South Wales 'Metro' updates

[K.o.R]

The cynic in me thinks that this might come to haunt TfW later, if a tram-train loses all battery power on an unelectrified section...

Exactly. Do it properly the first time. It will be better in the long run.

 

[MarkyT]

Indeed, which brings me back to my point in post #2904 - I believe that TfW (or more likely the Treasury in the Senedd), thinking with the coffers in mind, are keen to avoid expensive civils works where they can be avoided. The cynic in me thinks that this might come to haunt TfW later, if a tram-train loses all battery power on an unelectrified section...

That should never happen unexpectedly as I assume charge will be monitored constantly as it is with modern electric road vehicles.

 

[MarkyT]

Exactly. Do it properly the first time. It will be better in the long run.

On the other hand, if they have in mind station and junction alterations at Queen Street, and perhaps Pontypridd, in the longer term, maybe it's better to wait until after the final layout has been built before erecting stanchions and wires if the trains can handle the gaps in the interim. The same rationale might apply at Central and the VoG where once the furore over current NR managed work has died down Amey might be contracted to come in and do a much more cost-effective wiring job later on when they've finished the simpler work higher up the Valleys. Sorry for being so optimistic and pragmatic all at the same time!

 

[Dai Corner]

On the other hand, if they have in mind station and junction alterations at Queen Street, and perhaps Pontypridd, in the longer term, maybe it's better to wait until after the final layout has been built before erecting stanchions and wires if the trains can handle the gaps in the interim. The same rationale might apply at Central and the VoG where once the furore over current NR managed work has died down Amey might be contracted to come in and do a much more cost-effective wiring job later on when they've finished the simpler work higher up the Valleys. Sorry for being so optimistic and pragmatic all at the same time!

A bit like the GWML electrification. Once you've decided you can't do Oxford and Temple Meads before the HSTs are life expired and will not have a pure electric sub-fleet the criteria for electrifying Swansea and the various diversionary routes change.

 

[MarkyT]

A bit like the GWML electrification. Once you've decided you can't do Oxford and Temple Meads before the HSTs are life expired and will not have a pure electric sub-fleet the criteria for electrifying Swansea and the various diversionary routes change.

Indeed and extending the length of wiring in the future in S.Wales might be a practical response to degrading batteries on the new stock as they accumulate charge cycles, rather than replacing the batteries. On GWR the reponse to further electrification might be to allow removal of the modular diesel genny rafts on a proportion of the 80x fleet, saving weight and maintenance. Even without that, off wire fuel range elsewhere would be extended and engine hours reduced.

 

[Cardiff123]

Longer-term, however, I think the best thing for Queen Street would be to replace the existing bridge over the A4161 with a 4-track equivalent to separate Merthyr & Rhymney traffic north of the station.

Longer term yes, that absolutely is the best thing to do. I'm amazed that two track bridge over Newport Rd isn't being touched and widened to at least 3 tracks as part of the Metro works. Again, it comes down to the money.
The budget for the Core Valley lines upgrade is only roughly £750m, with absolutely no overspend allowed. So as we can see, corners are being cut.
Widening the bridge over Newport Rd to 4 tracks would mean buying up land and buildings immediately north of the bridge, including a multi storey car park on one side, and possibly Cardiff University buildings on the other. I just can't see it happening in our current financial situation with a hard Brexit looming, despite the fact you'd think the 'climate emergency' would dictate that it happens to allow for the maximum number of services possible to and from the Valleys.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Well they are doubling most frequencies with the project, so if they think that can be achieved with the current configuration then I can see why they wouldn’t want to throw more money at it just yet.

I’m guessing that the better acceleration of the new stock will enable the junction to be cleared quicker from a standing start.

Much better to deliver the project on time and within budget and get the confidence of politicians to approve future upgrades. It’s good to see potential extensions shown on the plan, so hopefully they are more than just a throwaway comment at the initial launch.

 

[Paul Dancey]

If I'm reading that map correctly, they appear to be proposing to double track the section between Dingle Road and Penarth on my local line. The second platform still exists in some form at Dingle road under all the weeds, but they also seem to be proposing to build a new platform at Penarth. The land where the second platform used to be was re-developed many years ago, so I'm not sure how easy it would be to add a second platform without major works. But then why would you need one as it's the current terminus for the line. Unless of course this is to allow future reinstatement of a single line to lower Penarth, which has been talked about in the past. Other than a pinch point just beyond the station the original route has survived as a public footpath. I wouldn't have thought the existing platform needs to be any longer and appears in fairly good shape with ramped access, so talk of a new ramp and platform does seem to suggest they are proposing a second platform. Interesting.

 

[krus_aragon]

If I'm reading that map correctly, they appear to be proposing to double track the section between Dingle Road and Penarth on my local line. The second platform still exists in some form at Dingle road under all the weeds, but they also seem to be proposing to build a new platform at Penarth. The land where the second platform used to be was re-developed many years ago, so I'm not sure how easy it would be to add a second platform without major works. But then why would you need one as it's the current terminus for the line. Unless of course this is to allow future reinstatement of a single line to lower Penarth, which has been talked about in the past. Other than a pinch point just beyond the station the original route has survived as a public footpath. I wouldn't have thought the existing platform needs to be any longer and appears in fairly good shape with ramped access, so talk of a new ramp and platform does seem to suggest they are proposing a second platform. Interesting.

Good observation. A portion of double track will of course be needed on the branch in order to increase the frequency beyond 4tph: the current time from Cogan Jn to Penarth and back (with turnaround time) is 12 minutes. But I agree that the plan to situate that double track at the Penarth end rather than halfway is unexpected. (TfW are planning to do the same "two platforms at the terminus" routine at Rhymney and Treherbert according to the map, but they're already used as stabling points overnight.)

Perhaps, if they demolish the Jobcentre built on the disused Penarth platform, there'll be some more construction jobs?

 

[Envoy]

What I think is regrettable is that they appear to have no plans to put a new station on the Penarth branch by the Cogan Tesco - which would serve the Marina area and could also be linked via a footway to the various sport features just across the Pont-y-Werin footbridge = ice rink, swimming pool and white water centre. It is very regrettable that the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation failed to think of this and flogged off this land to Tesco as what is now their car park could have been used as a P&R. They could also have provided a link with the present Cogan station - which could still be done by building a footway from the eastbound platform through the arch under the road and then via an overbridge. As things stand, anyone going from Cogan station to Post-y-Werin has to take their life in their hands and cross the main road by the mini roundabout.
Map of the area:>https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.447987,-3.1863301,669m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1

 

[Paul Dancey]

A station on the Penarth branch adjacent to the Tesco store was talked about in the past, but never materialized, which was and remains a great shame. And of course on top of selling the land to Tesco, the other short sighted decision was to build the new road bridge down to the Marina only wide enough to take a single track underneath. As a result I'm not sure if there would be room to take a new walkway through the arch as well as the single track. A new station and a link through to Cogan, Tesco and Pont-y-Werin bridge would have been really useful, but would now I suspect be to costly to achieve.

 

[duffield]

Good observation. A portion of double track will of course be needed on the branch in order to increase the frequency beyond 4tph: the current time from Cogan Jn to Penarth and back (with turnaround time) is 12 minutes. But I agree that the plan to situate that double track at the Penarth end rather than halfway is unexpected. (TfW are planning to do the same "two platforms at the terminus" routine at Rhymney and Treherbert according to the map, but they're already used as stabling points overnight.)

Perhaps, if they demolish the Jobcentre built on the disused Penarth platform, there'll be some more construction jobs?

Wouldn't be the first time! They demolished the Jobcentre next to Nottingham station recently, and created a lot of construction jobs in the process.

Maybe if all the Jobcentres were demolished, they wouldn't be required any more.

 

[Dai Corner]

Wouldn't be the first time! They demolished the Jobcentre next to Nottingham station recently, and created a lot of construction jobs in the process.

Maybe if all the Jobcentres were demolished, they wouldn't be required any more.

They could create permanent demolition and construction jobs, knocking down old Jobcentres and building new ones.

 

[krus_aragon]

They could create permanent demolition and construction jobs, knocking down old Jobcentres and building new ones.

Is that the employment equivalent of a perpetual motion machine? I'm sure it'd break some law of physics...

 

[Dai Corner]

Is that the employment equivalent of a perpetual motion machine? I'm sure it'd break some law of physics...

It would only work if the workers were paid no more than they would have got on the dole and the new Jobcentres were 100% built from recycled materials from the old ones, transported between sites at zero cost.

 

[Envoy]

A station on the Penarth branch adjacent to the Tesco store was talked about in the past, but never materialized, which was and remains a great shame. And of course on top of selling the land to Tesco, the other short sighted decision was to build the new road bridge down to the Marina only wide enough to take a single track underneath. As a result I'm not sure if there would be room to take a new walkway through the arch as well as the single track. A new station and a link through to Cogan, Tesco and Pont-y-Werin bridge would have been really useful, but would now I suspect be to costly to achieve.

If they were to build a new station on the Penarth line at Cogan, they could build a platform by Tesco’s car park by removing the bushes shown in photo 1 below. From such a platform, it looks to be that a footpath could be built alongside the track and under the road (to the marina) and then up the slope to join the path to Pont-Y-Werin without anybody having to cross a road. In photo 2, we see the unused underpass under the main road from Cogan station through which a new footway plus bridge over the railway could be built into the area shown in photo 3 in order to get people across to Point-Y-Werin (photo 4). Photo 5 shows the present crazy situation with some kids attempting to get across the main road at the mini roundabout having got off a train. Sorting this out would surely be a quick win at relatively little cost in the grand scheme of things. It would provide a link between the 2 lines at Cogan to enable people say from llantwit Major to reach Penarth town without having to go all the way to Grangetown to change trains.

 

[Llanigraham]

How many people would actually use a station there, and how many people want to travel between Penarth and Llantwit Major?
Somehow I suspect the economies of use don't add up!

 

[Paul Dancey]

Sorry can't see what you mean by buses in photo 1, unless you're referring to vehicles in Tesco' car park, like the NHS scanner or blood transfusion service vehicle which sometimes pays a visit. I don't think the width of the track bed beyond the arch was reduced when the line was singled, just the track realigned. So in theory it ought to be possible to change the alignment, cabling routes to accommodate a new platform. But I'm not convinced there is enough room inside the arch under the marina road to safely add a footpath, traveling through on the train there doesn't appear to be that much clearance on either side. The other possibility might be to simply build a ramped foot path up to the marina road along the embankment. But then you'd still need some way to safely link to Cogan station. If the arch actually is wide enough, then everything becomes more straight forward.

I also don't know whether an additional stop up and down might have timing implications on a single line with 4 trains per hour for much of the day.

 

[oglord]

Sorry can't see what you mean by buses in photo 1.

I think it was a typo for "bushes".

 

[MarkyT]

As well as single line occupancy, another problem with an additional Penarth line platform at Cogan is, although it would increase the frequency of service clearly, in the Cardiff bound direction trains would depart from different platforms which could be confusing and irritating for passengers. For better passenger convenience, a twin platform station north of the junction would be better, but it's a long single lead today which would place the new station a long way from the current Cogan location. A classic fixed diamond double junction replacement would be better, allowing the junction signal to be moved almost to the junction, and the new platforms to be located just north of the A4055 overbridge, with public exits to adjacent River View and Penarth Road, via the Toby Carvery whose road access might be used with an expanded car park and drop off for rail users.

 

[Brissle Girl]

As well as single line occupancy, another problem with an additional Penarth line platform at Cogan is, although it would increase the frequency of service clearly, in the Cardiff bound direction trains would depart from different platforms which could be confusing and irritating for passengers. For better passenger convenience, a twin platform station north of the junction would be better, but it's a long single lead today which would place the new station a long way from the current Cogan location. A classic fixed diamond double junction replacement would be better, allowing the junction signal to be moved almost to the junction, and the new platforms to be located just north of the A4055 overbridge, with public exits to adjacent River View and Penarth Road, via the Toby Carvery whose road access might be used with an expanded car park and drop off for rail users.

The extra cost of all this would seem to be totally disproportionate to any potential benefit. If people want to get to Penarth from the Barry line (and I’m sceptical of how big the demand will be in either direction) then there’s a perfectly decent cross platform interchange at Grangetown, and with the frequency of service there’ll never be long to wait.

 

[MarkyT]

The extra cost of all this would seem to be totally disproportionate to any potential benefit. If people want to get to Penarth from the Barry line (and I’m sceptical of how big the demand will be in either direction) then there’s a perfectly decent cross platform interchange at Grangetown, and with the frequency of service there’ll never be long to wait.

I fully agree with you on this. It was a thought experiment to devise something that might be more customer-friendly than a standalone additional platform on the Penarth branch. The only possible justification for it might be if reconstruction of Cogan station was required for other reasons. The fact is there are Barry trains already serving Cogan with a reasonable frequency, which is likely to increase in the future, so there's little justification spending vast amounts of money on either scheme in my view.

 

[Paul Dancey]

I agree. As a local it would sometimes be handy to be able to catch a train to Barry without having to walk or drive to Cogan, or change at Grangetown. But hardly worth the money it would cost to make it a reality, and even if the money was available, to be honest I'd much prefer it was used to extend the line to lower Penarth. Which might help ease some of the rush hour commuter congestion by making the train a more attractive proposition for those living in further away from the existing Penarth station.

 

[S-Bahn]

There used to be a station on the Penarth Branch at Cogan (Penarth Dock) and the station building is still there and is now a shop.

 

[S-Bahn]

I'm assuming the break in the wiring around Trefforest and Pontypridd is due to the Park Street Bridge north of Trefforest Station?

There is also scope to reinstate up to 2 tracks between Ponty to Tref if they needed the extra passing loops.

I still reckon they should demolish Pontypridd station and build a modern 5 platform station and allow the 4 tracks through the station to the junction at Sardis Road - I can see the current Pontypridd becoming a bottleneck on the Metro with increased frequency and the old station is an inappropriate relic for the 21st century.

 

[Envoy]

Sorry can't see what you mean by buses in photo 1, unless you're referring to vehicles in Tesco' car park, like the NHS scanner or blood transfusion service vehicle which sometimes pays a visit. I don't think the width of the track bed beyond the arch was reduced when the line was singled, just the track realigned. So in theory it ought to be possible to change the alignment, cabling routes to accommodate a new platform. But I'm not convinced there is enough room inside the arch under the marina road to safely add a footpath, traveling through on the train there doesn't appear to be that much clearance on either side. The other possibility might be to simply build a ramped foot path up to the marina road along the embankment. But then you'd still need some way to safely link to Cogan station. If the arch actually is wide enough, then everything becomes more straight forward.

I also don't know whether an additional stop up and down might have timing implications on a single line with 4 trains per hour for much of the day.

Well ‘buses’ was a typing mistake for ‘bushes’ - which I have now corrected.

If they could not get a new footpath under the bridge on the Penarth line, then perhaps they could be allowed to have some land off the Tesco site for a dedicated footpath around to just before the petrol station & then a zebra crossing over to Pont-Y-Werin. (This bloody spelling corrector just change ‘Pont’ to ‘Post’). Anyway, the way this area was planned out back in the 80’s is appalling. Tesco car park should have been for a P&R with a new platform on the Penarth Line and that linked via a footway to the present Cogan Station. Tesco could have gone where the Oystercathcher pub is located with a car park to the south. The pub - with a better design - should have been placed facing the waterway thus offering more interesting views that just a mini roundabout. The underpass under the main road from Cogan station car park should never have been filled in.

Timing implications might be totally different if the Penarth Line is extended towards Sully - but as has already been mentioned, houses have been built on the old track bed not far from Cosmeston. (Another short sighted decision by planners).

As I said earlier, with all the sport facilities just over the Ely, it surely is justified to create a walkway from Cogan station to Pont-y-Werin bridge. (Now the spell corrector had changed ‘Pont’ to ‘Pond’).

I further note that Cogan station is not that far from Llandough Hospital - which has terrible parking issues. If the powers that be wish to reduce traffic, then why not get a small bus service linking Cogan station with the hospital as it is rather too far to walk for most people.

 

[Envoy]

I would also like to suggest that a new footbridge & path should directly link Grangetown station with IKEA to the south & hence the rest of the retail park. (The former railway on the west side of Clive Street is now being built on = another lost opportunity thanks to the CBDC back in the late 80’s). Also note the large area of derelict land next to the railway just west of IKEA - see map below. We have the same thing in Barry's docklands - large areas of derelict land next to what will be the ‘Metro’ yet the Welsh Government prefer to dig up the countryside north of M4 J33 for business parks which will further bung up that important interchange.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4643255,-3.1865434,989m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1

 

[Cardiff123]

I'm assuming the break in the wiring around Trefforest and Pontypridd is due to the Park Street Bridge north of Trefforest Station?

There is also scope to reinstate up to 2 tracks between Ponty to Tref if they needed the extra passing loops.

I still reckon they should demolish Pontypridd station and build a modern 5 platform station and allow the 4 tracks through the station to the junction at Sardis Road - I can see the current Pontypridd becoming a bottleneck on the Metro with increased frequency and the old station is an inappropriate relic for the 21st century.

A lot of people will disagree with you on demolishing Pontypridd station, and I'm pretty sure it's Grade II listed anyway.

 

[Quakers Yard]

It is.

 

[MarkyT]

It is.

I'd abolish the newer up side platform and reconfigure the historic island, running through tracks around either side, adding mid-platform crossovers and inset bays as necessary, then convert all the redundant platform buildings into vast public conveniences for match day passengers on trains making the promised extended comfort stops!