. (The Tesco car park would have been a great P&R for people from the Penarth Marina area). Another goof-up by planners - this time around 1990! See map:>https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4488169,-3.1851707,741m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1

There was a station at this location, called Penarth Dock, built by the Taff Vale Railway. It opened in 1878 and closed in 1962; the station building is still extant.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Maybe I'm being cynical, but if you have been following the political rows and finger pointing between Westminster and Cardiff Bay over this new franchise and the rail system in Wales in general over the last 2 - 3 years, esp the rows over funding, you'll forgive me for not being optimistic about cooperation on infrastructure that will be owned by 2 different governments (as the interface between the Valleys and the mainline networks at Cardiff Central will be) who can barely agree on anything. As has already been mentioned, there' bound to be disagreements between the two 'sides' (because that's what they are) over liability.

But how would this be any different to a Labour-run council fighting the UK government? This won't be the only time there's a risk interface between NR and locally-owned infrastructure. Presumably, the laws or regulations or orders which sort out the ownership split would include a mechanism to work it out.

Even if there are disputes over payment, it doesn't stop the immediate need for a fix. If one or other of the sets of lines in Cardiff is blocked, the economic cost of non-action massively outweighs the possible cost of having to pay when you're not meant to. If something went wrong, it would need to be fixed and then payment sorted out afterwards. The random possibility of expensive catastrophe is the reason for the insurance industry to exist. The accountants would not be happy if a nominal insurance fee were not included in the books for the South Wales Metro (whether a payment to a commercial insurance company, or a charge covering the cost of effective self-insurance).

The eye-watering cost overruns on the Sheffield tram-train project and the fact that it hasn't even entered full service yet, when it was supposed to be the pilot project for judging whether to roll it out elsewhere, doesn't fill me with hope.

The idea of light-rail vehicles being allowed to run onto the NR network alongside arbitrary freight and heavy passenger services has been around since 2002 in Sunderland. The technical standards already exist for the vehicles, so building them to match would be easy. We already have 7 (well, 4) actual tram-trains about in Britain today, even if they don't currently do the train bit.

The South Wales Metro works would have to be phased in any case. Getting the shiny new trains/trams/tram-trains/train-trams in first for the photo ops is a fairly reasonable first step. The infrastructure can be modified and street running sections added incrementally over the years to come. I really wouldn't be surprised if this happened. It looks like there really wouldn't be a lot of 'wasted' wiring if the core Cardiff local routes were wired (with a mixture of 750V DC and 25kV AC) before the street running sections opened. They might want to convert the Penarth line to LR operation with street running through Grangetown, but in the meantime extending the GW 25kV AC down to Cogan isn't going to be a bad idea.

I can’t see the benefit of having trams on the streets of Cardiff over buses - apart from the fact that they will not have diesel fumes. If trams are descending onto the streets of central Cardiff from all over SE Wales, surely chaos will ensue as they are not able to overtake each other - unlike buses? Just stand on Westgate Street and observe how many buses simply overtake those waiting at bus stops. Can you imagine it if these were trams - all trapped behind each other? Buses can also switch routes in the event of a problem/sporting event.

Trams don't overtake one another, and don't really need to. Buses have to because they are inefficient at loading and unloading. A 50m single unit set will have 6-8 doors on each side, all with step-free access to the platform. This means dwell times can be very low even with large turnover of passengers. Dwell times are low enough that it's perfectly viable for trams to just follow one another along a set track, as the dwell times aren't long enough to reduce capacity on the line.

Also, when you're designing a tram network, you don't use the street running ability to just follow existing traffic through the city and call it a day. City centre traffic flows often need a bit of a re-jig to minimise interaction with the trams. When designed, they aim for traffic separation at best (e.g. running through a pedestrian area or along the side or median of a road), then shared with public transport only (e.g. Princes Street in Edinburgh - buses/taxis/trams only), and then completely shared traffic as a last resort.

Modern tram networks are trying to build an underground-style Metro without needing to dig, rather than just putting buses on rails. Trams provide a happy medium between a high-capacity metro line (e.g. the Victoria line) and a normal bus service. When cars came about, many cities thought that their old tram networks would slow down cars in city centres, so spent huge amounts of money building fairly low-capacity underground metro or pre-metro systems. Now that we see cars move no faster through cities than horse and cart, and that cars really don't mix with public spaces, it's clear that these moves were a mistake. When you need a medium-capacity metro solution, the go-to system is now some sort of modern street-running tram. The only real reason to tunnel is if the urban environment simply doesn't allow trams due to age and complication (which might be the case in Cambridge).

 

[Gareth Marston]

There are 3 large constraints on any Light Rail System that TfW are trying to force through.

Firstly the twin track Newport Rd bridge in-between where the Rhymney and Taff lines converge and Queen St station. Building an additional bridge would be very very expensive and highly disruptive to a main city artery. Therefore whilst you can get 24 tph over it they have to be split between the Rhymeny (12 tph) and Taff (12tph) lines restricting the capacity north of Cardiff.

Secondly the City line is not an option for LRT trains from the Taff Corridor as it runs around the throat of Vale Lines which are to stay Heavy Rail and the access from central station into Canton depot.

Thirdly by not being a cross city system capacity is constrained by having to turn around services in central Cardiff.

This means that that any LRT system will not provide anymore seating capacity on the Taff corridor than the CASR plan using 3 car DMU/EMU heavy rail in fact probably less.

Shouting "wait and see" and "we don't know what the tph plan is" misses the point these two things have already been determined by the Newport Rd bridge, terminating in the city centre, and the City line being unavailable.

 

[Envoy]

There are 3 large constraints on any Light Rail System that TfW are trying to force through.

Firstly the twin track Newport Rd bridge in-between where the Rhymney and Taff lines converge and Queen St station. Building an additional bridge would be very very expensive and highly disruptive to a main city artery. Therefore whilst you can get 24 tph over it they have to be split between the Rhymeny (12 tph) and Taff (12tph) lines restricting the capacity north of Cardiff.

Secondly the City line is not an option for LRT trains from the Taff Corridor as it runs around the throat of Vale Lines which are to stay Heavy Rail and the access from central station into Canton depot.

Thirdly by not being a cross city system capacity is constrained by having to turn around services in central Cardiff.

This means that that any LRT system will not provide anymore seating capacity on the Taff corridor than the CASR plan using 3 car DMU/EMU heavy rail in fact probably less.

Shouting "wait and see" and "we don't know what the tph plan is" misses the point these two things have already been determined by the Newport Rd bridge, terminating in the city centre, and the City line being unavailable.

The Metro plans suggest that the new developments NW of Cardiff - such as Plasdwr - could be served by a light rail/tram-train/tram system by re-building the former single track line that heads out to Cregiau from the City Line in Fairwater. What you say Gareth - about the City Line not having access to Cardiff Central surely presents major problem? Going onto the streets from the City Line would surely be dreadful compared to the situation we have now.

I note that the Metro plans also suggest re-building the Caerphilly to Newport line - presumably for a tram-train? The eastern portion of this line is I think, still used - for Machen quarry? It would certainly be a worthwhile link but surely, a similar problem to that at Cardiff would exist - getting into Newport station would involve joining the main line to go through the tunnel.

I can understand the aspirations of the Welsh Government to have a modern transport system - rather be dumped with 40 year old 315’s from England. I also note the fact that over in Bristol, they are having problems in getting Network Rail to re-build the Portishead line - with ever increasing costs and no action for years. (Bristol rejected trams due to mounting costs and the disruption it would cause to the road system as well as the fact that many services such as sewers and gas mains were under the roads). So, Bristol is going for ‘normal rail’ as it allows access into Temple Meads and they are hoping for a new service to Henbury - but, this is all being frustrated with no action.
Perhaps the best compromise would be 750 volt DC system for the Cardiff valleys - with stored battery power used to get in and out of Cardiff Central and thus retain the benefit of a segregated rail system whilst at the same time having new trains?

Bristol:>http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/we-can-prevent-gridlock-opening-859848

 

[cactustwirly]

I've done some quick maths.

An M5000 tram only has 60 seats per train set, so 2x will only have 120 seats.

A class 150 has 124 seats per 2 car set, so a doubled up set will have 248 seats.

A 3 car class 195 has 200 seats per set, so a doubled up set will have 400 seats.

The maximum capacity that a LR system can offer is 24 * 120 = 2880 seats per hour.

The maximum capacity a HR system can offer is 16 * 400 = 6400 seats per hour.

Using the current rolling stock, the capacity offered is 3968 seats per hour.
Therefore the light rail will offer a drop in capacity even though it has a higher frequency.