South Wales 'Metro' updates

[WelshBluebird]

What will be procured - and that process is still ongoing - will be in the best interest of the vast majority of passengers and taxpayers

Do you have any actual evidence of that? Or are you just assuming?
Based on how secretive it has all been, can you not see why many of us are so skeptical? Surely if it was to be "in the best interest of the vast majority of passengers and taxpayers" the Welsh Government would have already been shouting about how brilliant it will all be and actually giving specifics?

 

[B&I]

A lot of very capable and experienced people have explored all these questions in a great deal of detail over a number of years... I suspect each of the bidders will have spend >£ms reach over the last 2 years and WG themselves will and have invested significantly in developing these proposals over the last five years

To present this as a political stich up is naïve, wrong and verges on ranting.

What will be procured - and that process is still ongoing - will be in the best interest of the vast majority of passengers and taxpayers and will I suspect the have the support of DfT, NR and WG...and be based upon a sound engineering assessment of all options, schemes, proposals based on very demanding outputs with an eye to the future (esp demand over the next 15-20 years and the need for modal shift and more SD) - all without being constrained by past services, modes, infrastructure or investments but applying as much of that as is possible/practical (They are in a/c terms now sunk costs). Major changes cant all be delivered in "one go" or without some short -ve term impacts. I applaud the ambition.

I'll get my coat....

And if people weren't worried before....

Isn't 'I'll get my coat' a comment which usually follows an unsuccessful joke?

 

[gareth950]

A lot of very capable and experienced people have explored all these questions in a great deal of detail over a number of years... I suspect each of the bidders will have spend >£ms reach over the last 2 years and WG themselves will and have invested significantly in developing these proposals over the last five years

To present this as a political stich up is naïve, wrong and verges on ranting.

What will be procured - and that process is still ongoing - will be in the best interest of the vast majority of passengers and taxpayers and will I suspect the have the support of DfT, NR and WG...and be based upon a sound engineering assessment of all options, schemes, proposals based on very demanding outputs with an eye to the future (esp demand over the next 15-20 years and the need for modal shift and more SD) - all without being constrained by past services, modes, infrastructure or investments but applying as much of that as is possible/practical (They are in a/c terms now sunk costs). Major changes cant all be delivered in "one go" or without some short -ve term impacts. I applaud the ambition.

I'll get my coat....

So where are the details then, apart from platitudes from Ken Skates? Why are Welsh Govt awarding the first and only franchise ever in the UK in total secrecy? If this is going to be so ambitious and transformative, why aren't TfW releasing plans now to be scrutinised before the final decision is made? What are they afraid of?

Why, from the vague plans that have been published in the form of Environmental Impact Assessments, are no improvements planned outside of the 'Core Valley Lines'? There not even any plans to electrify Ebbw Vale, which would arguably be a quick win as NR are already doing the mainline.
Why are Barry, Penarth and the Vale stuck with a diesel service that will be cut back at Central for the forseeable future with passengers losing valuable existing direct services north of Cardiff? Why not tell passengers that this is what is planned and ask for their reaction? Are TfW afraid of negative feedback on their amazing plans?

Do you have any answers to these Qs Solaris? Do you have an answer to the main Q of not just users of this forum, but rail user groups, businesses and stakeholders - the shameful and deceitful way this franchise award has been conducted in total secrecy, which has never happened in the UK before. If you don't reply, I assume you do not.

 

[Del1977]

You ideally convert the entire Cardiff Valleys routes to Light Rail including Penarth,City Line and Vale so that you can have cross city links and the frequencies that allow for extensions or failing that then you convert what you have now to electrified heavy rail and develop the extensions as Light Rail. Converting the Coryton branch, Bay branch, City line to Light rail and then providing extensions to North West suburbs off the City line and Cardiff Gate to the east should be possible to share tracks with the heavy rail services through central Cardiff.

And I think that's what they should do. But I could also see that if they can't for some reason convert the Barry line to LR (diversions/freight etc), then I wouldn't be certain that I'd then think the entire strategy was wrong. It frustrates the implementation and introduces other problems elsewhere, yes. But I still think the only way you serve new North West suburbs, Cardiff Gate etc. is via LR of some sort. I don't think you'll get new alignments for HR at surface level through Cardiff.

On the concept of cross-city running, it wouldn't be entirely untrue as their plans appear to imply running to Penarth and presumably also serve other areas of the Bay area currently not served. And in all reality - south of Cardiff City centre is the Bristol Channel. The settlement we are talking about missing from the cross-city running is, mainly, Barry.


The objection seems to be mainly the operator/WAG.

 

[gareth950]

And I think that's what they should do. But I could also see that if they can't for some reason convert the Barry line to LR (diversions/freight etc), then I wouldn't be certain that I'd then think the entire strategy was wrong. It frustrates the implementation and introduces other problems elsewhere, yes. But I still think the only way you serve new North West suburbs, Cardiff Gate etc. is via LR of some sort. I don't think you'll get new alignments for HR at surface level through Cardiff.

On the concept of cross-city running, it wouldn't be entirely untrue as their plans appear to imply running to Penarth and presumably also serve other areas of the Bay area currently not served. And in all reality - south of Cardiff City centre is the Bristol Channel. The settlement we are talking about missing from the cross-city running is, mainly, Barry.


The objection seems to be mainly the operator/WAG.

It's great to think like that but in reality it's not going to be possible because of the split of control over the infrastructure that will happen at Queen St. The private contractor of the Metro responsible for the 'Core Valley lines', NR responsible for everything else. If it had all been left in NR's hands and WG taken a partnership approach to working with NR to deliver the best upgrade across the entire network, a more joined up approach might be possible.

But instead NR have been dismissed and as has been pointed out, any improvements beyond converting the current Valley lines to light rail are set back to some undefined later stage requiring further assessment, which means are highly unlikely to ever happen.

Cross city running to Penarth would only be possible by segregating it from the HR lines it currently uses and forcing it on-street through Grangetown and along Penarth Rd. Central - Penarth now takes 10 minutes. Why close the Penarth line and force it on-street, tripling the journey time at least? Penarth trams would follow the same route as Cardiff's Buses do every 10 minutes. The 'Sports Village' (which in reality is just a large swimming pool and ice rink) is a max 10 minute walk from Cogan train station.

 

[Gareth Marston]

A lot of very capable and experienced people have explored all these questions in a great deal of detail over a number of years... I suspect each of the bidders will have spend >£ms reach over the last 2 years and WG themselves will and have invested significantly in developing these proposals over the last five years

To present this as a political stich up is naïve, wrong and verges on ranting.

What will be procured - and that process is still ongoing - will be in the best interest of the vast majority of passengers and taxpayers and will I suspect the have the support of DfT, NR and WG...and be based upon a sound engineering assessment of all options, schemes, proposals based on very demanding outputs with an eye to the future (esp demand over the next 15-20 years and the need for modal shift and more SD) - all without being constrained by past services, modes, infrastructure or investments but applying as much of that as is possible/practical (They are in a/c terms now sunk costs). Major changes cant all be delivered in "one go" or without some short -ve term impacts. I applaud the ambition.

I'll get my coat....

Another evidence free post Solaris just assertion....

Everyone reading this thread will note that your answer to the intrinsic problem of reduced capacity caused by splitting cross city services at Cardiff Central boils down to "clever people are looking at it and it will be alright on the night , trust us" this might be the sort of thing that's acceptable at the Bay and 1 Cathedral Road but is not in the real world. Its blatantly obvious you haven't a clue how the issue of reduced capacity is going to be (or not ) addressed.

The Civil Servants maybe "capable and experienced" but there role is to make happen what the Ministers want. The bidders might be exploring options galore but there responsibility is to their shareholders so they want to win the contract so they will submit a bid that they think will win and provide what TfW want. The Ministers want rail infrastructure they can control hence "Core Valley Lines" as been dreamt up as a way of doing it as everything else in Wales interacts with DfT.

If you can't accept that the Welsh Government is about to make a huge cock up then consider this. The House of Parliament in Westminster passed legislation in the 1830's that forbade the new railway technology coming with a mile of the historic city center, hence all the Mainline terminus's were created and have severely constrained London's ability to move people from one side of it to another ever since. When the Underground came along in the late 19th century it was developed as cross city lines, Thameslink and Crossrail are cross city lines please engage your brain and think why?

 

[Dai Corner]

Another example, Gareth, is the Ordsall Chord in Manchester which I understand has been built to enable trains to run through Manchester and thereby increase capacity by having fewer terminate at Victoria. It sounds like the opposite may happen in Cardiff.

 

[Gareth Marston]

And I think that's what they should do. But I could also see that if they can't for some reason convert the Barry line to LR (diversions/freight etc), then I wouldn't be certain that I'd then think the entire strategy was wrong. It frustrates the implementation and introduces other problems elsewhere, yes. But I still think the only way you serve new North West suburbs, Cardiff Gate etc. is via LR of some sort. I don't think you'll get new alignments for HR at surface level through Cardiff.

On the concept of cross-city running, it wouldn't be entirely untrue as their plans appear to imply running to Penarth and presumably also serve other areas of the Bay area currently not served. And in all reality - south of Cardiff City centre is the Bristol Channel. The settlement we are talking about missing from the cross-city running is, mainly, Barry.


The objection seems to be mainly the operator/WAG.

Here's a map of the Manchester Metrolink- you'll note that it goes to multiple destinations either side of the city center, 5 of the 8 lines run across the city just 3 terminate in it. That's how they get the frequencies up and the extensions added on as when they hit the city center they almost tailgate each other across the core and note that Manchester has had to add in another "second city crossing" to cope.

Now imagine how constrained it would be if nothing went further to the right of the map than Victoria or Piccadily.

North of Queen St is almost a mirror of the left hand side of the map with 5 lines to the extremities and two places you can turn back services. 4 of those lines currently run through to destinations across the city whilst a fifth (from Treherbert) terminates at Central and the unit runs empty to Canton to turnaround.

If you had just two terminating points in the city Central and the Bay (which is what TfW are seemingly proposing) then Light Rail Cars will have to obey the laws of physics as the approach form Queen St to Central is only two tacks a tram terminating at one of Centrals platforms would have to unload, load again, crew turn around but crucially it would have to cross point work across the face of other trams coming down from Queen St that's where you capacity constraint is and that's where the capacity of the whole system will be determined. At best you'll get a 4 minute headway maybe only 5 minutes,

The trams that terminate in the undercroft at Piccadily and at Deansgate are at 6 minute headways.

 

[Del1977]

I'm aware of the layout of the Metrolink.

Of the course the key difference - ignoring termination of services - is that for a journey from Manchester's fringe-> Central Manchester in whatever direction it is started, there is another area of the city on the opposite side. That isn't 100% the case in Cardiff, as there is the Bristol Channel and Cardiff Bay to its south. Simply put - Manchester's city centre is in its geographic centre. Cardiff's city centre is not.


Now on the termination of services, I've already suggested turning the City Line into a City Circle, with trains running clockwise/anti-clockwise between CDF and CDQ which avoids the necessity to terminate services at CDF. But you've said that's impossible because of Canton depot.

But then you also floated an entire conversion of the VL including the Barry Line to Light Rail in post #809. So the implication there is that routing around Canton depot isn't in fact impossible.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I'm aware of the layout of the Metrolink.

Of the course the key difference - ignoring termination of services - is that for a journey from Manchester's fringe-> Central Manchester in whatever direction it is started, there is another area of the city on the opposite side. That isn't 100% the case in Cardiff, as there is the Bristol Channel and Cardiff Bay to its south. Simply put - Manchester's city centre is in it's geographic centre. Cardiff's city centre is not.


Now on the termination of services, I've already suggested turning the City Line into a City Circle, with trains running clockwise/anti-clockwise between CDF and CDQ which avoids the necessity to terminate services at CDF. But you've said that's impossible because of Canton depot.

But then you also floated an entire conversion of the VL including the Barry Line to Light Rail in post #809. So the implication there is that routing around Canton depot isn't in fact impossible.

Heavy Rail already runs across the city. The Rhymney Valley services got to Penarth, Coryton to Radyr via the City Line, Merthyr/Aberdare to the Vale and the Treherberts are the only ones that terminate in central and then run empty stock to Canton to turn around.

TfW want to terminate the whole shooting match at Cardiff Central from both directions. The City Line is not in "core valley lines" therefore you wont be able to turn it into a circle line. If you don't have the "core valley lines" nonsense but keep the system intact of course you can turn the City line into a circle.

 

[gareth950]

I'm aware of the layout of the Metrolink.

Of the course the key difference - ignoring termination of services - is that for a journey from Manchester's fringe-> Central Manchester in whatever direction it is started, there is another area of the city on the opposite side. That isn't 100% the case in Cardiff, as there is the Bristol Channel and Cardiff Bay to its south. Simply put - Manchester's city centre is in its geographic centre. Cardiff's city centre is not.

Cardiff City centre is in the geographic centre of the urban region. Yes it is a coastal city.
To the south west you have the large urban populations in Penarth, then Dinas Powys, Barry, then a bit of countryside followed by Rhoose and Llantwit Major.
Penarth is a stone's throw from Cardiff and is closer to Cardiff City centre than Radyr. I live in Penarth and can see the Millennium stadium from my bedroom, but because of arbitary council boundaries I'm classed as living in the Vale of Glamorgan.
To say that all there is to the south of Cardiff is the Bay and Bristol channel is nonsense, large urban populations are located to the south west of Cardiff that rely on the rail services that are not earmarked for any improvements.

 

[Del1977]

Heavy Rail already runs across the city. The Rhymney Valley services got to Penarth, Coryton to Radyr via the City Line, Merthyr/Aberdare to the Vale and the Treherberts are the only ones that terminate in central and then run empty stock to Canton to turn around.

Gareth - you keep telling me things I already know. It's not about what I'm going to do, it's about what could be done. I'm suggesting solutions and options for the South Wales Metro project, but you seem to keep indirectly attacking me for making my own suggestions, as though I'm some sort of envoy of TfW.

Cardiff City centre is in the geographic centre of the urban region. Yes it is a coastal city.
To the south west you have the large urban populations in Penarth, then Dinas Powys, Barry, then a bit of countryside followed by Rhoose and Llantwit Major.
Penarth is a stone's throw from Cardiff and is closer to Cardiff City centre than Radyr. I live in Penarth and can see the Millennium stadium from my bedroom, but because of arbitary council boundaries I'm classed as living in the Vale of Glamorgan.
To say that all there is to the south of Cardiff is the Bay and Bristol channel is nonsense, large urban populations are located to the south west of Cardiff that rely on the rail services that are not earmarked for any improvements.

Again - I know the geography and demographics of the Vale of Glamorgan. But in a 20 mile radius of Cardiff Central, 10 times more people live north of it than south of it.

Is it a good idea to break the cross-city links? No.
Would it be preferable to keep them? Yes.
Should they be broken if that leads to a better service overall for more people? Yes - perhaps. Depends on overall benefit to wider region.
If 16 services converge on Cardiff Central from the north should they all be routed to Penarth or Barry? No. Population doesn't warrant it.

 

[snowball]

Here's a map of the Manchester Metrolink- you'll note that it goes to multiple destinations either side of the city center, 5 of the 8 lines run across the city just 3 terminate in it. That's how they get the frequencies up and the extensions added on as when they hit the city center they almost tailgate each other across the core and note that Manchester has had to add in another "second city crossing" to cope.

It's about to become a bit more cross-city, as services from the airport are about to be extended to Victoria.

 

[MarkyT]

Heavy Rail already runs across the city. The Rhymney Valley services got to Penarth, Coryton to Radyr via the City Line, Merthyr/Aberdare to the Vale and the Treherberts are the only ones that terminate in central and then run empty stock to Canton to turn around.

TfW want to terminate the whole shooting match at Cardiff Central from both directions. The City Line is not in "core valley lines" therefore you wont be able to turn it into a circle line. If you don't have the "core valley lines" nonsense but keep the system intact of course you can turn the City line into a circle.

What I'm struggling with is this definition of core valley lines being 'converted to light rail', which doesn't really tell us anything about segregation of services or capabilities of the infrastructure. If all regular services on these segments were operated by high floor tram trains, they can be run immediately on these tracks in their current form under heavy rail signalling once electrified, definitely still controlled (from a signalling POV), and even maintained to an extent by NR under contract to WG. The formal boundary between which parts are under Westminster and WG control should not matter from the service point of view. The tube style map shows services via Pontipridd continuing through Central to the traditional south destinations. Granted it also shows Rhymney and Coryton going direct to the bay, but there's a possibility these services could instead reverse in a new terminal south of Central before going to the bay, accessed via a triangular junction from the bay line. Here's my suggestion - (grey= new southern entrance concourse, transparent purple= improved pedestrian circulation).

 

[leananger]

Am I missing something, doesn't a tram system need electrifying anyway?

 

[B&I]

What I'm struggling with is this definition of core valley lines being 'converted to light rail', which doesn't really tell us anything about segregation of services or capabilities of the infrastructure. If all regular services on these segments were operated by high floor tram trains, they can be run immediately on these tracks in their current form under heavy rail signalling once electrified, definitely still controlled (from a signalling POV), and even maintained to an extent by NR under contract to WG. The formal boundary between which parts are under Westminster and WG control should not matter from the service point of view. The tube style map shows services via Pontipridd continuing through Central to the traditional south destinations. Granted it also shows Rhymney and Coryton going direct to the bay, but there's a possibility these services could instead reverse in a new terminal south of Central before going to the bay, accessed via a triangular junction from the bay line. Here's my suggestion - (grey= new southern entrance concourse, transparent purple= improved pedestrian circulation).
View attachment 41996

To save the faff of reversing, could there be a stop on the Cardiff Bay line close enough to Central for a travellator link to be viable? On this basis, could a certain proportion of Valleys trains which aren't running across to Barry, Penarth of the V o G could terminate at Cardiff Bay, but their passengers could still reach Central, while also removing the need for a dedicated Central-Bay shuttle. Street-running trams can connect to any part of Cardiff they need to, at street level, without sodding up the railway infrastructure

 

[Dai Corner]

Am I missing something, doesn't a tram system need electrifying anyway?

A tram can be powered by batteries, diesel, steam, or even a horse

 

[MarkyT]

A tram can be powered by batteries, diesel, steam, or even a horse

Indeed but modern trams are typically electric, sometimes very recently also with batteries/supercapacitors but usually only for limited stretches of routes, usually on sensitive street sections where wires are particularly difficult for some reason.

 

[MarkyT]

To save the faff of reversing, could there be a stop on the Cardiff Bay line close enough to Central for a travellator link to be viable? On this basis, could a certain proportion of Valleys trains which aren't running across to Barry, Penarth of the V o G could terminate at Cardiff Bay, but their passengers could still reach Central, while also removing the need for a dedicated Central-Bay shuttle.

It's possible I suppose but a long trek for an interchange between local services, and would have to be fully enclosed, so expensive, but might be incorporated within new buildings developed on the vacant land to the south of Callaghan Square, as could a trackbed. I don't agree that reversing is such a huge faff. Clearly it takes more time but you can add multiple platform tracks to compensate and by definition it allows more leisurely dwells for easier boarding. In this case you could have (say) 4 terminal tracks. The terminal layout also gives a short reversing facility for service recovery, or indeed for planned short working of some services (peak extras?). Reversing some services in the main part of Central should also be possible and less operationally risky if carried out out on a middle platform, in a classic centre reversing road configuration. The new layout appears to support this on #7 if down tram-trains to Barry/Penarth routinely use new platform #8.

As to street running, yes you can go virtually anywhere on the road within the performance limits of the particular vehicles used, but to design a reliable network you don't want to share with other road traffic very much at all ideally, and only in areas where you know it won't routinely block back and cause delay. Hence good traffic management incorporates as much segregation as possible, traffic signal priority etc. I was most impressed with those measures as applied in Nottingham when I first rode NET a few months ago. A few random comments from local regular riders confirmed a very high level of customer satisfaction with the system, with on time performance and reliability being top on their lists of accolades. They all seemed very proud of their tram.

 

[B&I]

It's possible I suppose but a long trek for an interchange between local services, and would have to be fully enclosed, so expensive, but might be incorporated within new buildings developed on the vacant land to the south of Callaghan Square, as could a trackbed. I don't agree that reversing is such a huge faff. Clearly it takes more time but you can add multiple platform tracks to compensate and by definition it allows more leisurely dwells for easier boarding. In this case you could have (say) 4 terminal tracks. The terminal layout also gives a short reversing facility for service recovery, or indeed for planned short working of some services (peak extras?). Reversing some services in the main part of Central should also be possible and less operationally risky if carried out out on a middle platform, in a classic centre reversing road configuration. The new layout appears to support this on #7 if down tram-trains to Barry/Penarth routinely use new platform #8.

As to street running, yes you can go virtually anywhere on the road within the performance limits of the particular vehicles used, but to design a reliable network you don't want to share with other road traffic very much at all ideally, and only in areas where you know it won't routinely block back and cause delay. Hence good traffic management incorporates as much segregation as possible, traffic signal priority etc. I was most impressed with those measures as applied in Nottingham when I first rode NET a few months ago. A few random comments from local regular riders confirmed a very high level of customer satisfaction with the system, with on time performance and reliability being top on their lists of accolades. They all seemed very proud of their tram.

The faff I had in mind was if it reverses out again ymto go to Cardiff Bay, but if what you are proposing is effectively an extra shed for Central, with Valleys trains terminating there rather than Cardiff Bay, I see your point.

 

[Chester1]

The faff I had in mind was if it reverses out again ymto go to Cardiff Bay, but if what you are proposing is effectively an extra shed for Central, with Valleys trains terminating there rather than Cardiff Bay, I see your point.

Maintaining the current frequency of 5tph would be right for Cardiff Bay. It might not be possible to provide it with a service to Central due to terminal capacity. As many as possible should terminate at Central. Assuming 5tph terminating per platform (Metrolink) and 5tph from each northern terminus to Cardiff then 4 new tram platforms would need to be built near to as an extension of Central. Any additional services would need to terminate at Queen Street or Bay. It is a lot of investment compared to simply wiring to Pontypridd, Caerphilly, Coryton and Penarth and using a mixed fleet of 319s and 769s.

 

[johnnychips]

A lot of very capable and experienced people have explored all these questions in a great deal of detail over a number of years... I suspect each of the bidders will have spend >£ms reach over the last 2 years and WG themselves will and have invested significantly in developing these proposals over the last five years

To present this as a political stich up is naïve, wrong and verges on ranting.

What will be procured - and that process is still ongoing - will be in the best interest of the vast majority of passengers and taxpayers and will I suspect the have the support of DfT, NR and WG...and be based upon a sound engineering assessment of all options, schemes, proposals based on very demanding outputs with an eye to the future (esp demand over the next 15-20 years and the need for modal shift and more SD) - all without being constrained by past services, modes, infrastructure or investments but applying as much of that as is possible/practical (They are in a/c terms now sunk costs). Major changes cant all be delivered in "one go" or without some short -ve term impacts. I applaud the ambition.

I'll get my coat....

No don't get your coat...but if it will be/has been so carefully considered and evaluated, why is there so much secrecy about the whole thing, so that outside observers could give their assessments of the scheme?

So much on here is necessarily conjecture, whereas if detailed proposals had been published, realistic evaluations could take place about the pros and cons of any proposals.

 

[Dai Corner]

No don't get your coat...but if it will be/has been so carefully considered and evaluated, why is there so much secrecy about the whole thing, so that outside observers could give their assessments of the scheme?

So much on here is necessarily conjecture, whereas if detailed proposals had been published, realistic evaluations could take place about the pros and cons of any proposals.

Agreed. Compare and contrast with the plans for the new M4 which are being examined in great detail at a public enquiry http://m4-newport.persona-pi.com/

 

[Gareth Marston]

This is the view from Railfuture Wales Branch.

We are standing by our Development Plan . I gave evidence to WG of difficulties in transferring assets from Network rail to Welsh Government This includes reacting to land slips as seen this week Network Rail is looking after the infrastructure. Its all been relaid steel sleepers and continuous welded rail and infrastructure renewal continues It is not a run down system . Railfuture considers that the present one hours journey from the valleys to Cardiff is too long for a tram journey . We have advocated a tram system for the Cardiff Suburbs in our Development Plan . The core valley concept will cause discontent in the poorly served peripheral areas of the Cardiff City region as it will also cause in other parts of Wales. There will be no opportunity for through journeys from and to the valleys .
I hope this helps
Rowland

 

[Gareth Marston]

What I'm struggling with is this definition of core valley lines being 'converted to light rail', which doesn't really tell us anything about segregation of services or capabilities of the infrastructure. If all regular services on these segments were operated by high floor tram trains, they can be run immediately on these tracks in their current form under heavy rail signalling once electrified, definitely still controlled (from a signalling POV), and even maintained to an extent by NR under contract to WG. The formal boundary between which parts are under Westminster and WG control should not matter from the service point of view. The tube style map shows services via Pontipridd continuing through Central to the traditional south destinations. Granted it also shows Rhymney and Coryton going direct to the bay, but there's a possibility these services could instead reverse in a new terminal south of Central before going to the bay, accessed via a triangular junction from the bay line. Here's my suggestion - (grey= new southern entrance concourse, transparent purple= improved pedestrian circulation).
View attachment 41996

gareth950 might have more up to date knowledge but i'm 99% certain that the waste land you identified on google maps to run a branch off the Bay line to Callaghan Square as been earmarked for office block development and might even have work already started on it.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Am I missing something, doesn't a tram system need electrifying anyway?

Tram electrification is cheaper than mainline electrification. The big saving comes from civil engineering, since 750V DC doesn't need so much electrical clearance and the OHLE can be lighter weight. Electrical supply may or may not be more expensive - you need fewer 25kV AC feeder stations but they're individually more expensive and need more involved grid connections.

Agreed. Compare and contrast with the plans for the new M4 which are being examined in great detail at a public enquiry http://m4-newport.persona-pi.com/

The challenge as I see it is that TfW have a vague idea of what they want and are asking the bidders to flesh it out into a concrete set of proposals. There are lots and lots of different variables involved, and this scheme could also use some innovations that the government might not have thought of. It sounds at least as if this project will involve tram-train on HR, HR->LR conversion and new-build LR all together, which hasn't been attempted before in the UK. With a bog-standard project like the M4 or a new hospital it's fairly easy to set out plans since individual bidders for the contract aren't going to suggest fundamental changes. They might suggest a few tweaks, but these are normally minor enough that previous public consultations aren't totally invalidated.

As I've said though, at some point all of these details are going to have to be made public. That is going to have to be before any real expenditure starts. If the scheme is genuinely, irredeemably rubbish people are going to find out. The public is not that stupid.

Also, the way the South Wales Metro is being procured makes me wonder how likely a terrible scheme really is to come out of it. The bidders are all consortia of a transport operator and an infrastructure company. The infrastructure company can clearly build whatever they want and get paid for it, but the transport operator is going to want a scheme which is as profitable as possible for them to run. A complicated network with city centre turnbacks rather than through-running seems likely to be less profitable. Damaging existing travel patterns but not enabling more and better ones won't increase ticket revenue. To the private companies, the politics of Wales really doesn't matter when they're just trying to make money, and TfW isn't going to lavish them with cash simply for meeting political goals.

 

[furnessvale]

Tram electrification is cheaper than mainline electrification. The big saving comes from civil engineering, since 750V DC doesn't need so much electrical clearance and the OHLE can be lighter weight. Electrical supply may or may not be more expensive - you need fewer 25kV AC feeder stations but they're individually more expensive and need more involved grid connections.

The really big saving in civils, certainly in Manchester, was the decision to reducing the loading gauge so that no bridge rebuilding was required.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Some more documents from TfW this time with costings on them.

https://tfw.gov.wales/sites/default/files/documents/SHRA South Wales Metro.pdf

Look at the appendix at the back. I have copied the committed Blue Phase 2 Schemes, it would appear that the base line separation of "core valley lines" and converting what we already have to LRT will come in at just under £600 million.

Scheme 1 - LR conversion of existing HR line between Cardiff Queen St & Rhymney - Cost £204.5m - Advantage over HR electric scheme (2) in most outcome criteria however lower rating for deliverability.
Scheme 5 - LR conversion of existing HR line from Cardiff Queen Stto Cardiff Central - Cost £20m - Weakest scoring LR connection between CDF and CDQ however further feasibility on best connection is required. Limited additional accessibility benefits but required to deliver direct services to Central Station.
Scheme 26 - LR conversion of existing HR lines between Cardiff Queen St and Merthyr / Treherbert / Aberdare - Cost £272m -Strong scoring compared to HRe scheme (Scheme 27) across most outcome criteria. Lower deliverability score does not impact ranking against HRe option.
Scheme 22 - LR conversion of existing HR alignment on Coryton & Cardiff Bay lines - Cost £100.4m - Stronger score than Bay Line only schemes (Schemes 3, 4 and 222) due to strength of existing Bay service. Scores slightly lower than BRT scheme (Scheme 24) with on-street through Cathays but preferred due to network connectivity and continuity.

 

[Llanigraham]

gareth950 might have more up to date knowledge but i'm 99% certain that the waste land you identified on google maps to run a branch off the Bay line to Callaghan Square as been earmarked for office block development and might even have work already started on it.

Correct!

 

[Del1977]

Thanks for sharing.

From this latest document, and indeed the various environmental assessments published, it would appear as though there has a been a sizeable piece of work exploring a range of options, projects and schemes. Such a shame that they don't just publish the business cases altogether.

At least in Scheme 5 they recognise that delivering direct services to Central station is 'required'.