South Wales 'Metro' updates

[B&I]

Depends what you mean by metro. A Swiss style rural S Bahn would fit it quite well.

Decent stopping service on the main line would do a lot of the job.

 

[TheoBald]

As someone with only a distant knowledge of the area (though I made one return trip between Ebbw Vale and Cardiff for the 2014 Heineken Final!) is there any mileage in keeping the hourly direct Cardiff service but with an additional second via Newport? I appreciate many issues, particularly pathing, would need addressing, but might this be possible?

 

[Dai Corner]

As someone with only a distant knowledge of the area (though I made one return trip between Ebbw Vale and Cardiff for the 2014 Heineken Final!) is there any mileage in keeping the hourly direct Cardiff service but with an additional second via Newport? I appreciate many issues, particularly pathing, would need addressing, but might this be possible?

A service to Newport has been promised since the line was reopened to passengers, but requires a limited amount of redoubling. Work was started on this but has apparently been abandoned.

There are plenty of trains between Newport and Cardiff so if the train went beyond Newport a destination like Abergavenny or Cheltenham would be more useful.

 

[PHILIPE]

A service to Newport has been promised since the line was reopened to passengers, but requires a limited amount of redoubling. Work was started on this but has apparently been abandoned.

There are plenty of trains between Newport and Cardiff so if the train went beyond Newport a destination like Abergavenny or Cheltenham would be more useful.

The Ebbw Vales are going to Cheltenham over the weekend due to line closure between Newport and Cardiff as a result of Engineering Work. This arrangement normally happens when this route is closed, the Maesteg to Cheltenhams starting/terminating Cardiff Central.

 

[Dai Corner]

The Ebbw Vales are going to Cheltenham over the weekend due to line closure between Newport and Cardiff as a result of Engineering Work. This arrangement normally happens when this route is closed, the Maesteg to Cheltenhams starting/terminating Cardiff Central.

I haven't done Park Jn to Gaer Jn for ages so I might be out for that. Thanks for the heads up!

 

[Dai Corner]

I haven't done Park Jn to Gaer Jn for ages so I might be out for that. Thanks for the heads up!

Looking at RTT, it appears that on Saturday only there are trains Ebbw Vale - Gloucester. On Sunday it's trains Ebbw Vale - Pye Corner for buses to Cardiff.

 

[CardiffKid]

One big point NR ain't part of this it's being forced on them.

I get that Network Rail are essentially the builders employed to do the governments work (and I don’t mean that in a dirogetory way)

But Network Rail have numerous projects that are both over budget and behind schedule which will impact on the Metro/wilder rail projects in South Wales.

NR have abandoned the work on the Ebbw Vale line; as discussed yesterday didn’t object to the building work at Cogan - nor at the old Bute Street/Cardiff Bay station; and seemingly are playing no role in the proposed developments at the front and bavk of Cardiff Central.

 

[MarkyT]

Looking at RTT, it appears that on Saturday only there are trains Ebbw Vale - Gloucester. On Sunday it's trains Ebbw Vale - Pye Corner for buses to Cardiff.

And the fare from Newport to Pye Corner on Saturday's direct train for this 3 mile journey is £9.90 single, or £7.20 day return which is the same as the day return from Cardiff Central, but there's a single from Cardiff to Pye Corner at £4.60.

 

[Gareth Marston]

And the fare from Newport to Pye Corner on Saturday's direct train for this 3 mile journey is £9.90 single, or £7.20 day return which is the same as the day return from Cardiff Central, but there's a single from Cardiff to Pye Corner at £4.60.

Poor VFM I agree.

 

[Dai Corner]

Talking of fares and ticketing, what would we like to see in the Metro area?

 

[CardiffKid]

Talking of fares and ticketing, what would we like to see in the Metro area?

Proper zoning and integrated ticketing similar to London.

The ability to be able to buy either a paper or electronic ticket/season ticket for all of Zone 1 / Zone 3-1 etc.

ATW really are going above and beyond lately to annoy customers. If you buy an annual ticket from Merthyr to Cardiff QS/Central for example it’s no longer valid for travel to the Bay (despite being the same cost).

 

[Dai Corner]

Proper zoning and integrated ticketing similar to London.

The ability to be able to buy either a paper or electronic ticket/season ticket for all of Zone 1 / Zone 3-1 etc.

ATW really are going above and beyond lately to annoy customers. If you buy an annual ticket from Merthyr to Cardiff QS/Central for example it’s no longer valid for travel to the Bay (despite being the same cost).

Annoy ATW back by requesting a zero-fare excess from the guard. ATW were tweeting frequently about the non-availability of Central/Queen Street tickets at the Bay but stopped after I repeatedly replied advising passengers to do this. I like to think my little campaign had some effect! (It's zero-fare for most destinations, but less than a Bay-Queen Street single for the shorter journeys)

I'd like to see integrated ticketing too. At the moment there's the off-peak only Valleys Day Explorer but that's only valid on Stagecoach buses, various Plusbus tickets and a few bus/rail tickets by Stagecoach. All a bit of a mess.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course you could just advise people to buy it to the Bay anyway even if you aren't necessarily going to use that bit. As BoJ and partial journeys are always available on season tickets this would appear to have no possible downside.

I advise similar in the MK area. If you're going to buy a season ticket from Milton Keynes Central to London, you might as well get it from Wolverton as the price is the same, so if you happen to want to make a local journey at some point during the validity it's free, and if you don't there's nothing lost.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd like to see integrated ticketing too. At the moment there's the off-peak only Valleys Day Explorer but that's only valid on Stagecoach buses, various Plusbus tickets and a few bus/rail tickets by Stagecoach. All a bit of a mess.

With Wales having a relatively simple transport network compared with England, and with there being a relatively small number of operators, it might do well to consider a national zonal fare system for all modes. That would give ATW the excuse it wants to withdraw from ORCATS etc for non-cross-border journeys too.

 

[CardiffKid]

Of course you could just advise people to buy it to the Bay anyway even if you aren't necessarily going to use that bit.

Yes, but imagine someone who commutes from Merthyr to Cardiff Central every day, folks out £1,100pa for a season ticket and four five times a year goes to the Bay for a meeting/pleasure and and then twice a year goes to Grangetown/Ninan Park for the football. Why should they folk out for extra tickets when they've already paid for a ticket that effectively should operate as a travel pass?

Wouldn't a Merythr to City Center/Zone One ticket be a) more attractive from the outset encouraging more people to travel by train b) more user friendly and c) effectively advertise the fact that there are 20 railway stations in Cardiff - a fact missed by most of the population of Cardiff let alone South Wales?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wouldn't a Merythr to City Center/Zone One ticket be a) more attractive from the outset encouraging more people to travel by train b) more user friendly and c) effectively advertise the fact that there are 20 railway stations in Cardiff - a fact missed by most of the population of Cardiff let alone South Wales?

I absolutely agree. The lack of "outboundary Travelcards" for cities other than London is in my view something that needs resolving generally.

 

[Gareth Marston]

With Wales having a relatively simple transport network compared with England, and with there being a relatively small number of operators, it might do well to consider a national zonal fare system for all modes. That would give ATW the excuse it wants to withdraw from ORCATS etc for non-cross-border journeys too.

Well ATW shouldn't exist after mid October so that's a red herring.

Holyhead to Fishguard Harbor is 364 miles by rail its not that simple....

Zones around Cardiff for sure basically covering Glamorgan and Monmouthshire and let shave eveything in central Cardiff in the same zone Cathays, Queen St, Bay, Central, Ninian Park, Grangetown.

 

[Llanigraham]

With Wales having a relatively simple transport network compared with England, and with there being a relatively small number of operators, it might do well to consider a national zonal fare system for all modes. That would give ATW the excuse it wants to withdraw from ORCATS etc for non-cross-border journeys too.

That might apply in the urban areas, but it certainly isn't true about the rest of Wales.
I can think of atleast 5 within 30 miles of here!

 

[Envoy]

Ideally, you should only be paying for the distance you travel as this would encourage people to make short hops and pay accordingly.

It seems to be that ATW have been left behind in the Cardiff area by the way that Cardiff Bus have organised there fares. Click the link and then select ‘On The Bus’ to see the fares. Note that people can buy a Day to Go ticket for £3.80. They also have cheaper fares for young people - and by young - they mean up to 19 rather than the 15th birthday used by the rail companies to count people as adults. (This probably harks back to the days when most people left school at 15 and starting earning money. Apparently, nobody has told the railways this is no longer the case)!
https://www.cardiffbus.com/fares-and-tickets

On the competing NAT buses, the all day fare is £3.
https://www.natgroup.co.uk/news/service-changes-our-cardiff-network-6th-march

 

[Gareth Marston]

Ideally, you should only be paying for the distance you travel as this would encourage people to make short hops and pay accordingly.

It seems to be that ATW have been left behind in the Cardiff area by the way that Cardiff Bus have organised there fares. Click the link and then select ‘On The Bus’ to see the fares. Note that people can buy a Day to Go ticket for £3.80. They also have cheaper fares for young people - and by young - they mean up to 19 rather than the 15th birthday used by the rail companies to count people as adults. (This probably harks back to the days when most people left school at 15 and starting earning money. Apparently, nobody has told the railways this is no longer the case)!
https://www.cardiffbus.com/fares-and-tickets

On the competing NAT buses, the all day fare is £3.
https://www.natgroup.co.uk/news/service-changes-our-cardiff-network-6th-march

British Rail Board Policy Unit were looking into raising the adult fare age to 18 in the early 90's but of course we've had the magic of privatization since then and nothing has happened......

Now that is something that TfW/WG could make a real difference on rather than talk about everything being World Class actually do something worthwhile?

 

[Dai Corner]

British Rail Board Policy Unit were looking into raising the adult fare age to 18 in the early 90's but of course we've had the magic of privatization since then and nothing has happened......

Now that is something that TfW/WG could make a real difference on rather than talk about everything being World Class actually do something worthwhile?

There is the WG My Travelpass scheme for 16-18 year old bus passengers.

https://mytravelpass.gov.wales/en/

 

[Gareth Marston]

The Zones have alreay been mapped out before see

http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/Resources/ATW valleys zonal map 2005.pdf

 

[WelshBluebird]

The Zones have alreay been mapped out before see

http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/Resources/ATW valleys zonal map 2005.pdf

I was going to say, at least on individual lines, fares are essentially zoned anyway aren't they, at least in terms of prices? So I don't see why they couldn't just be made into zonal tickets.

 

[Del1977]

The Zones have alreay been mapped out before see

http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/Resources/ATW valleys zonal map 2005.pdf

I think zonal fares should be what the SW Metro works to, but I'm not sure about the zones on this map:

- Why should Lisvane be in fare zone 3, but Radyr only be in fare Zone 2?
- Why is Pengam in Zone 4, but Quaker's Yard lumped into Zone 5?
- Why is Dinas in Zone 5, but Abercynon, further from Cardiff in Zone 4?

 

[Envoy]

I was going to say, at least on individual lines, fares are essentially zoned anyway aren't they, at least in terms of prices? So I don't see why they couldn't just be made into zonal tickets.

The zonal system can be rather illogical/not fair. Lisvane station is in a higher zone than Llanishen - which is about a mile away. I happened to be near Llanishen station a couple of weeks ago and I asked a resident why so many cars were parked in residential streets? She said that the station car park at Llanishen fills up pretty quickly - not helped by a more recently built animal hospital having been built on land at the station car park. She further said that many people from Lisvane drive down to Llanishen to catch the train so as to reduce the fare due to the zone change being between the two station. So, here we have a situation where the crazy zoning system for fares is causing an increase in traffic in this particular area as well as cluttering up streets with cars dumped all day. Now, the logical thing would have been to have the zone boundary running above the Caerphilly Mountain tunnel as that is where the big ‘leap’ in distance occurs - between Lisvane & Caerphilly - not the 1 mile or so between Lisvane & Llanishen. Does any one with any sense think of these things when drawing lines on maps?

Now look at the western section of the City Line. Near Fairwater station is the Bishop of Llandaff High School. As this is a religious school, it attracts children from a wide area rather than a local catchment. Now, if a kid boards a train at Radyr, they get off at the second stop = Fairwater and hence pays just to be in 1 zone. If a another kid boards a train at Ninian Park and gets off at the second stop (Fairwater), they have crossed a fare boundary and so would be paying more money to cover roughly the same distance as the first child. So, such a system is not fair.

 

[Gareth Marston]

time distance might be a fairer way of determined zones close in to Cardiff however further out it places Heads of The Valleys towns at a disadvantage compared to those on the quicker SWML and Marches.

 

[adrock1976]

It reiterates points made earlier Welsh Government has form on failing to fund further phases of rail projects. The number of outside Wales posters who naively believe further phases after "core valley lines" conversion to light rail will flow need to heed these lessons.

Although I am not a Wales resident nor born there (I am originally from the West Midlands), I too would be very sceptical of any future phases (if at all any) after the Core Valley Lines vanity project has been converted to light rail.

In the East Midlands for example, look at the Ivanhoe Project. The first phase was completed (which was the easiest) in the first half of the 1990s, with the second phase to Coalville to follow soon after. Needless to say, the second phase has been put on the backburner since and remains incomplete.

 

[NotATrainspott]

A service to Newport has been promised since the line was reopened to passengers, but requires a limited amount of redoubling. Work was started on this but has apparently been abandoned.

There are plenty of trains between Newport and Cardiff so if the train went beyond Newport a destination like Abergavenny or Cheltenham would be more useful.

The redoubling on the Ebbw Vale line is only necessary to provide a second train per hour, whether that goes to Cardiff or to Newport. The biggest reason for NR to down tools and leave it unfinished would be the funder weren't committed to running that second train. The line may be very successful, but the business case for a second train per hour has to take into account the extra cost of running it versus the extra revenue it could bring. It may well be the case that the numbers said the increase in benefits is smaller than the increase in costs. Unless there are other non-economic factors involved, the upfront cost of finishing the redoubling plus an increase in subsidy in perpetuity will look like a cost that the government cannot afford.

Abandoning work halfway through rather than going to completion sounds like a bad idea if you don't understand the sunk cost fallacy. If NR find out that the second train an hour isn't going to be happening, then unless there is some other compelling reason there is no benefit from any additional expenditure at all. At all times the only relevant question is about future spending - past spending is in the past and nothing can be done to change it. If future spending isn't going to provide benefits, then it doesn't matter how much you spent in the past. In a good scheme, the costs stay under control and the benefits stay the same or improve as the project goes on, meaning that the business case for spending the money needed to finish the scheme continues to improve up to infinity (when you have fractions of pounds left to spend to get billions' worth of benefit). If costs are not under control and/or the benefits decrease, then people need to be ready to cancel things entirely.

And so we go back to the idea of using LR technology to reduce operational costs. Even if the South Wales Metro still requires a subsidy after LR-ification, if the reduction in subsidy is significant then it is financially imprudent for the government not to spend a little money upfront to unlock those savings.

NR's 'credit card' was used to fund lots of improvements justified this way. The 'credit card' analogy is deeply flawed, because credit cards are normally used for discretionary spending on things which cannot have a useful economic return (e.g. holidays). The better analogy is a mortgage, as borrowing extra money on a mortgage can be a financially better option. If the cost of borrowing extra money for insulation work is less than the energy bill savings that would result, then not borrowing money is the bad option. For NR, not borrowing money to invest in signalling or capacity works is the bad option when those works cause immediate reductions in ongoing costs or increases in revenues. A scheme like Norton Bridge, for instance, can be partly funded from the savings from the reduced delays it causes.

Although I am not a Wales resident nor born there (I am originally from the West Midlands), I too would be very sceptical of any future phases (if at all any) after the Core Valley Lines vanity project has been converted to light rail.

In the East Midlands for example, look at the Ivanhoe Project. The first phase was completed (which was the easiest) in the first half of the 1990s, with the second phase to Coalville to follow soon after. Needless to say, the second phase has been put on the backburner since and remains incomplete.

This sounds like a very similar case. Reopening a few stations on a line which has to exist anyway for passenger services doesn't cost a lot of money. The overall ongoing cost to BR of running the MML may have stayed the same after the Ivanhoe scheme as the minimal extra cost was matched by ticket revenues. However, as soon as they would need to put in a lot of investment to be able to run an extra loss-making service, that business case ceases to exist and it never ends up happening.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The redoubling on the Ebbw Vale line is only necessary to provide a second train per hour, whether that goes to Cardiff or to Newport. The biggest reason for NR to down tools and leave it unfinished would be the funder weren't committed to running that second train. The line may be very successful, but the business case for a second train per hour has to take into account the extra cost of running it versus the extra revenue it could bring. It may well be the case that the numbers said the increase in benefits is smaller than the increase in costs. Unless there are other non-economic factors involved, the upfront cost of finishing the redoubling plus an increase in subsidy in perpetuity will look like a cost that the government cannot afford.

Abandoning work halfway through rather than going to completion sounds like a bad idea if you don't understand the sunk cost fallacy. If NR find out that the second train an hour isn't going to be happening, then unless there is some other compelling reason there is no benefit from any additional expenditure at all. At all times the only relevant question is about future spending - past spending is in the past and nothing can be done to change it. If future spending isn't going to provide benefits, then it doesn't matter how much you spent in the past. In a good scheme, the costs stay under control and the benefits stay the same or improve as the project goes on, meaning that the business case for spending the money needed to finish the scheme continues to improve up to infinity (when you have fractions of pounds left to spend to get billions' worth of benefit). If costs are not under control and/or the benefits decrease, then people need to be ready to cancel things entirely.

And so we go back to the idea of using LR technology to reduce operational costs. Even if the South Wales Metro still requires a subsidy after LR-ification, if the reduction in subsidy is significant then it is financially imprudent for the government not to spend a little money upfront to unlock those savings.

NR's 'credit card' was used to fund lots of improvements justified this way. The 'credit card' analogy is deeply flawed, because credit cards are normally used for discretionary spending on things which cannot have a useful economic return (e.g. holidays). The better analogy is a mortgage, as borrowing extra money on a mortgage can be a financially better option. If the cost of borrowing extra money for insulation work is less than the energy bill savings that would result, then not borrowing money is the bad option. For NR, not borrowing money to invest in signalling or capacity works is the bad option when those works cause immediate reductions in ongoing costs or increases in revenues. A scheme like Norton Bridge, for instance, can be partly funded from the savings from the reduced delays it causes.



This sounds like a very similar case. Reopening a few stations on a line which has to exist anyway for passenger services doesn't cost a lot of money. The overall ongoing cost to BR of running the MML may have stayed the same after the Ivanhoe scheme as the minimal extra cost was matched by ticket revenues. However, as soon as they would need to put in a lot of investment to be able to run an extra loss-making service, that business case ceases to exist and it never ends up happening.

Sounds very much like a variant on the "profitable core" that politicians and civil servants desperately scrambled to find without success from the early 60's onwards.

Indeed the more I read your posts with their underlying theme of supposed fiscal responsibility of light rail conversion the more I am convinced that you are pursuing a fools errand chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow of a non subsidy public transport system. Public transport provides wider benefits away from the supposed negative of silo thinking subsidy. The railway doesn't live in a bubble in interacts with the wider world yet conventional cost benefit analysis is poor at recognising the societal cost of not having quality public transport especially in urban areas. If vallley lines didn't bring in those commuters every day into central Cardiff the road network down the A470 and across the M4 Interchange at Coryton would descend into total gridlock damaging the economy of the whole of South Wales. Yet the value of this is not factored into any calculations.

Public transport is not just about how cheap you can provide it.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Sounds very much like a variant on the "profitable core" that politicians and civil servants desperately scrambled to find without success from the early 60's onwards.

Indeed the more I read your posts with their underlying theme of supposed fiscal responsibility of light rail conversion the more I am convinced that you are pursuing a fools errand chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow of a non subsidy public transport system. Public transport provides wider benefits away from the supposed negative of silo thinking subsidy. The railway doesn't live in a bubble in interacts with the wider world yet conventional cost benefit analysis is poor at recognising the societal cost of not having quality public transport especially in urban areas. If vallley lines didn't bring in those commuters every day into central Cardiff the road network down the A470 and across the M4 Interchange at Coryton would descend into total gridlock damaging the economy of the whole of South Wales. Yet the value of this is not factored into any calculations.

Public transport is not just about how cheap you can provide it.

That isn't where I'm coming from, at all.

The most effective way to fund public transportation (and, as it happens, all public expenditure) is to have a land value tax. Good public expenditure (whether it be public libraries or defence or social security systems) ultimately increase the value of land. The fixed supply of land is an absolute, and is essentially what defines a state in the first place. Land is pretty much unique in economic terms and it is well understood by proper economists that taxes on land value are economically efficient unlike almost all other taxes.

The mechanism by which LVT can fund public spending is that this public spending increases the economic usefulness of the land it serves. If you provide good public transport in the Valleys, it'll make them nicer places to live with better access to jobs, education and entertainment. These increase land values, and as LVT means landowners (and not tenants - another lovely effect) pay a proportion of their land value as a regular tax, it causes tax receipts to increase.

What does this have to do with LR? Because the tax receipt increase comes from the economic effect of the public spending, not the amount of public spending itself. What I've been saying is that LR can be used in the Valleys to create a system with either the equivalent, or more, benefit of any possible HR system but for less money. If we had the perfect funding system implemented, this would still be true. Unless you can prove that HR is going to increase land values by more than its increase in costs, there's no case to be made for it. There are, however, plenty of cases where that will be true. If you tried to turn busier and faster HR networks (e.g. London commuter routes) into LR you could plausibly end up reducing land values and tax receipts if the end result is a worse transportation system.