South Wales 'Metro' updates

[uxm]

When stating things as fact or making claims on these forums, it would be really helpful if you could provide weblinks to evidence / news stories to back up your claims and arguments. This does not include Wikipedia.
E.g. in this case, provide links to the 'extensive studies' that claim that the Taff Valleys need 'light rail' and that the City Link Metro Vehicles will be 'better' than the Stadler FLIRTS the Rhymney Valley is getting.

Without evidence to back up your claims, your statements are just your own opinions.

https://freshwater-uk.com/news/south-wales-metro-needs-tram-based-achieve-full-potential

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-opinion/south-wales-metro-needs-based-9774875
There are also extensive reports that can be found on the Welsh Government website and reports that you can acquire by contacting Mark Barry, I hope you also understand that only 1 section of the valleys is getting LRVs and most of the network will remain as heavy rail.

 

[uxm]

When stating things as fact or making claims on these forums, it would be really helpful if you could provide weblinks to evidence / news stories to back up your claims and arguments. This does not include Wikipedia.
E.g. in this case, provide links to the 'extensive studies' that claim that the Taff Valleys need 'light rail' and that the City Link Metro Vehicles will be 'better' than the Stadler FLIRTS the Rhymney Valley is getting.

Without evidence to back up your claims, your statements are just your own opinions.

Rhymney could not use citylinks because of the heavy use of freight. They would've and the taff valley needed citylinks to strengthen its network, citylinks are essential for the taff valley to achieve full potential.

 

[daikilo]

Rhymney could not use citylinks because of the heavy use of freight. They would've and the taff valley needed citylinks to strengthen its network, citylinks are essential for the taff valley to achieve full potential.

Either the Citylink "train-trams" are compatible with even one freight per day somewhere on a common track or they are not, in which case they are not trains. As for their use in the Taff valley, this is only true if additional route segments are to be provided involving say street running.

 

[Cardiff123]

https://freshwater-uk.com/news/south-wales-metro-needs-tram-based-achieve-full-potential

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-opinion/south-wales-metro-needs-based-9774875
There are also extensive reports that can be found on the Welsh Government website and reports that you can acquire by contacting Mark Barry, I hope you also understand that only 1 section of the valleys is getting LRVs and most of the network will remain as heavy rail.

Yes I do understand this, I said so in the post you qouted.
Again, those are links to opinion pieces, not hard evidence. I'm well aware of Prof Mark Barry's work, as he wrote the Metro reports for the Welsh Govt.

Rhymney could not use citylinks because of the heavy use of freight. They would've and the taff valley needed citylinks to strengthen its network, citylinks are essential for the taff valley to achieve full potential.

Again, unless you work for Keolis Amey and have inside knowledge of their bid, you have no way of knowing if freight is the reason why Stadler Flirts were chosen for the Rhymney line. There could be many other reasons why Rhymney is staying HR and is getting Flirts.
The Taff Valleys need instrastucture work, including doubling of single line sections up the heads of the valleys, to 'strengthen' its network. Without the infrastructure work, it could be running pure light rail trams and 4tph to the HoV still couldn't be achieved. Until and unless any extensions are ever built, the use of Citylinks on the Taff Valleys have no advantages over using standard EMUs.
I'm all for a fully comprehensive Metro network in SE Wales, but we have to be realistic that we have a government in Cardiff Bay that is wedded to the idea that spending billions on road building is preferable to developing a proper urban transit system in SE Wales. Even a quick win like extending the Aberdare line to Hirwaun has been shelved, instead opting for the 300m on street section in the Bay. This doesn't fill me with much hope of getting any extensions before 2033 at the earliest.

In fact as the Citylinks will be shorter than and have less seats than the Flirts in use over on the Rhymney line, in terms of meeting passenger expectations, 3 or 4 car EMUs would have been a better choice for the Taff lines.

 

[edwin_m]

The Taff Valleys need instrastucture work, including doubling of single line sections up the heads of the valleys, to 'strengthen' its network. Without the infrastructure work, it could be running pure light rail trams and 4tph to the HoV still couldn't be achieved. Until and unless any extensions are ever built, the use of Citylinks on the Taff Valleys have no advantages over using standard EMUs.

Are these works to be to full heavy rail standard or will the train-trams allow simpler light rail infrastructure to be used?

 

[Cardiff123]

Are these works to be to full heavy rail standard or will the train-trams allow simpler light rail infrastructure to be used?

My understanding, from reading articles in Modern Railways, RAIL Magazine and elsewhere since June, is that the 'Core Valley lines' are to be upgraded and maintained to Network Rail heavy rail standards (at least initially).

 

[Mr Apples]

Does anybody know anything about this? I overheard some ATW, sorry TfW, staff yesterday discussing the fact that Cathays station needs to be relocated. Apparently the platforms are too narrow (agreed) and cannot be expanded as the land immediately adjacent has been sold to the university who are planning buildings which come right up to the platform area, thus preventing expansion.

 

[MarkyT]

Part of the reason Citylinks are probably not suitable for Rhymney and VOG is the distance to be covered on non electrified tracks. While the tram trains will have batteries for short hops sans overhead, all the way from Cardiff to Bridgend would likely be well beyond their realistic capacity, hence the need for a diesel power pack, and the choice of FLIRTs for this service group.

 

[Cardiff123]

Deleted

 

[uxm]

Yes I do understand this, I said so in the post you qouted.
Again, those are links to opinion pieces, not hard evidence. I'm well aware of Prof Mark Barry's work, as he wrote the Metro reports for the Welsh Govt.


Again, unless you work for Keolis Amey and have inside knowledge of their bid, you have no way of knowing if freight is the reason why Stadler Flirts were chosen for the Rhymney line. There could be many other reasons why Rhymney is staying HR and is getting Flirts.
The Taff Valleys need instrastucture work, including doubling of single line sections up the heads of the valleys, to 'strengthen' its network. Without the infrastructure work, it could be running pure light rail trams and 4tph to the HoV still couldn't be achieved. Until and unless any extensions are ever built, the use of Citylinks on the Taff Valleys have no advantages over using standard EMUs.
I'm all for a fully comprehensive Metro network in SE Wales, but we have to be realistic that we have a government in Cardiff Bay that is wedded to the idea that spending billions on road building is preferable to developing a proper urban transit system in SE Wales. Even a quick win like extending the Aberdare line to Hirwaun has been shelved, instead opting for the 300m on street section in the Bay. This doesn't fill me with much hope of getting any extensions before 2033 at the earliest.

In fact as the Citylinks will be shorter than and have less seats than the Flirts in use over on the Rhymney line, in terms of meeting passenger expectations, 3 or 4 car EMUs would have been a better choice for the Taff lines.

The citylinks will be merged most of the time.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The citylinks will be merged most of the time.

Not true it's a 2 car followed 15 minutes later by a 4 car.

 

[uxm]

Not true it's a 2 car followed 15 minutes later by a 4 car.

Capacity Increase is coming from the doubling of services.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Capacity Increase is coming from the doubling of services.

Seats or standing space?

 

[uxm]

Seats or standing space?

Here's the interior, it looks a lot more capacity friendly:

 

[Gareth Marston]

Here's the interior, it looks a lot more capacity friendly:
View attachment 55239

So how does that compare with

1. Current seating/standing capacity?
2. Seating/Standing capacity of Heavy Rail EMU's using the CASR plan?

 

[PaulHarding150]

Does anybody know anything about this? I overheard some ATW, sorry TfW, staff yesterday discussing the fact that Cathays station needs to be relocated. Apparently the platforms are too narrow (agreed) and cannot be expanded as the land immediately adjacent has been sold to the university who are planning buildings which come right up to the platform area, thus preventing expansion.

That’s the first time I’ve seen reference to Cathays moving/potentially moving. I would have thought it would have been mentioned in the launch if it were planned.

The northbound platform could be widened by about a meter and the southbound platform could easily be widened, but you’d still get congestion at the barriers and there’s no easy way around that. Cardiff University are currently building a new building near the students union - that might be what staff were referring to? Or they could be mentioning the new Gabalfa station- exact location still tbc, and undoubtedly Cardiff Uni would be keen to have there say regarding its location.

 

[krus_aragon]

So how does that compare with

1. Current seating/standing capacity?
2. Seating/Standing capacity of Heavy Rail EMU's using the CASR plan?

Well the heavy rail electrification was based upon cascaded 315s (IIRC), which Wikipedia tells me have 318 seats per 4-car unit. Platforms were lengthened to accommodate 6-car trains, so assuming one car would be removed to make 3-car sets, that'd be roughly 230 seats for a single unit, or 460 when doubled up (in 2+3 configuration). If you assumed they'd be refurbished with 2+2 seating, that's still ~180 per unit, or 360 doubled. Unsurprisingly, that's pretty much the same as on 1.5x or 3x 150s.

 

[Gareth Marston]

That’s the first time I’ve seen reference to Cathays moving/potentially moving. I would have thought it would have been mentioned in the launch if it were planned.

The northbound platform could be widened by about a meter and the southbound platform could easily be widened, but you’d still get congestion at the barriers and there’s no easy way around that. Cardiff University are currently building a new building near the students union - that might be what staff were referring to? Or they could be mentioning the new Gabalfa station- exact location still tbc, and undoubtedly Cardiff Uni would be keen to have there say regarding its location.

Have to admit Cathays has outgrown its design today's footfall is close on a million per annum the footbridge there is steep and narrow as well as the platforms. It was built cheaply by South Glamorgan council and BR in 1983. Probably the whol lot was done for less than a consultant would charge to right down the word GRIP.....

 

[Gareth Marston]

Well the heavy rail electrification was based upon cascaded 315s (IIRC), which Wikipedia tells me have 318 seats per 4-car unit. Platforms were lengthened to accommodate 6-car trains, so assuming one car would be removed to make 3-car sets, that'd be roughly 230 seats for a single unit, or 460 when doubled up (in 2+3 configuration). If you assumed they'd be refurbished with 2+2 seating, that's still ~180 per unit, or 360 doubled. Unsurprisingly, that's pretty much the same as on 1.5x or 3x 150s.

All the CaSR documents and initial valleys electrification plans used cascaded 3 car Class 315's aka the Gavin and Stacey deal. Frequency from Pontypridd to central Cardiff would have been 8 tph giving c1440 seats per hour if all worked as a 3 car. The peak capacity arriving into Cardiff between 0730 & 0900 would have been c2700 seats and double that number standing. I wonder if UXM knows how many seats the City links will be providing?

 

[uxm]

All the CaSR documents and initial valleys electrification plans used cascaded 3 car Class 315's aka the Gavin and Stacey deal. Frequency from Pontypridd to central Cardiff would have been 8 tph giving c1440 seats per hour if all worked as a 3 car I wonder if UXM knows how many seats the City links will be providing?

The capacity is listed above and has been sourced from this document: https://tfw.gov.wales/sites/default/files/inline-files/Detailed Briefing.pdf

They will be coupled as 6 cars which are 80 metres long and on off-peak times they will remain as 3 car metro vehicles.

Tph for the new trains can be found here :


This is the existing network and as you can see it has half the TPH:



As for the Class 315s, they were too be used until new stock arrives and were not intended to stay for a long period of time. These would not have voided the tram-trains as they have been a requirement for the Rhondda and Merthyr lines since electrification was proposed. Class 319s converted to 769s are being taken on instead of 315s as a stop-gap and will run on the Rhymney line.

 

[uxm]

A single Citylink set has a capacity of 386 which means that they will operate with a capacity of 772 when merged.

 

[Cardiff123]

That’s the first time I’ve seen reference to Cathays moving/potentially moving. I would have thought it would have been mentioned in the launch if it were planned.

The northbound platform could be widened by about a meter and the southbound platform could easily be widened, but you’d still get congestion at the barriers and there’s no easy way around that. Cardiff University are currently building a new building near the students union - that might be what staff were referring to? Or they could be mentioning the new Gabalfa station- exact location still tbc, and undoubtedly Cardiff Uni would be keen to have there say regarding its location.

Problem is that there's nowhere to move Cathays station to. Move it any further up the line and it's not in Cathays at all. Anyhow, there are buildings hemming in the line either side from Dumfries place up to Gabalfa.
There is actually a new University building planned on the opposite side of the line. The University wants to build a new Maths & Computer Science building on the site of the current gravel car park land they own on the down side of Cathays station.
https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/1240610-consultation-on-new-building
http://www.cardiffuniversitycsm.info/en/

 

[PaulHarding150]

Personal opinion here as a resident of Cardiff (and graduate of another university).

Cardiff University have more money than they need at the moment and are throwing cash at buildings and infrastructure which will massively benefit the university and local/wider economy, but long term residents won’t feel it.

Cardiff University contributing a few million to Cathays and Gabalfa stations would be a wonderful gesture.

I hadn’t seen plans for the new maths building and am away from home at the moment. Building a new building on that gravel car park is fine so long as they don’t build right up to the railway line. That station is used by Cardiff Uni staff and students* and should be protected as part of their bid to reduce car use and their wider civic mission.

*Not to mention the uproar in Cathays Park if their local station were to close/be moved.

 

[krus_aragon]

A single Citylink set has a capacity of 386 which means that they will operate with a capacity of 772 when merged.

Seated capacity, or does that include standing?
(I only counted seats for the 315.)

 

[Envoy]

‘Wales Live’ - on BBC 1 Wales tonight (14 November 2018) will be discussing transport issues in SE Wales.

 

[Gareth Marston]

‘Wales Live’ - on BBC 1 Wales tonight (14 November 2018) will be discussing transport issues in SE Wales.

Lets hope its a bit more intelligent than 'business leaders' claiming that the M4 Relief Road will solve congestion and all the problems off the Welsh economy counterbalanced by a picture of a water vole!

 

[Aictos]

Whilst I am pleased to see the new Hitachi Inter City Express Trains enter service, I note that trains to be used on the Cardiff > Bristol > Bath > Salisbury > Southampton > Portsmouth route will see a downgrade from 158’s to old Thames Turbo commuter trains (165/6’s). Whilst these will offer more seats (jammed in as 5 across) and become 5 coach trains, they are hardly the wonderful trains that one would expect to link these major cities and induce traffic off the roads.
Likewise, Cross Country will no doubt continue to use inadequate 2 or 3 coach 170’s on the Cardiff > Newport > Gloucester > Birmingham > Nottingham route. These will be even more overcrowded (& slower) once the new Worcester Parkway station opens.( At one time, south Wales had direct Inter City Trains that continued to the north-east).

I'm sorry but your maths seem to be out, how can the Class 165s/166s be seen as old when they were built in 1990 to 1992 while the Class 158s were built in 1989 to 1992 so if anything apart from a year's difference there really is no difference in their ages.

Also I fail to see why they are seen as a downgrade, is it because you're presuming they will kept in their Thames Valley interiors?

It has already been stated that they as in the Class 166s will see 2+2 seating except where the coolant tank is which has to stay as 3+2 and as they're operating as 3+2 units with the intention that the long distance passengers will be steered towards the Class 166 and the short distance passengers steered towards the Class 165 I really can't see why they are a downgrade.

As to inadequate 2 or 3 coach 170’s on the Cardiff to Nottingham services, least you have the luxury of changing onto a Intercity Class 220/221/HST between Cheltenham Spa and Derby which is only 10 mins behind the Class 170 - those of us on the Birmingham to Stansted services have the same inadequate 2 or 3 coach 170’s yet have no luxury of getting a IC service for even part of the way.

 

[Cardiff123]

A single Citylink set has a capacity of 386 which means that they will operate with a capacity of 772 when merged.

Wrong again.
A Citylink will have a capacity of 257, only half of that capacity will be seating at 129 seats. A 2+2 seated 150/2 has approx 150 seats.
Source: the Keolis Amey detailed briefing presentation that is floating around the internet and can be found somewhere on the TfW website.

 

[Gareth Marston]

A single Citylink set has a capacity of 386 which means that they will operate with a capacity of 772 when merged.

Your way off there -The Transport for Wales slide show at the launch gave the following -

Each Stadler LRV vehicle has 257 max capacity with 129 seats. From Treherbert there will be 6 peak AM trains between 0730 & 0900 to Queen St there will be 10 LRV vehicles forming them. Aberdare 6 services 8 LRV's & Merthyr 6 services 9 LRV's. So not all services will be doubled up. In fact every second one south of Pontypridd will.

Its stated that combined seating and standing capacity on the AM peak from Pontypridd into Cardiff will be 6939 a 71% increase on today.

 

[Cardiff123]

Lets hope its a bit more intelligent than 'business leaders' claiming that the M4 Relief Road will solve congestion and all the problems off the Welsh economy counterbalanced by a picture of a water vole!

Unfortunately I doubt it will be. No doubt Chris Gibbs from the CBI will be on it and unless someone like Lee Waters or the Sophie Howe, the Welsh Govt's own Future Generations Commisioner is on there to counterbalance him, it will no doubt be a very one sided, who shouts the loudest debate.
Besides, it's only a 30 minute program where they will be debating other issues so it won't get a fair, decent hearing.