No, ripping out or mothballing brand new, state of the art, upgraded signalling that WG themselves paid for. If that's not a scandal what is?
Only if the existing work actually needs to be ripped out. As MarkyT says, it may well be possible to run trams on top.
It does without wires.
Again, LR cannot run on other parts of the Cardiff rail network without wires, which are not planned. The only way NR will put up wires is if someone pays for it. It won't be DfT. It won't be Welsh Govt as they are throwing all infrastructure spending at the 'Core VL' and fantastically expensive road schemes. It won't be the ERDF. Who will it be?
And the plans for those wires would come about as a result of the franchising process.
Even if you run trams through to Central, you somehow have to segregate them from HR, and somehow also find mystery platforms to terminate at least 10tph (at current service levels without enhancements) from Penarth, Barry, the Vale, and the City line.
This is the thing. The problem you indicate would cost money to solve, and the problem itself would act as a dampener on the benefits of the whole scheme. When the government plans and wards the franchise, they have to account for these costs. When the money and contracts are being decided, there's no room for ambiguity. If 24tph or 10tph have to turn back in both directions in central Cardiff, there will be an infrastructure cost to be accounted for.
When I look at the plans, I can't see any way there would be a better business case for a split than there would be for 750V DC wires to go up to Radyr, Penarth and Barry Island. Any city centre turnback capacity will have an upfront infrastructure cost - the real upfront cost of the wires is therefore only the difference between its costs and the turnback costs. Turnbacks in city centre locations are rarely cheap, which is why services tend to be extended through to the other side. From this small-ish capital cost gap, there's then a big operational saving from using LR trains rather than HR.
You are beginning to enter the realms of fantasy. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Welsh government are doig anything of the sort. If they are, why does the phase 2 map make no mebtion of this at all? Why wouldn't they be trumpetting their super-duper tram-train plans?
Your position would be more tenable if you could accept that you hace no real idea about what is happening in South Wales, and that even if LR was the best system in principle, therr are aspects of what is planned which will lead to a sub-optimal service, for thre multiple reasons described by other posters eho.live in South Wales and use these services. Instead, you make things up rathrr than admit that there might be a single conceivable thing erong with a light rail scheme.[/QUOTE]
I expect it's because they don't want to plan an entire network around a technology which could be done, but isn't guaranteed.
Am I defending the system you're criticising? No. I'm saying that it's unlikely to happen that way, for a number of reasons. If I turn out to be wrong, then I'll dislike the real system as much as you do.
Yes, it really demonstrated that capability for the people standing on the Altrincham tram at 9 on Saturday night. I've got to say that I've seen a much higher proportion of Metrolink services I have used being full and standing than Merseryrail ones. I would dearly love to see Metrolink trying to cope with the crowds from the Grand National, or the frequent events on the Liverpool waterfront.
Isn't that a sign of success? If they're full and standing, then people clearly want to use the services. If they were useless then the crowding would discourage people from travelling.
Could that be anything to do with the much higher capacity per unit, and the fact that, probably due to the sort of thinking of which you are so fond, there never seem to be enough double tram services?
What stops there being extra double tram services? Are you arguing that HR would have meant longer trains at the same frequency?
But you are the one who argues that one of the virtues of light rail is that everything can be done as cheaply as possible eg lack of proper waiting facilities. There is no actual need for the waiting facilities at Metrolink stops to be so incredibly bad, but your whole argument is that it is an unacceptable waste of money to provide anything more than the most basic possible facilities, regardless of the effect this will have on the passengers, whom you seem to view as an irritsting obstacle to your main goal of running services as cheaply as possible.
Would passengers rather have somewhere marginally nicer to sit, or to get to where they want to go faster? People don't want to linger around transport systems. They want to get somewhere.
You know the aviation market demonstrates this perfectly. People want cheap and frequent. There is competitive pressure for airlines to go no-frills because people don't really care that much about a few hours of discomfort if the tickets are that much cheaper in the first place.
Let's assume I was not a habitual public transport user without alternative.options, but a first-time user eho wanted to see this wondeful Metrolink about which I had heard so much. Let's assume it bucketed down for the 8 minutes I was sitting on an uncovered bench, hardly an unforeseeable event in Manchester. Would i be rushing to use the service again?
Metrolink causes rain now. Lovely. As far as I'm aware, Metrolink stops typically have a canopy for some rain protection. People are pretty used to being out in the rain.
And that was nothing at all to do with the extent to which the pre-existing services had bern run down, increased demand for transport in general, and changes in the city's economy? Or could it be to do with higher frequency services, which could have been provided on HR, and were up until the service was run down in the 60s?
They couldn't have been provided on HR. They might have been possible with a cross-city tunnel but at much, much higher costs.
You argued that Metrolink is such a poor service that people in Manchester wouldn't use it. Clearly, people in Manchester do use Metrolink.
Which is, I assume, why you are incapable of understanding why people who have a choice - ie most of the British population - use cars, rather than the low quality public transport which you seem to actively welcome.
Not everyone in South Wales has access to a car, or wants to have one. Lots of people would rather use cheaper and more convenient public transport. A cleaner up in the Valleys might actually rather like having a direct LR service all the way to the place they work running early and late, rather than being dependent on an expensive and unreliable car.
Because that worked so well on XC!
It did. The problem is only when there's no mechanism to lengthen trains again, which has been the problem on XC due to the 125mph DMU issue.
Cardiff also has horrendous peak time traffic congestion. Which is trams should be kept off Cardiff's streets at all costs and the segregated HR network maintained.
There's a reason why the Cardiff local & Valleys network is one of the most reliable in the UK. Trains turn up on the minute when there's no signal failures or broken down trains. Signal failures are much less thanks to CASR, we just need the new trains.
You can have high-reliability LR services running on the segregated tracks
and others running off onto certain streets. One combined system can satisfy most transport requirements in and around Cardiff. That's efficiency.
Could the superior braking ability and sensors be provided on HR vehicles if desired?
Only realistically by becoming an LR vehicle. At that point, street running only requires some plastic fairings around the underside to keep pedestrians safe.
