Swansea District line

[Greenback]

Four trains per hour out of a theoretical capcity of 15tph and you still don't think it will all fit?

It is not so simple, I'm afraid. While there is a theoretical capcity of xx trains per hour over a given route or section of route, you also have to take into account:

1. A slow, stopping service will take up more than one path compared to a limited stop or express service
2. Freight companies are guaranteed a certain amount of paths, even if they are not used every day.
3. Junctions and conflicting movements impact on the ability to timetable trains as efficiently as would be the case if the line was direct from a to b with no trains joining or leaving the main line.
4. Timetables will have to allow for things going wrong in order to be robust. This will further reduce the number of paths available compared to the theoritical limit.
5. Sections of single track in West Wales will also constrain the times that trains can use that line, which will also impact on the efficiency of timetabling on other sections.
6. Platform capacity at key stations will also come into the equation.

It's not just about headways and signalling!

As far as the evidence above is concerned, that statement applies to north Pembrokeshire. However, I surmise that the same would be true of other Pembrokeshire branches, since I suspect all three are largely beyond commuting distance of Swansea.

I would suspect the same. Which means that Cardiff is well beyond the commuting distance. Realistically, how many people, that are not currently using rail anyway, are going to be attracted to a quicker train from Haverfordwest on a Tuesday lunchtime at 1300? How big is this market in total anyway? Road and rail combined?

The real benefits of the rail link to these areas are the ability to reach other parts of the UK. If someone is travelling from Darlington to Manorbier, as someone I recently spoke to on a train out of Swansea was, a 15 minute journey saving is not going to have much effect on their overall journey time.

I

n which case maybe that goes to show that Arriva felt the links between Carmarthen and Cardiff were lacking, whereas links to Swansea were not.

I can accept that links between Cardiff and Aberystwyth were lacking. It is a tortuous journey by rail via Shrewsbury, and the journey via Swansea is little better. There is also an advantage in that the bus from Carmarthen to Aberystwyth can serve relatively isolated communities inaccessible by train. Similar to the car driver, once someone has a direct bus service from down the road, that goes to a big city, there is little incentive for them to get off the bus and then change to a train.

The journey profiles, markets and economics of running a bus service once or twice a day between Aberystwyth and Cardiff are completely different to running an hourly train service as you propose.

I would be cautious in concluding that the diversion away from Swansea supports a similar diversion in rail services away from what is a large city by Welsh standards. If you include Neath as well you are talking about an even bigger population than Swansea and Gower.

Sounds unlikely maybe, but if modal shift from cars to public transport is the aim it is something that needs to be solved. There are pepole who drive to Port Talbot Parkway to cut their journey time, can't we get them to drive a shorter distance (or, better yet, get a bus) to Whitland or Carmarthen? Examples here, here (a comment near the bottom) and maybe even a former MP for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (though I don't know where he drove to Port Talbot from).

I am not against increasing public transport usage at all, but surely the current bus services are not really adequate to entice anyone out of their cars? Especially in the Carmarthen and Whitland areas?

If someone is driving to Port Talbot at the moment, that is probably as much to do with the easy access of the station there to the M4 as it is about anything else. I can see why it would be advantageous to drive to there compared to Bridgend or Swansea, which requires a horrible drive through roads snarled up with traffic to reach the railway station.

Even with a journey time reduction of 15 minutes, I doubt it would convince anyone who currently does this to drive to somewhere else, far less use road public transport, which many people consider dirty, smelly, late and overcrowded, regardless of the actual facts.

I am aware of people who drive from Llandeilo and Llandovery to Neath and Port Talbot as this is a good way for them to connect into the rial network, given the sparse service at their local stations and the geography of the HoW line. It is a sensible thign to do which will not be remotely affected by diverting traisn to the SDL.

Getting a seat as actually another important factor here. While you probably wouldn't fill more than two or three coaches west of Swansea, a train of that length is not enough between Cardiff and Swansea. Having nearly all through trains from S.W. Wales to Cardiff avoid Swansea means passengers for S.W.Wales have a better chance of getting a seat on the train out of Cardiff, rather than finding it full of passengers for Bridgend, Neath and Swansea (it'd still have Port Talbot passengers on it though, as it'd need to call at Port Talbot to pick up passengers from Bridgend wanting to go to S.W.Wales).

I agree with this. It can be a problem getting a seat on the current through trains between Cardiff and the west, and dropping Bridgend, Neath and Swansea calls would probably help to relieve some of the overcrowding.

However, the facts seem to indicate that the volume of passengers using direct services, at least at off peak times, through from Carmarthen and points West to Cardiff, are not sufficient to warrant such a service without the calls that you want to omit. When the trains ran via the SDL during the line closure for the Gowerton redoubling, far more passengers alighted from SW Wales trains for the bus connections at Llanelli to Swansea, than stayed on the train to Cardiff. There were some passengers who remained on board, but barely enough to fill one third of a class 150 on average over the two weeks of traisn that I saw and used.

To be a bit more positive, I think that direct services over the SDL will come about one day, but it will not be until there is a radical rethink about public transport, and when the cost of motoring has risen further to a level where people are actively seeking out a viable alternative to their cars.

As Gareth Marston has said, the demise of cut price air travel can be seen on the horizon, and this will help to restore Fishguard's status as a busy entry point to the Emerald Isle as in times past. But I feel we are at least ten years away from that point.

 

[cmjcf]

Why not? Because we could capture more passegers, from Carmarthen, Whitland and Llanelli, if the train calls at those stops.

But by the same token by stopping at Swansea would capture even more passengers again, what it having a population greater than every other stop west of the Loughor combined. Do you now see how silly this sort of logic is?

Four trains per hour out of a theoretical capcity of 15tph and you still don't think it will all fit?

FWIW, currently on weekdays during off-peak daytime hours, Bridgend has 6-7 trains per hour pathed through it, not counting the trains on the Vale (these run directly into the bay without crossing the main line). Add in a half-hourly Maesteg, extra freight paths to Margam (it's expanded significantly, and there's more on the cards) and bumping the Swanlines to hourly, and you're up to 9-10. Remember that's only the WTT - you'll also have trains added through STP, such as the regularly-scheduled-but-as-required timber trains for Chirk, which despite having run regularly for a couple of years now are still not reserved a WTT path. Beyond this, you have to either build more track or send trains through the Vale, the latter quickly running out of time as an option, with the prospect of 6tph east of Cogan.

Initial source are these 2004 survey results from the north Pembrokeshire Transport Forum regarding Fishguard services.

So, it's a survey of an area with a population less than that of Carmarthen. We don't have any reason to assume that this profile is the same for the 120,000 people of Pembrokeshire as a whole, nor of the 150,000 people of south and west Carmarthenshire. Second, this doesn't exactly fill me with confidence:

This watermark does not appear in the registered version

Interestingly, as many passengers wanted to go to Bristol as Carmarthen and demand for Cardiff is marginally more than demand for Carmarthen and Swansea put together.

But more people wanted to go to London than Cardiff. Perhaps we should run trains non-stop between F&G and Paddington too? A non-stop service to serve 100 people out of a population of 3,000. That sounds like good value for money, right? :roll:

More recently, the forum ran a questionaire on use of the new Fishguard services, results from which were published in their December 2012 news briefing, with the relevant information reading: Interestingly this puts Carmarthen on a level with Swansea.

Again, the result from a small and insignificant part of the catchment. The simple fact of the matter is that if you stand on the platforms at Swansea, you will see rather a lot of people getting off the eastbound trains and getting on the westbound trains. Presumably these people aren't all track bashers trying to bag the new track through Gowerton.

Two problems? Why?

Problem 1: Shortage of paths.
Problem 2: Fragility of portion working.
(Also, google "he now has two problems".)

As far as the evidence above is concerned, that statement applies to north Pembrokeshire. However, I surmise that the same would be true of other Pembrokeshire branches, since I suspect all three are largely beyond commuting distance of Swansea.

Define "commuting distance". One of my colleagues used to travel from Haverfordwest to Swansea Enterprise Park on a daily basis. If we're charitable and set the dividing line at Carmarthen, then the population "within commuting distance" to the west of Swansea is rather more than the rail-served population "beyond commuting distance" that way. Carmarthen and Llanelli together have a population almost as large as the whole of Pembrokeshire. As for leisure travel, for people in south Carmarthenshire, the "day trip to Swansea" is a time-honoured tradition.

Arriva cutting Swansea from the Aberystwyth service however suggests the trend might extend even more widely.

Or they're trying to make money and want to provide their contracted service to Cardiff without wasting time, money, buses and drivers' hours on competing with the already busy Cardiff-Swansea corridor.

There are pepole who drive to Port Talbot Parkway to cut their journey time, can't we get them to drive a shorter distance (or, better yet, get a bus) to Whitland or Carmarthen?

Sure, if you improve the facilities at both stations. Whitland has become run down, and the station car park at Carmarthen would need to be much bigger than it is. Again, the money would have to come from somewhere.

 

[PHILIPE]

Although I do not understand the details of the system, I think ORCATS could be a big factor if ATW wanted to run trains direct via the District Line and avoiding Swansea. The revenue as I understand it, is split between FGW and ATW at stations where they both call.

 

[Greenback]

Although I do not understand the details of the system, I think ORCATS could be a big factor if ATW wanted to run trains direct via the District Line and avoiding Swansea. The revenue as I understand it, is split between FGW and ATW at stations where they both call.

I agree with your understanding of how it works. I also agree that ATW will not want to reduce calls at Bridgend for this reason. However, the extent to which the proposal for trains via the SDL will affect the overall service level can only be guessed at, given that there appears to be some confusion over how many trains will run (or indeed can run) between Swansea and Cardiff and who would be operating them.

It's possible that ATW might be running the same number of, or more, trains calling at Bridgend post electrification, even allowing for these 'Fishguard/Milford/Pembroke' expresses.

 

[cmjcf]

Although I do not understand the details of the system, I think ORCATS could be a big factor if ATW wanted to run trains direct via the District Line and avoiding Swansea. The revenue as I understand it, is split between FGW and ATW at stations where they both call.

Correct. An ATW guard once told me that apparently they get rather annoyed that FGW can hoover up half the revenue on a summer Saturday by running one 8-car HST set to Tenby, while ATW run 150s and 153s.

 

[anthony263]

Bridgend is fast expanding especially with it being so close to Cardiff and not too far from Swansea.

As many others have said the main problem is that the SWML is only two tracks west of Cardiff which has been ok in the past but with the additional services both passenger and freight capacity is fast becoming an issue.

The Vale of glamorgan is also fast reaching capacity and there is an issue with the junction at Bridgend with trains having to pass through platform 1 to access the vale of glamorgan line.

It is a shame that many lines were cut by beaching etc as they would have been usful these days even if only for use by freight services.

I can see in the future the service pattern on teh SWML between Swansea and Cardiff Central being:

1.) Maesteg - Bridgend - Cardiff Central - Ebbw Vale Town/Newport , 2tph.
2.) Swansea - Bridgend - Cardiff - London Paddington, 1tph.
3.) Swansea - Cardiff - Newport - Bristol TM, 1tph.
4.) Swansea - Cardiff - Cheltenham , 1 TPH.

This should mean that there will be up to 5/6 passenger services per hour between Bridgend and Cardiff Central with the fastest services taking 20 minutes and the slowest taking 28 minutes even with additional stops at Brackla.

I do hope that some freight in south wales can be hauled by electric loco's providing some area available as that coudl help things

 

[PHILIPE]

Correct. An ATW guard once told me that apparently they get rather annoyed that FGW can hoover up half the revenue on a summer Saturday by running one 8-car HST set to Tenby, while ATW run 150s and 153s.

Actually Pacers in the majority. 2xPacers and 150

 

[cmjcf]

It is a shame that many lines were cut by beaching etc as they would have been usful these days even if only for use by freight services.

What closed line would be an alternative for freight services between Margam and points east of Cardiff? The one that comes to mind is the R&SB, but you'd have to reverse at Jersey Marine and run along the City Line, and I'm not sure how that would square with the semi-fast Valleys services they're looking at for the 16+tph regime.

 

[Rhydgaled]

It's not just about headways and signalling!

I know. But I'd not expected quite as many factors as you listed. Still, I'd be supprised if all those factors add up to mean you can't get four passenger paths out of a therorectical 15 paths.

The real benefits of the rail link to these areas are the ability to reach other parts of the UK. If someone is travelling from Darlington to Manorbier, as someone I recently spoke to on a train out of Swansea was, a 15 minute journey saving is not going to have much effect on their overall journey time.

Still, if you are driving to the station anyway saving 15 minutes by driving to Port Talbot is likely to seem attractive. It's not just about getting to Cardiff quicker, it gets you to England quicker too. This could also mean later last connections from English origin points to Pembs.

I can accept that links between Cardiff and Aberystwyth were lacking. It is a tortuous journey by rail via Shrewsbury, and the journey via Swansea is little better. There is also an advantage in that the bus from Carmarthen to Aberystwyth can serve relatively isolated communities inaccessible by train. Similar to the car driver, once someone has a direct bus service from down the road, that goes to a big city, there is little incentive for them to get off the bus and then change to a train.

You admit the journey via Swansea is tortuous then. I just think it'd be better to put passengers off the hourly bus from Aberystwyth onto a fast train to Cardiff at Carmarthen than run a competing bus service. I'm also using the speed of the number 20 service as an illustration of just how much faster road is compared to rail at present.

I am not against increasing public transport usage at all, but surely the current bus services are not really adequate to entice anyone out of their cars? Especially in the Carmarthen and Whitland areas?

I agree, the bus service levels aren't great. That'll need improving too, but getting passengers to drive to their nearest stations rather than driving to Port Talbot would be a step in the right direction.

I am aware of people who drive from Llandeilo and Llandovery to Neath and Port Talbot as this is a good way for them to connect into the rial network, given the sparse service at their local stations and the geography of the HoW line. It is a sensible thign to do which will not be remotely affected by diverting traisn to the SDL.

Well, that's the other option mentioned in the video. Forget S.W.Wales flows to anywhere east of Swansea and provide new stations on the SDL which would link that area to Cardiff. These trains (or some of them) could orriginate from the lower portions of the HOWL.

However, the facts seem to indicate that the volume of passengers using direct services, at least at off peak times, through from Carmarthen and points West to Cardiff, are not sufficient to warrant such a service without the calls that you want to omit.

The question is whether the lack of volume of through passengers is due to lack of demand (which the NPTF surveys suggest is not the case) or due to the majority of the market going by road. If the answer is nobody in S.W.Wales wants to go anywhere east of Swansea and nobody east of Swansea wants to go to S.W.Wales then forget through trains and use the SDL for HOWL/SDL to Cardiff services instead.

When the trains ran via the SDL during the line closure for the Gowerton redoubling, far more passengers alighted from SW Wales trains for the bus connections at Llanelli to Swansea, than stayed on the train to Cardiff. There were some passengers who remained on board, but barely enough to fill one third of a class 150 on average over the two weeks of traisn that I saw and used.

I'm not supprised if the S.W.Wales to Cardiff/points East market isn't being captured by the current indirect through trains. You need to run a fast service for rather more than two weeks for potential passengers to realise it is there and it is faster.

But by the same token by stopping at Swansea would capture even more passengers again, what it having a population greater than every other stop west of the Loughor combined. Do you now see how silly this sort of logic is?

Nope, I don't see it as silly logic. What might happen there is you loose all the passengers from the west who want to get to the east of Swansea. So what you see is everyone getting off at Swansea and a different (larger) set of passengers boarding at Swansea for the journey east. To use the Gerald example again, the primary objective was to provide a faster rail service from north Wales to Cardiff so it ran non stop from Shrewsbury to Newport. Stopping at more stations defeats that object. If the object is to increase rail usage in S.W.Wales then you pick up at stations in S.W.Wales and run fast to Cardiff.

So, it's a survey of an area with a population less than that of Carmarthen. We don't have any reason to assume that this profile is the same for the 120,000 people of Pembrokeshire as a whole

You don't have a reason to assume it does not apply to the rest of Pembs. either. Personally, I have chosen to assume that it does apply to the whole of Pembrokeshire, but I admit there's no evidence for that.

But more people wanted to go to London than Cardiff. Perhaps we should run trains non-stop between F&G and Paddington too? A non-stop service to serve 100 people out of a population of 3,000. That sounds like good value for money, right? :roll:

You shouldn't need to run a through service right through to Paddington though. The GWML from Paddington to Cardiff is fast and competitive, the current services between Cardiff and Carmarthen aren't. You only need to fix the bit that is broken.

The simple fact of the matter is that if you stand on the platforms at Swansea, you will see rather a lot of people getting off the eastbound trains and getting on the westbound trains.

So what if that's the case? It doesn't prove anything. I never said there wasn't any demand for travel between S.W.Wales and Swansea did I? And at peak times you'll have commuters from the likes of Carmarthen and Llanelli to Swansea (the limit of commuting distance for Swansea, at a guess, is Carmarthen).

You observation suggests either that there is no demand for through trains or a better, faster, service is needed to entice that demand onto rail.

Problem 1: Shortage of paths.
Problem 2: Fragility of portion working.

But portion working solves problem 1, so there's still only one problem (problem 2 in this case). It seems to work ok on the Cambrian line, despite one portion running to/from Pwllheli (over 2hrs 10mins away along a single track route).

As for leisure travel, for people in south Carmarthenshire, the "day trip to Swansea" is a time-honoured tradition.

Is this tradition still upheld? I think the same could have been said for Pembrokeshire in the past, but not anymore.

One comment I've read is:

I note that the days of Richards Bros running a regular Wednesday and Saturday day trip bus excursion each week to Swansea is long gone – they tend to head to Cardiff instead these days.

Their Day Tours Page for 2013 certainly only mentions Swansea four times, wheras 'Cardiff & Ikea' appears 11 times with other trips to Cardiff also on offer. Is this a shift away from traditional patterns or is it that rail has captured a good share of the Swansea market away from the coaches but had failed to do so for the Cardiff market?

Sure, if you improve the facilities at both stations. Whitland has become run down, and the station car park at Carmarthen would need to be much bigger than it is. Again, the money would have to come from somewhere.

Improving Whitland station is something I've communicated with my AM about recently. Unfortunately it doesn't look very promising in the short term.

FWIW, currently on weekdays during off-peak daytime hours, Bridgend has 6-7 trains per hour pathed through it, not counting the trains on the Vale (these run directly into the bay without crossing the main line). Add in a half-hourly Maesteg, extra freight paths to Margam (it's expanded significantly, and there's more on the cards) and bumping the Swanlines to hourly, and you're up to 9-10.

That's alot of freight! Sounds like it'll have to start running at night, and/or 4-tracking Margam/Port Talbot to Bridgend will be needed soon.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree with your understanding of how it works. I also agree that ATW will not want to reduce calls at Bridgend for this reason.

My orriginal calling pattern after Llanelli was Port Talbot, Bridgend, Cardiff. However, Morriston parkway sounds like a good idea, but to keep the maximum time saving it's probably Morriston or Bridgend, not both.

I can see in the future the service pattern on teh SWML between Swansea and Cardiff Central being:

1.) Maesteg - Bridgend - Cardiff Central - Ebbw Vale Town/Newport , 2tph.
2.) Swansea - Bridgend - Cardiff - London Paddington, 1tph.
3.) Swansea - Cardiff - Newport - Bristol TM, 1tph.
4.) Swansea - Cardiff - Cheltenham , 1 TPH.

This should mean that there will be up to 5/6 passenger services per hour between Bridgend and Cardiff Central with the fastest services taking 20 minutes and the slowest taking 28 minutes even with additional stops at Brackla.

The problem with the Cheltenham one is the lack of wires. If there were wires, that's what my proposal for Swanline would be.

I do hope that some freight in south wales can be hauled by electric loco's providing some area available as that coudl help things

That's another question. With class 92s being capable of 87mph and most other electric locos being able to do 100mph+, could electric freight run fast enough to take up less paths? Same timings as a passenger train calling at Bridgend and running non-stop to Cardiff?

 

[cmjcf]

I know. But I'd not expected quite as many factors as you listed. Still, I'd be supprised if all those factors add up to mean you can't get four passenger paths out of a therorectical 15 paths.

It isn't a "theoretical 15 paths". :roll:

You admit the journey via Swansea is tortuous then. I just think it'd be better to put passengers off the hourly bus from Aberystwyth onto a fast train to Cardiff at Carmarthen than run a competing bus service. I'm also using the speed of the number 20 service as an illustration of just how much faster road is compared to rail at present.

So they drive non-stop along the M4 and still only manage to be 15 minutes quicker, on a service that's much less frequent? You're still making assumptions about the perceived value of a direct service, something which, as I pointed out earlier, we don't know. Particularly since the redevelopment has made Swansea a less depressing place to change trains. (It really was a rather grim before the rebuild.)

Well, that's the other option mentioned in the video. Forget S.W.Wales flows to anywhere east of Swansea and provide new stations on the SDL which would link that area to Cardiff.

Not going to work because it doesn't fit the flows. The primary demand from Morriston and Gorseinon is not Cardiff. Llandarcy may be a possibility, but the line is too far away from the housing developments to be useful, and it's not really a viable option as a Parkway - if you're driving to Llandarcy, you might as well drive a few more miles to Port Talbot for 2-3tph.

These trains (or some of them) could orriginate from the lower portions of the HOWL.

Those areas are places where there really is demand for travel to Llanelli. Also, once again, where are you going to run these trains to? You can't run them through to Cardiff because there isn't enough room. Also, just in case you hadn't noticed from earlier in the thread, there isn't enough room. Last, but not least, there isn't enough room. I feel this point bears repeating because it seems like you're really having some difficulty understanding it.

(which the NPTF surveys suggest is not the case)

No, the NPTF suggests it might not be the case for the small number of people living in a small town that they happened to survey. We have nothing to vouch for whether the methodology was sound (IOW, how they addressed issues such as selection bias), and nothing to suggest that the pattern is more widespread.

You don't have a reason to assume it does not apply to the rest of Pembs. either.

I have a very good reason to assume it does not apply to the rest of Pembs. They didn't ask anyone in the rest of Pembs. Someone should commission market researchers to conduct some proper surveys. They've got information on demographic profiles and are already set up to make adjustments for them.

Personally, I have chosen to assume that it does apply to the whole of Pembrokeshire, but I admit there's no evidence for that.

Relevant.

You shouldn't need to run a through service right through to Paddington though.

But why not? According to your survey, apparently 100 or so people in Fishguard want to get to London quickly, and by your own arguments this means we need fast trains there that skip station calls. What better way to achieve this than a fast train from Fishguard to Paddington without any stops? Obviously we don't run it to the harbour, otherwise it will be full of ferry passengers, right?

So what if that's the case? It doesn't prove anything. I never said there wasn't any demand for travel between S.W.Wales and Swansea did I?

You asserted, without anything other than anecdotal evidence to back you up, that there is apparently loads of demand for travel to far-flung places, and that apparently this demand isn't satisfied because people are put off the 10-15 minute diversion to Swansea.

You observation suggests either that there is no demand for through trains or a better, faster, service is needed to entice that demand onto rail.

It doesn't suggest any such thing. What it does suggest is that by skipping Swansea, you're going to leave an awful lot of people waiting for the next train, since for reasons that have been mentioned in detail already, you can't add trains over the District if you want them to continue past Port Talbot. If you want a path over the District between Bridgend and Cardiff, something has to be taken away to make room for it.

But portion working solves problem 1

But it doesn't, does it? You still have a shortage of paths.

It seems to work ok on the Cambrian line, despite one portion running to/from Pwllheli (over 2hrs 10mins away along a single track route).

On the Cambrian, the alternatives aren't much better. Alternate trains halves the frequency, and a shuttle service means the through train needs to be longer. Working in its favour, there's very little else on that line to disrupt or by disrupted by it, and you can be reasonably sure of which return leg will arrive first. On the SWML, the alternative is a short diversion through a major population centre. That's not really worth the headaches of portion working. With the current pathing requirements, the 3-4 minutes required for the join is rather a long time. When the electrics come, any splitting or joining at BGN is a non-starter.

Is this tradition still upheld? I think the same could have been said for Pembrokeshire in the past, but not anymore.

The loadings on the buses arriving from Carmarthenshire would suggest that quite a few people are travelling in. Nobody bothers booking coaches from the Amman Valley to Swansea any more because the buses from Ammanford are every 30 minutes, and modern buses are more accomodating of baggage, so they can do the day trip by themselves.

Is this a shift away from traditional patterns or is it that rail has captured a good share of the Swansea market away from the coaches but had failed to do so for the Cardiff market?

Neither. I'd suggest it's a combination of the better and more reliable scheduled bus links, and the fact that Cardiff has a lot of retail not reachable by rail. If you want to shop in Culverhouse Cross or Cardiff Bay Retail Park, your only option is by road. Then there's the shops in SD2, which you'd previously have needed to go to Bristol or London for, so that has probably resisted the general demise of the coach trip.

That's alot of freight! Sounds like it'll have to start running at night

What do you mean "start"?

and/or 4-tracking Margam/Port Talbot to Bridgend will be needed soon.

That's not the bottleneck. You need to sort out the other side of Bridgend first, and there's a lot of places where that track is hemmed in. Reading would be a walk in the park by comparison.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Rhydaglaed can come up with as many options as he likes for cmjcf to say no to but the reality is there will be regular passenger trains over the SDL because of the political element. Not as many as Rhydagaled is suggesting and more than cmjcf would like.

I'll put my hat in the ring and suggest they'll be 6 a day by 2020.

 

[cmjcf]

I'll put my hat in the ring and suggest they'll be 6 a day by 2020.

Define "6 a day". If you mean 6 total, then there are currently 5 paths per day (2 up, 3 down). If you mean 6 each way, then when the timetable frequency (for both passenger and freight) increases come 2020, if you can find the paths you can have them.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Define "6 a day". If you mean 6 total, then there are currently 5 paths per day (2 up, 3 down). If you mean 6 each way, then when the timetable frequency (for both passenger and freight) increases come 2020, if you can find the paths you can have them.

It's not me that will be having them but the political desire for Through trains post electrification to Swansea. It will be NR job to find the paths, don't get bogged down on the detail to much but it's the principle that's key and that's the reality of how the £ chain works.

6 each way is my call for the sweepstake

 

[Rhydgaled]

But it doesn't, does it? You still have a shortage of paths.

There's currently 1tph Maesteg - Cardiff and 0.5tph Swanline. Assuming there's a path in the other hour from the Swanline, that's taking up two paths east of Bridgend. If you couple the two trains at Bridgend, they now use only one path east of Bridgend between them, don't they?

That's not the bottleneck. You need to sort out the other side of Bridgend first, and there's a lot of places where that track is hemmed in. Reading would be a walk in the park by comparison.

East of Bridgend there are two routes to Cardiff, effectively four-track, which is why I thought Bridgend - Port Talbot, being only double track, would be the problem. I guess then that the real problem is east of Barry on the Vale Of Glamorgan not having spare paths for freight.

 

[krus_aragon]

There's currently 1tph Maesteg - Cardiff and 0.5tph Swanline. Assuming there's a path in the other hour from the Swanline, that's taking up two paths east of Bridgend. If you couple the two trains at Bridgend, they now use only one path east of Bridgend between them, don't they?

True, but you'll take 5-10 minutes coupling and decoupling the units at Bridgend. And as there aren't any looped platforms at Bridgend for you to do this in, there'll be a queue forming behind. Then you've got the usual issues of "what if one of the units is delayed?" etc...

So as not to be walking in and naysaying everything, here's one of my thoughts: Would looping the platforms at, say, Pontyclun, with fast through lines, be of use in letting fast trains get past stoppers?

 

[Tomnick]

Are the services proposed for attaching/detaching at Bridgend the slowest passenger services over the route? If so, then I'd agree that spending an extra 4-5 minutes faffing at Bridgend would waste one additional path at best. These slow trains ought to produce a fair bit of space on the graph east of Bridgend, as they make steady progress to the west of there - no doubt sufficient space to accommodate the Maesteg services without occupying a path that could be used through to Swansea.

 

[Pacerpilot]

There's no way you can produce 15 paths between Swansea and Cardiff. Landore - Neath is 2 aspect signalling so even departing 5 mins apart out of Swansea, you'll be running on yellows between Skewen and Neath, and under two aspect signalling, that makes for very slow progress....and slow running transfers the problem onto the train behind.
There are other factors, like the reduction in number of signals between Tremains and Pencoed when PT west was resignalled in 2007. If the bobby at PT is slow in dropping the barriers at Pencoed, it's on with approaching at Coychurch due to sighting of the signal protecting Pencoed Xing.

 

[The Planner]

Indeed you won't get 15 considering Court Sart to Swansea is planned at 5 minute headways.

 

[PHILIPE]

I'm just sitting back enjoying reading aspirations being posted. Many of tham just won't happen.

 

[Greenback]

You admit the journey via Swansea is tortuous then. I just think it'd be better to put passengers off the hourly bus from Aberystwyth onto a fast train to Cardiff at Carmarthen than run a competing bus service. I'm also using the speed of the number 20 service as an illustration of just how much faster road is compared to rail at present.

No, I said that the rail journey between Cardiff and Aberystwyth via Shrewsbury is tortuous! But I imagine that most of the raill market share goes that way. It does mean that a road service is more competitive. I bet most travellers who are able to do so will drive.

I'm not going to respond ind etail to your other points. Suffice to say that I am not against faster journeys between SW Wales and Cardiff/England/anywhere else, but I think it is more realistic, and more appropriate, to have a couple of trains per day running that way to gauge how much demand there actually is.

Just one more thing. I can't remember if I've mentioned this before, but all the history books I've read state that the decision to build the SDL was taken due to the congestion around Swansea and Neath with freight, rather than as a quicker route to Fishguard.

The fact that some boat trains were routed that way was probably more to do with the aforesaid congestion than with speed. The SDL was there to relieve pressure on Swansea and provide an alternative route to the east for the coal trains from the western edge of the South Wales coalfield.

Prior to that, everything had to pass through Landore.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Agreed - though the S District was a visionary GWR punt planned on trans-Atlantic services calling at FGD and saving the best part of a day , and improving links to Ireland (reduced after 1923 of course) - it basically earned most of its money in the glory days by shifting freight - milk , Irish traffic and more than anything else - coal from the Ammanford area and steel from Duports , Trostre etc. (and oil pre the pipelines from Milford Haven)

We are forutate in that it has survived as a functional double track railway ...

 

[cmjcf]

Bear in mind that the electric trains that are proposed are longer than the diesels that currently work west of Bridgend. 153s, Pacers, Sprinters, and some 3-car 175s, as against 4-car 315s. That's going to tilt the ORCATS shares on stations west of Cardiff significantly. A rough calculation suggests FGW run 16cph between Cardiff and Swansea (one HST each way), while for ATW this is perhaps 7cph. With the longer EMUs, this goes up to 12 on the current frequency, and with an hourly Swanline that could be 16. If it works the way I think it might work, the potential hit at Swansea from the Western operator not operating more services that way is at least twice as much as they might gain from operating through to Carmarthen instead. (Disclosure: It probably doesn't work the way I think it might work.)

 

[Rhydgaled]

Would looping the platforms at, say, Pontyclun, with fast through lines, be of use in letting fast trains get past stoppers?

Do any of the minor stations have room to add loop lines? Sounds like it might be a good solution if it's possible.

There's no way you can produce 15 paths between Swansea and Cardiff.

I believe I qualified that with an 'in theory'. I am aware that there's no way the theoretical number of paths can be acheived, at least not unless every service has the same calling pattern and there's no freight (and even then it might not be possible).

Indeed you won't get 15 considering Court Sart to Swansea is planned at 5 minute headways.

Appologies, I still haven't got round to figuring out the timetable planning rules, so I have had to stick with what you told me back in Jan 2012, that the headways are 4 minutes.

I am not against faster journeys between SW Wales and Cardiff/England/anywhere else, but I think it is more realistic, and more appropriate, to have a couple of trains per day running that way to gauge how much demand there actually is.

I agree that introducing one or two trains a day would be a good way to start. In fact, as my video suggests, I think an upgraded boat train plus a westbound express service leaving Cardiff just before 6pm would be a great start. However, now that ATW have ditched their mrk2s, I don't see where the rolling stock is going to come from within the current franchise, and when it ends we'll have electrification.

Just one more thing. I can't remember if I've mentioned this before, but all the history books I've read state that the decision to build the SDL was taken due to the congestion around Swansea and Neath with freight, rather than as a quicker route to Fishguard.

Interesting...

RailFuture's West Wales Direct certainly suggests it was built to speed up the boat trains. The link was posted earlier in the topic:

For those interested these ideas for the Swansea District line were published back in 2005:

http://www.chartist.demon.co.uk/rdsw/sdl.pdf

If the Great Western had business cases the freight traffic may well have contributed I suppose.

 

[krus_aragon]

Are the services proposed for attaching/detaching at Bridgend the slowest passenger services over the route? If so, then I'd agree that spending an extra 4-5 minutes faffing at Bridgend would waste one additional path at best. These slow trains ought to produce a fair bit of space on the graph east of Bridgend, as they make steady progress to the west of there - no doubt sufficient space to accommodate the Maesteg services without occupying a path that could be used through to Swansea.

Pontyclun, Llanharan and Pencoed are currently served by Maesteg trains, so unless the stops are transferred to another service this would be the slowest passenger service on the Cardiff-Bridgend portion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do any of the minor stations have room to add loop lines? Sounds like it might be a good solution if it's possible.

I've never stood on the platform myself, but from watching the world go by (and a glance at Google maps before posting) I got the impression that there is room to 'shove' the platforms back at Pontyclun, albeit at the expense of the car park on one side. Some bridges east of Pontyclun mean it's not practical to extend the loops as far as the existing freight loop for a 'flying loop' approach. I thought of Pontyclun because it's roughly halfway between Bridgend and Cardiff, but that's probably "single track with passing places" instinct speaking. The only stations with looped platforms that I'm familiar with are Rhyl and Abergele, neither of which are used for passing trains much any more.

 

[edwin_m]

Stations on loops aren't really used these days because the train that goes in the loop has to wait there for at least the headway period to make sure the passing train has green signals, and even if it's only four minutes that's a long station stop! To make this work you would need something that is more like a four-track section than a passing loop.

 

[The Planner]

They dont have to, purely because the passing train should be at linespeed and the recessed train wont catch it up due to acceleration. Depending on the signal spacing you could probably get out two minutes after it and we often plan to that sort of scenario especially if it's a recessed freight.

 

[cmjcf]

RailFuture's West Wales Direct certainly suggests it was built to speed up the boat trains.

That report reads like someone's school homework. It's not very well-researched, and its propositions aren't realistic. The proposal to build a line from Pontarddulais to Gowerton is pure fantasy - large tracts of the old route have been built over, and there was no junction to rebuild. The "possible site for Morriston Parkway" is in the middle of a built-up area, between the rugby club and a park. I can't see a possible site for a Grovesend Parkway at all - if we take the old colliery loop as a site, traffic from the M4 has to pass through Pontarddulais or Goresinon to get there. HoW trains to Port Talbot reversing to Swansea is nonsensical given that at stations at the bottom people do actually want to get to Llanelli. The report draws a comparison between the Valley Lines and the lines around Swansea - the Valley Lines run into Cardiff, while the District avoids it. There can't be an urban network in Swansea because the lines on which to run it just aren't there any more - they've all been built over.

As an indiciation of how thorough their research was, the bibliography extends to the New Stations guide, the RUS and an environmental statement.

 

[Tomnick]

They dont have to, purely because the passing train should be at linespeed and the recessed train wont catch it up due to acceleration. Depending on the signal spacing you could probably get out two minutes after it and we often plan to that sort of scenario especially if it's a recessed freight.

The recessed train needs to arrive four or five minutes before the fast train passes though, and there's also the additional effect of approach control to consider too.

 

[cmjcf]

The recessed train needs to arrive four or five minutes before the fast train passes though, and there's also the additional effect of approach control to consider too.

Agreed. Even allowing for deceleration, that's still going on for 5 minutes for a stop.

 

[The Planner]

That is the arrival though and you factor the approach control into the loop in the first schedule, you then pass the second train at the headway value based on the arrival time of the first train. Ideally the first train is far enough infront to not have to add pathing time in the second train, thats why capacity can never be fully utilised.