-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
South Wales 'Metro' updates
- Thread starter Envoy
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bwlch y Groes
Member
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 210
Reminder that the proposed conversion cost for all of these lines is still only the same as the projected cost for the rebuilding of Cardiff Central
I've detailed before but I think Aberdare-Hirwaun, Ystrad Mynach-Bedlinog/Merthyr East, Cardiff-Beddau, Ebbw Vale-Newport and a few other schemes could be done relatively easily, along with a few extra stations. Electrification with fast-accelerating EMUs like 321s, 322s and 323s which are all available soon, a massive upgrade on current trains and in good condition. Services should largely continue as now but with more carriages. Then in the future you can work on more ambitious reopenings
It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. The fact that it is with this SWM proposal is more indicative of how the WAG wants it to be bigger and more complicated, purely for the sake of it
The problem with Welsh politics is that Welsh Labour are safe as houses and the opposition is disorganised and divided. Plaid haven't broken free from limited appeal because they just don't have anyone to lead them, and the Welsh Tories are confined to well-off areas and are led by a pro-Leave right-winger, with both parties wanting different things. And the moment they agree on an issue, Welsh Labour can just play them off against each other by saying "Plaid claim to be socialist but they're actually in bed with the Tories"
Any kind of political opposition to the SWM is inevitably going to be divided. The Tories will scrutinise the costs. Plaid will say that it's not ambitious enough. I find it extremely unlikely that any of the major political parties in Wales will oppose it on the basis of it being a terrible idea. In fact, I'm sure that when it's announced, the reaction will be broadly positive from all parties. There's too much political capital in the SWM as a potential transformative project for a party to oppose it flat out, as the basic idea of it is still inherently a good one - that of investment in green public transport. It's just that the application of it by Ken Skates and Labour is going to be absolutely disastrous. No political party will therefore want to oppose it too much at this stage - there's more to be gained in opposing the M4 relief road
The only time any genuine scrutiny of this will be put forward in the media, it'll be framed as "some transport expert says that it would be bad because X, Y and Z". It'll get about two minutes on the local news and it'll be positioned next to some suit politician saying "actually it's going to be great because it demonstrates we're committed to investing in public transport in South Wales", and that'll be as far as it goes. It'll be presented as the most boring thing imaginable and so no one will take any interest in it. If there's any public outcry, it won't happen until it's way too late
The only people who can stop this are Grayling and the losing bidders, though even then I don't hold out much hope. I wouldn't be surprised if the WAG decide to say that none of the bids were good enough and they're taking it in-house - I think that's what they really want to do
I've detailed before but I think Aberdare-Hirwaun, Ystrad Mynach-Bedlinog/Merthyr East, Cardiff-Beddau, Ebbw Vale-Newport and a few other schemes could be done relatively easily, along with a few extra stations. Electrification with fast-accelerating EMUs like 321s, 322s and 323s which are all available soon, a massive upgrade on current trains and in good condition. Services should largely continue as now but with more carriages. Then in the future you can work on more ambitious reopenings
It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. The fact that it is with this SWM proposal is more indicative of how the WAG wants it to be bigger and more complicated, purely for the sake of it
I think you overestimate the public. Especially in a situation where there's no accountability, no opposition, and no media scrutiny as gareth950 alludes to
The problem with Welsh politics is that Welsh Labour are safe as houses and the opposition is disorganised and divided. Plaid haven't broken free from limited appeal because they just don't have anyone to lead them, and the Welsh Tories are confined to well-off areas and are led by a pro-Leave right-winger, with both parties wanting different things. And the moment they agree on an issue, Welsh Labour can just play them off against each other by saying "Plaid claim to be socialist but they're actually in bed with the Tories"
Any kind of political opposition to the SWM is inevitably going to be divided. The Tories will scrutinise the costs. Plaid will say that it's not ambitious enough. I find it extremely unlikely that any of the major political parties in Wales will oppose it on the basis of it being a terrible idea. In fact, I'm sure that when it's announced, the reaction will be broadly positive from all parties. There's too much political capital in the SWM as a potential transformative project for a party to oppose it flat out, as the basic idea of it is still inherently a good one - that of investment in green public transport. It's just that the application of it by Ken Skates and Labour is going to be absolutely disastrous. No political party will therefore want to oppose it too much at this stage - there's more to be gained in opposing the M4 relief road
The only time any genuine scrutiny of this will be put forward in the media, it'll be framed as "some transport expert says that it would be bad because X, Y and Z". It'll get about two minutes on the local news and it'll be positioned next to some suit politician saying "actually it's going to be great because it demonstrates we're committed to investing in public transport in South Wales", and that'll be as far as it goes. It'll be presented as the most boring thing imaginable and so no one will take any interest in it. If there's any public outcry, it won't happen until it's way too late
The only people who can stop this are Grayling and the losing bidders, though even then I don't hold out much hope. I wouldn't be surprised if the WAG decide to say that none of the bids were good enough and they're taking it in-house - I think that's what they really want to do
Last edited:
Del1977
Member
Well 6/7 and 8 are already for the Valley Lines only - with maybe a few very rare exceptions. So if the Valley Lines became SW Metro lines and took those platforms, then it wouldn't effect main line services, which use 0/1/2/3/4 (5 doesn't exist), though presumably the Barry Island / VoG services would then need to terminate somewhere if not part of the SW Metro.
In a typical hour, around about 2/3rds of arrivals/departures from Cardiff Central are the Valley Lines, but that's currently managed by not having them terminate at Cardiff Central (apart from Treherbert services).
Last edited:
Which is entirely correct. Network Rail did a fantastic job of re-opening the Treherbert line safely and clearing 150 tonnes of debris in just 3 days. Would the private contractor have access to the same resources to be able to do that?
Network Rail are continuing to invest in the Valleys despite the uncertainty over the future. Track re-laying is taking place most weekends and overnight on Cardiff - Rhymney and Cardiff - Pontypridd. This and last weekend trains are diverted via the City line because of it.
And last weekend P6, 7 & 8 at Central were in NR possession as they are doing more signalling work at the west end of these platforms.
Yes, this land is being built on. And the NR car park at the back of Central station is due to go as well, with a multi storey on the Brains site next door replacing it.
Re: the political situation and Wales and lack of any real opposition - you are spot on. Despite Welsh Labour controlling Wales for 19 continuous years they are safe. As well as a weak and divided political opposition, there's no media pluarlity in Wales, as I've said. 90% of the population in Wales get their Welsh news from watching BBC Wales Today at 6:30pm every night. If Nick Servini doesn't make a fuss of it, it'll be ignored. BBC Wales axed the only 'in-depth' political analysis programme that was in the Welsh schedules, The Wales Report with Huw Edwards, last year.
There is no strong, independent Welsh press as in Scotland.
Also, when Carwyn Jones does step down, the Welsh Labour party have decided to keep the electoral college system to elect the next leader of the party, giving AMs and MPs a much stronger say over the next leader than the members, in contrast to the 'one member, one vote' system in England where members have the stronger say, hence why we have Corbyn. So it's highly likely Carwyn Jones' next successor will be whoever his preferred choice is to carry on his policies.
Last edited:
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,990
Pedantic point (sorry) but Corbyn is leader of the UK Labour Party, not the English Labour Party. Ordinary Welsh Labour members have a bigger say in electing him than in electing their Welsh leader.
It also strikes me that the posters on this thread who are most enthusiastic about converting the Valley lines to light rail, are posters that don't actually live in Cardiff, the Vale and the Valleys, and so only see the network from a 'tourists POV'. Of course you are entitled to have your say on these forums on your ideas for the network, but only visting Cardiff to use the Valley lines a few times a year, is not the same as having to use the network on a daily basis and so seeing first hand how the network runs every day, and what the challenges are.
Much like the people working for TfW and the Welsh Govt ministers in charge, I suspect.
However, the messages from most posters who actually live in Cardiff or use the network on a regular or daily basis, is that the light rail plans won't work and the current system of cross-city journeys from the Valleys to the Vake throuh Central must be kept. If it ain't broke - why fix it?
The Valley lines are not broke - yes extra capacity is urgently needed as well as frequency enhancements. The infrastructure to enable this has been delievered - most platforms can accomodate 6 car trains, CASR has delievered th signalling capacity needed to enhance frequencies.
The costings that Gareth Marston has posted show that almost all of the entire budget for electrifying the Valleys (currently standing at around £700 million) will be taken up from the initial LR conversion of the HR lines north of Queen St. So when the money runs out on blue, how will the green and amber schemes be delivered? Westminster will say 'not interested', we won't be able to go to the ERDF.........
As a commuter on the network myself, I can 150% guarantee that if you asked commuters whether they want a 6 car train every half hour from the heads of the Valleys (tripling the capacity we have now), with more 6 car trains starting from Pontypridd / Caerphilly to serve the commuters closer to Cardiff further down the line, or a tram every 15 minutes from the heads, they'd go with the 6 car half hourly train.
Cardiff is not a 24 hour city like London or Manchester. The vast majority of commuters come down from the Valleys and the Vale to be in work for 9am. The network is dead quiet mid morning until around 3pm when the schools finish, when 3 cars would be fine, then the evening commute starts. The vast majority of all the new jobs to be created in Cardiff in the next 10 years are going to be more 9-5 office jobs.
Maybe at weekends there is more of an even spread of passengers throughout the day, especially of course on Match days at the Stadium when 6 x 20m trains could be real crowd busters.
CASR has laid the ground for HR electrification, even if wires only go to Abercynon & Bargoed. The existing freight only lines to Hirwaun and Trelewis could easily start running passenger services with some upgrades. If nearly all of the budget is going to be spent just on the initial LR conversion, with all the consequences for the Vale services (who will get nothing), cross-city running etc that means, leaving very little if no money for any extensions, what's the point?
As this is such a political project I'm amazed that WG are so laid back about giving the Valleys shiny new trams, but leaving the Vale with diesel trains and curtailing cross -city journeys at Central. The Vale is a marginal seat - Labour have it in the Assembly but not at Westminster.
Yes, correct. However the way things are going in Welsh Labour, they are increasingly positioning the Welsh party as a totally seperate entity to the UK party. Corbyn was completely removed from the Welsh Labour GE campaign last May. Welsh voters could've been forgiven for thinking they were being asked to elect Carwyn Jones as UK PM.
Much like the people working for TfW and the Welsh Govt ministers in charge, I suspect.
However, the messages from most posters who actually live in Cardiff or use the network on a regular or daily basis, is that the light rail plans won't work and the current system of cross-city journeys from the Valleys to the Vake throuh Central must be kept. If it ain't broke - why fix it?
The Valley lines are not broke - yes extra capacity is urgently needed as well as frequency enhancements. The infrastructure to enable this has been delievered - most platforms can accomodate 6 car trains, CASR has delievered th signalling capacity needed to enhance frequencies.
The costings that Gareth Marston has posted show that almost all of the entire budget for electrifying the Valleys (currently standing at around £700 million) will be taken up from the initial LR conversion of the HR lines north of Queen St. So when the money runs out on blue, how will the green and amber schemes be delivered? Westminster will say 'not interested', we won't be able to go to the ERDF.........
As a commuter on the network myself, I can 150% guarantee that if you asked commuters whether they want a 6 car train every half hour from the heads of the Valleys (tripling the capacity we have now), with more 6 car trains starting from Pontypridd / Caerphilly to serve the commuters closer to Cardiff further down the line, or a tram every 15 minutes from the heads, they'd go with the 6 car half hourly train.
Cardiff is not a 24 hour city like London or Manchester. The vast majority of commuters come down from the Valleys and the Vale to be in work for 9am. The network is dead quiet mid morning until around 3pm when the schools finish, when 3 cars would be fine, then the evening commute starts. The vast majority of all the new jobs to be created in Cardiff in the next 10 years are going to be more 9-5 office jobs.
Maybe at weekends there is more of an even spread of passengers throughout the day, especially of course on Match days at the Stadium when 6 x 20m trains could be real crowd busters.
CASR has laid the ground for HR electrification, even if wires only go to Abercynon & Bargoed. The existing freight only lines to Hirwaun and Trelewis could easily start running passenger services with some upgrades. If nearly all of the budget is going to be spent just on the initial LR conversion, with all the consequences for the Vale services (who will get nothing), cross-city running etc that means, leaving very little if no money for any extensions, what's the point?
As this is such a political project I'm amazed that WG are so laid back about giving the Valleys shiny new trams, but leaving the Vale with diesel trains and curtailing cross -city journeys at Central. The Vale is a marginal seat - Labour have it in the Assembly but not at Westminster.
Yes, correct. However the way things are going in Welsh Labour, they are increasingly positioning the Welsh party as a totally seperate entity to the UK party. Corbyn was completely removed from the Welsh Labour GE campaign last May. Welsh voters could've been forgiven for thinking they were being asked to elect Carwyn Jones as UK PM.
Last edited:
Well, they couldn't have been very well-informed then, as neither were standing for a Welsh seat.
I did some door knocking during the GE and and people were increasingly saying "why is Carwyn on all the literature, we're not voting for him?". Welsh Labour increasingly don't want anything to do with the Westminster party.Well, they couldn't have been very well-informed then, as neither were standing for a Welsh seat.
Also in Wales turnout at Welsh only elections is shockingly low, averaging around 35 - 40%. Voters in Wales just don't care when it comes to the Assembly - another reason Welsh Labour are safe.
Plenty of trams use super capacitors now. Part of the Birmingham tram network extension will be catenary free.
Grayling was up before the Transport Committee last week and said that he is expecting the WAG will follow his decision to not electrify Cardiff Swansea by ditching the Valleys electrification.
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,990
No he didn't. He said he didn't expect all the Vallley lines to be electrified. Interpret that how you will but he may have meant the Maesteg, Ebbw Vale, Penarth and Vale of Glamorgan lines wouldn't be electrified (which most people think is the case anyway).
It was quite a good watch with Louise Elman interrupting Grayling and the Committee's questions constantly for the first hour each time she thought she had found a new argument for spending £1bn saving 1min on the journey to Sheffield, only to be left railing about how daft it was for DfT to have ever agreed to the scheme in the first place.
Perhaps she should catch up with Lord Adonis who thought the purpose of a business case was to justify what he wanted to do rather than critically evaluate and compare all of the options.
Perhaps she should catch up with Lord Adonis who thought the purpose of a business case was to justify what he wanted to do rather than critically evaluate and compare all of the options.
Del1977
Member
Agree that current, daily experience can be enlightening, but I have done my time as a commuter on the Valley Lines in the past. Nothing has changed - service patterns / frequencies etc. - in the intervening years, apart from an increase in overcrowding. It's a simple system.
It may also be the case that people who use the service on a daily basis are more resistant to any potential change since it's their personal journeys that could be affected, and that is of course, understandable.
For example, if I lived in Penarth, then I wouldn't want the train to deviate from its current service pattern or route. I wouldn't want it converted to light rail, and diverted to serve parts of Grangetown via any on-street running lengthening my journey time. I wouldn't really be interested in any additional stops either, lengthening my journey time. It currently suits me just fine. I get on at the start of the line. I get 4 trains an hour, and I only have 2 stops before the city centre and it takes about 10 minutes. On practically all measures as a commuter, I'm sitting quite pretty.
And frankly, if I were doing my old commute from Ystrad Mynach to Cardiff Queen Street, then I wouldn't be that impressed with the new station in Energlyn and Churchill Park - (why? It's about 10 minutes' walk from Aber), and I'd be even less impressed with the 2 proposed intermediate stations between Heath High Level and Cardiff Queen Street - that's one of the only quick parts of the line currently - a good distance with no stops and for the Valley Lines - the trains go along at a decent rate. So that's extra time on my journey with no personal benefit...
But when someone in transport planning is looking at what to do with the system, they have to also consider people who are currently not served and are presumably trying to address commuting growth, congestion, extensions and various other factors. I think I said previously - not everyone can be a winner in any reorganisation of services. The trick is surely to end up with many more winners than losers.
And the way to deal with that conundrum is to develop a separate tram system for Cardiff and the suburbs that complements and operates in addition to, rather than replaces, the existing heavy rail system. Conservative Assembly member David Melding has suggested closing some roads in Cardiff entirely to give them over to buses and cycling. Maybe that's what should happen here. Instead of inconveniencing existing users of the HR network who simply want longer trains that can run at the increased frequencies enabled by CASR, which in turn accommodates growth, inconvenience motorists instead by forcing them onto new tram lines running out to the suburbs of east, west and north west Cardiff. After all, the aim of the Metro is to get people out of cars.
It's highly likely that any mooted LR extensions in the Valleys will end up as Bus Rapid Transit routes when the budget is blown on the first phase of Valleys LR conversion, which is inevitable. Which renders the whole arguement for LR Valleys conversion void.
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,304
The infrastructure being there for improved heavy rail services on the Valleys is a necessary but not sufficient condition for improvements in services on the Valleys. There are many other factors involved in getting a good service in place, and by far the most important one is long-term funding. Heavy rail services are more expensive to run than light rail. Even at a time when trains are 'cheap' there are other major costs, like higher staffing costs and higher maintenance costs. The Valley Lines network requires a significant subsidy to run, and serious heavy rail improvements are not that likely to make the situation better.
Sure, the network would be more attractive if every service were run by 3 or 6 car 195s or whatever flavour of HR EMU was in fashion at the time. But, the crucial question is whether it would really be more financially viable to run. It seems most probable that the increase in running costs from having a high quality HR service wouldn't get matched by increases at the farebox. That means that unless the perceived social and economic benefit from a fancy HR service justifies the additional costs, it's going to look like a luxury the government simply cannot afford. Money that can be spent on making sure everyone has a seat in the peak could instead be spent on schools and hospitals and other things which voters frankly care a hell of a lot more about.
We don't know what's included in the LR conversion packages. Most likely though this includes the cost of electrification at LR standards, as un-electrified LR systems are rare and not really worth the bother anyway. The base case is that the Valleys will have lots of signalling capacity but no wires at 25kV, so will require diesel or other self-powered trains to run. The cost of wiring up the Valleys at 25kV AC will most certainly be much higher than the costs being quoted for LR conversion.
If significant heavy rail service improvements will require significant extra subsidy, then the most likely outcome is that we won't see significant heavy rail improvements. The Pacers will have to go - the ROSCOs aren't going to bother making them accessible now - and you could see some new DMUs. Will passenger capacity see significant increases? Not really. Will service frequency increase to the maximum allowed by CASR? Unlikely. The only changes that will go ahead are ones which will reduce subsidy. A few new stations might open, but we're not going to see extensions or new services opening up.
That Cardiff has defined commute times is not helpful for the HR case. I've said before that the massive peak capacity HR can provide is often made redundant by the fact that most of the time it's the off-peak and HR doesn't scale well. Those 6 car trains running in the peaks would be wonderful for those passengers but they'll be utterly useless the rest of the time, sitting in sidings doing pretty much nothing at all. London and the South East are used to that but this is warranted because of the sheer amount of money commuters pay in season tickets. The inefficiency of having trains sitting in the sidings during the day is less than the benefit provided by allowing commuters across the SE of England to get into highly paid jobs in London and then take them home to more affordable housing at the end of the day. The same could only work in Cardiff if people were willing to see significant fare increases at peak times. Is that going to happen? No. In London people don't really have a choice but to pay season ticket fares if they want many high-profile jobs only available in Zone 1 - the only real competition for these jobs is in Paris or New York or other global cities, so people have to put up and shut up. Jobs in Cardiff may be much better than jobs in the Valleys but they're nothing that special. If Valley Line fares go up, people will have an easier time just moving closer to Cardiff (and so the Valleys lose commuters, which is bad) or just to move to some other regional city in the UK with comparable jobs.
LR may well mean capacity at the peak is not as high as it could be on HR. What it can mean is that service quality through the rest of the day stays higher. This is a fundamentally important thing for a city region, as peak commuting journeys on HR are only a small fraction of the journeys people actually make every day. A well-designed LR network with higher frequencies throughout the day means it's easier for people to pop in and out of Cardiff for all sorts of activities. Improvements don't require significant fare increases. Some passengers might whinge about being on a LR train rather than an HR train, but at least their fares wouldn't have increased so much that they wouldn't be able to travel any more!
Because AMS doesn't work that way. If the Tories marginally beat Labour in Vale of Glamorgan but nothing else really changes across South Wales Central, they'll get one fewer top-up seat while Labour get one more. In terms of forming a government AMS means marginal seats are much less important. This is all wholly deliberate. Even if the population doesn't know nor care, the electoral system works in the way that it is intended to.
Del1977
Member
Well, I guess whoever is responsible - TfW / WAG / Franchise bidders - will have looked at the existing spine of railway lines and concluded they are a solid foundation to build a new network.
Leaving it as Heavy Rail to suit existing users means that users of any future expansions will have to face a tram network, 100% based on on-street running. That is - if there's any money left after paying for the HR electrification - which I'm far from convinced will be cheaper than the £600m LR conversion.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Well, it is and it isn't. If you wire it to 25kV and use Class 319s or similar (or the soon to be scrapped, it seems, 323s), you've got cheap rolling stock that is long since paid for. Just like with ex-LM, it doesn't matter that the 319s only do a couple of runs a day - they are cheap capacity. In time of course by all means buy a base set of new EMUs for the basic service, but keep the old kit for boosting peak capacity.
Not an option with the trams.
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,304
But I just said how the upfront cost of acquiring rolling stock is only one part of the equation. HR trains cost more to run than LR trains. Sure, if you order new LR rolling stock there'll be an upfront payment required, but then the incremental cost of using those trains goes down. When the upfront capital cost of the trains goes down, the other costs become more significant.
Whether it makes sense to acquire old rolling stock as capacity busters will depend on the sort of services they run. ScotRail are taking on lots of 320/4 conversions on the cheap. They can do that because the Glasgow suburban network is already electrified and is either unsuitable (in the case of the North Clyde or Argyle lines) or not quite at the stage of LR conversion (Cathcart Circle etc). For them, acquiring more 320/4s is the cheapest and easiest option. They're already run as DOO and in many cases they can just be attached onto existing 3-car services, so the increases in running costs are minimal anyway. Having those extra 320/4s isn't about transformational improvements like the Valleys need.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Does it need transformational improvements, though? Or would the passengers find recreating Merseyrail (OHLE version with a cross city line instead of tunnels which were only needed because building heavy rail above ground in an existing city was not an option) perfectly acceptable?
OK, Merseyrail can be a bit of a money pit at times - but it is very popular locally nowadays, and seems to have shaken off the "Miseryrail" title under more recent managements.
OK, Merseyrail can be a bit of a money pit at times - but it is very popular locally nowadays, and seems to have shaken off the "Miseryrail" title under more recent managements.
Didn't you post this exact same piece on the MML electrificafion thread? You do realise that enlisting Grayling to support your obsession with preventing electrification is not going to win you many converts (or should that be, non-converts) ?
But what you are arguing in favour of is a system which requires almost everyone to endure on-street running, including passengers who currently by-pass congestion on the approach to central Cardiff using rail alignments. How is that any better than maintaining the existing segregated rail lines, and adding on street trams within Cardiff? How is it likely to cost less?
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,304
That's the problem. When money is tight, schemes need to deliver better value for money than what we have today. Either the same benefits are provided for significantly less cost, or the same costs result in far more benefit. Restricting yourself to heavy rail improvements makes it hard to improve value-for-money.
The problem we've got is that the cost of 25kV AC electrifying the Valleys is far higher than previously expected. The only alternative heavy rail electrification is traditional top-contact 750V DC third rail, which will never be permitted on a new network. Excepting untested ideas like discontinuous electrification with battery technology, the only other electrification options require divergence from normal heavy rail standards. There's really only two other basic options:
- LR-standard OHLE with low-voltage DC
- 'Safe' third rail with low-voltage DC (e.g. side or bottom contact, as on the DLR and many new-build metro lines)
The latter option has a big problem, because modern 'safe' third rail is incompatible with the loading gauge for HR services. If that option is taken, it must involve a total takeover of all lines and complete separation from the remaining HR network. HR trains wouldn't be able to run on the LR tracks, and LR trains wouldn't be able to run on HR tracks.
OHLE is the best option, since it's inherently easy to make compatible with HR and its electrification. LR units fitted with pantographs can fairly trivially switch between low voltage DC and 25kV AC pickup as this occurs every day in France on their HR network. There's also no need to worry about sleepers not having the mountings for third rail, so installation doesn't require track replacement.
The new Stadler sets for Merseyrail will be capable of 25kV AC in future if extensions require it, so it should be fairly trivial for a similar unit to be designed capable of picking up 750V DC from the OHLE instead of third rail. A complication may be the different loading gauge of LR trains (2.65m wide) vs heavy rail (2.82m). Even with the lower electrical clearance, the need for HR loading gauge may require additional civil engineering works on lines where HR trains haven't got much of a reason to run. As a result, the model for the train might be closer to the new sets being ordered for the DLR, which are 2.65m wide and will be a full length metro train.
Once you're talking about using an equivalent of the DLR trains, the question is then whether the minor additional cost of fitting side skirts and track brakes is worth it for the possibilities of lower-cost extensions and enhancements. The base vehicle design would almost certainly be a high-floor Stadtbahn-style unit (like the DLR or Tyne and Wear Metrocars in the first place) where other operators use them a combination of Metro-style segregated and street running routes. Having the ability to use street running, even if they don't need to use it in the core route, adds a lot of flexibility into network design. With that street-running LR design you can have tighter corners and inclines on segregated and non-segregated track alike.
Following all of this through you end up with something which looks rather like what's in the Taffs Well depot plans. A 50m single set with high floors, 2.65m wide, capable of sharp corners, capable of street running and designed to be doubled up in service (and when doubled being totally unsuitable for street running in Cardiff itself, but fine for level crossings and cycle paths up the Valleys).
Trams and LR vehicles are modular designs and it should be perfectly possible to design the sets with plenty of seating in between the doors. The vehicles would be slightly narrower and wouldn't have toilets on board (there's no CET facilities at the Taffs Well depot plans) but apart from that they're not that different to a normal regional metro train. A major reason why the Valleys have toilets today because diesel trains are universally built with toilets, as they're often used on long regional routes where they are absolutely required. The question of whether the Valleys should have toilets has never come up until now. It's entirely possible that new-build electric HR rolling stock might be ordered without them too, if they went for a London Overground-style metro layout to maximise capacity while minimising costs.
It was moved.
I don't care if you like Grayling or not, but he is absolutely right about spending £500m running the same trains on the same line at the same speed to the same timetable delivering zero passenger benefits.
Also about spending the money on renewals to make the existing lines more reliable, about more capacity and better urban services e.g. Bristol to reduce congestion and get people out of their cars.
All sounds very sensible and rational to me. If others don't like it I don't care, but at least we have someone who can cut through the electrification dogma making decisions at last.
Envoy
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 3,126
Mention has been made about the costs of running HR v LR. If for example, twice the number of tram services were operated v the number of trains under the present system - and you paid the tram drivers half the pay of the train drivers, then one would assume that you have a cheaper to operate system? However, what must also be taken into account is the payload. If one train driver can take a six coach train full of people during the peak, then surely that would be at a lower cost compared to carrying the same number of people on three 2 coach trams? (Mention has been made that the trams can carry more people - but, these may be standing and therefore less desirable to the travelling public - which could encourage car usage).
Mention has also been made of the fact that during the working week, the valley line trains have relatively low loadings. The retired - who could be using these trains, tend to use the buses - because they are free - thanks to the Welsh Government giving them bus passes. So, the WG give out bus passes that then means that they have to subsidise the railways who have lost potential off peak passengers! (Yes, I do know that the people with Welsh Bus Passes can use the local rail network with a third off the fares).
Mention has also been made of the fact that during the working week, the valley line trains have relatively low loadings. The retired - who could be using these trains, tend to use the buses - because they are free - thanks to the Welsh Government giving them bus passes. So, the WG give out bus passes that then means that they have to subsidise the railways who have lost potential off peak passengers! (Yes, I do know that the people with Welsh Bus Passes can use the local rail network with a third off the fares).
Del1977
Member
On the contrary. I've already stated I favour turning the City Line and the line through Llandaff into a City Circle. Route all the existing services as tram/trains in a circle clockwise and counter-clockwise using the existing rail infrastructure. Rhymney/Coryton services can continue through Cardiff Central on their current routes / or be diverted to any other terminus points.
It'll cost less as you have the advantage that any additions to the system can utilise the existing rail infrastructure. So say a tram extension to Cardiff Gate in the North East can run on the existing Rhymney line to Lisvane or Llanishen, and then go on street for the last part of its connection. Rather than having a tram line dug along the street all the way from central Cardiff out to the far North eastern suburbs. Same for other Cardiff extensions of Valleys extensions.
Last edited:
Envoy
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 3,126
I suggest that you look at this map and check out the street view for the roads that you are proposing to have on street running going east from either Llanishen or Lisvane stations - both of which are in deep cuttings.https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5378769,-3.1760822,1970m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
PS. The winding & hilly road to Cardiff Gate is extremely busy with traffic - which also has to go through the Pontprennau estate. (For some odd reason, planners did not make a direct link by road from Lisvane to M4 J30 (Cardiff Gate) , preferring instead to route traffic through residential areas in Pontprennnau. They now have plans for a similar situation for new housing in NW Cardiff - with no access to M4 J33 > preferring instead to route traffic through residential areas that already exist at the request of the Welsh Government).
Del1977
Member
There's a turning circle on the East side of Lisvane station which then runs parallel to the rail tracks under the bridge until it curves around the hill to join Cherry Orchard road. Beyond the capabilities of a train to ascend, but not a tram. But none of these are insurmountable obstacles and could be re-engineered. HS2 is proposed to cut through half the country. A few tram connections off existing heavy rail shouldn't be impossible.
If the road is busy with traffic then that sounds as though there's plenty of traffic to be displaced into a new public transport connection. The whole purpose is to serve growth areas / established areas without existing rail links.
Agree on shortsightedness of Pontprennau town planning and the new settlements west of Radyr with respect to M4 connections.
Maybe they have a secret plan to pay for the South Wales Metro. They could have a city-wide congestion charge... that would raise funds and displace people in to the new Metro.
If the road is busy with traffic then that sounds as though there's plenty of traffic to be displaced into a new public transport connection. The whole purpose is to serve growth areas / established areas without existing rail links.
Agree on shortsightedness of Pontprennau town planning and the new settlements west of Radyr with respect to M4 connections.
Maybe they have a secret plan to pay for the South Wales Metro. They could have a city-wide congestion charge... that would raise funds and displace people in to the new Metro.
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,304
Tram-train conversion of the Valley lines doesn't have to mean all services will use street running in the city centre. Again, if the 50m single units are going to run doubled up, there's absolutely no way these can be allowed on the streets of Cardiff. They might be able to run up a central reservation but in a city centre environment, they would block junctions and cause absolute chaos. No network on earth runs street-running trams that long.
What you could do is run a mixture of services which stay on the existing HR alignment and others which do end up street running. The two would share one public identity, ticketing system, rolling stock and operations. The public would be fine with it, just as they're fine with the 'Tube' including both sub-surface and deep tube lines.
The LR trains won't necessarily be much shorter than HR trains - again, the Taffs Well plans show platforms being kept at 100m and single unit trains being 50m. A 100m double unit would have the lower costs of a LR train while having approximately the same passenger capacity as a HR train. Then, out of the peak, you can go down to a 50m single unit with lower costs than a comparable HR train. The lower costs are crucial for higher frequency services to be viable - e.g. keeping a line at 4tph into the evening rather than dropping down to 2tph or ending service entirely.
Bus passes are free because pensioners simultaneously need easy short-distance travel (they can't walk to the shops so easily) but they're also less likely to need other journeys. If journeys weren't free, pensioners wouldn't have much reason to travel long distances as they're not going to be commuting. Making them pay for tickets very likely means they just won't travel at all, while working-age people will have to travel even if they do have to pay.
Transport networks require complicated ticketing systems because the aim of the game is revenue (and social benefit) maximisation. It's difficult to discriminate between different passengers who have wildly different abilities and requirements. If we could charge different passengers exactly as much as they were able or willing to pay, it would all be easy, but people aren't going to give up information which would lead to them paying more than they would otherwise. To solve the information problem, we create complicated ticket rules aimed and targeted at different people through indirect means. The vast range of tickets, from inflexible advances up to anytime returns, all have different rules designed to make them appeal to different people with different abilities to pay. Those with the most ability to pay (business travellers) also require the most flexibility, so the most flexible tickets become more expensive. Those with the least ability or desire to pay (due to competition with other modes) tend to have more predictable plans so restrictive tickets are acceptable when at lower costs.
I really enjoyed a Wendover Productions video about How Airlines Price Flights since it explained some of these effects. The most interesting thing was about return flights. Single flights have to be much more expensive than the typical return flight, because the prices of return flights are dictated by the times people fly. Business travellers avoid travelling to a destination over the weekend at all costs, so any flight+return within one working week is more likely to be desired by business travellers with a higher ability to pay. Flights over the weekend are more popular with tourists, since they don't mind being away from home for the weekend, and these people will pay less. Single flights' flexibility means they have to be as expensive as possible, while a return flight can be made much cheaper if the airline has enough information to determine your ability to pay.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Though the latter has been somewhat discredited in recent years with a move to dynamic single-fare based pricing by most airlines, certainly short-haul.
Gareth Marston
Established Member
The Valleys lines are as you said previously a simple system, no multiple lines and junctions to worry about, combine this with CASR hAving eliminated many of the complicating factors affecting Great Western electrification then provided you don't try and build masts designed for high speed rail lines then the overall costs should be nowhere near what we're seeing out of Paddington.
But there are no plans to build any of those extensions, and nobody knows where the money will come from once It's been spent on light rail conversion of the existing lines. Is it worth the risk?
Last edited: