South Wales 'Metro' updates

[Envoy]

As a neutral observer (my personal interest is in North Wales), what has just surprised me is noticing that the vast majority of the old 4 track formation between Radyr and Pontypridd is still intact. Why not extend light rail to Pontypridd and use one of the lines into Cardiff for heavy rail and the other for light rail? Removing all stations between Pontypridd and Radyr from the heavy rail line would speed up journey times and transfer passengers onto the light rail system. 30-35 mins would be a much more sensible maximum journey time for light rail.

It is possible for a train to go non stop from Cardiff Central to Pontypridd in 18 minutes. In fact one does indeed do this as a positioning move early in the morning:>
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P16059/2018/02/17/advanced
So, if your suggested HR / alongside LR did exist, it just shows you what could be done. Now, that is highly unlikely but I do wonder if trains from the upper valleys could be combined by Pontypridd and then shoot down non stop to Cardiff Queen Street & then Central with a stopping service leaving Pontypridd soon after the ‘express’. I bet that this could get a lot of commuters out of their cars due to the time savings! (Obviously, the ‘express' would have to not be able to catch up with a stopper - but if some sections of the 4 track formation were re-instated, then it could overtake with careful timing).

 

[Llanigraham]

NotATrainspot,
All your arguments fall down because NO political Party, of any hue, is suggesting implimenting what you seem to consider the panacea to everything, called Land Value Tax.
Drop that, work with the taxation system we have and then tell us how you would improve the system in the Cardiff Metro area?

 

[B&I]

People want transport which is cheap and quick. HR by definition will be more expensive than LR. That means it can't be as cheap, with all else being the same. Either fares have to be higher, or there has to be more government subsidy. Unlike what some people seem to think, I don't think government subsidy is bad, because there are lots of societal benefits from public transport which aren't fully captured by government today. That's why I bring up Land Value Tax - it is uniquely able to capture all benefits that public transport investment can provide. When the total captured benefit of LR will be as high, or higher, than HR while costs are lower, there is no justifiable economic reason to go for HR. Going for HR at that point is explicitly about wanting to waste money which could be better spent on other needy causes.

Whether you like it or not, 25kV AC electrification of the Valleys is going to cost a lot more money than LR conversion. When that's the case, there really isn't much you can do. It doesn't matter if the Welsh Government could buy the entire 315 fleet for £1 if it'll cost hundreds of millions of pounds more to make them move. The only way you can justify spending more on HR electrification is if it'll be able to provide more benefit than an alternative. 750V DC LR electrification and doubled-up 100m long LR trains will do just as much good, for less money.

Money influences everything, because while it is possible to do pretty much anything, it isn't possible to do everything at any reasonable cost. If you reject this, then there's no point debating.

There's an obsession in this thread with the maximum possible capacity of HR trains versus presumed LR trains. There seems to be a belief that adding more seats absolutely means more benefits. That is true when services are busy, and it is true that more seats will increase ticket revenue when there's suppressed demand. What is also true, and much more important for the economics, is the capacity over the entire day. All that infrastructure and all those vehicles you might want to shift peak loads have to continue existing outside of the peak, costing money. You can't buy a train for only three hours' use each day at the time when everyone else wants one too. If you optimise for peak capacity, you are unoptimised most of the time.

What does this mean for passengers? Once everyone who might use a train is on it and has space to sit, there is no benefit in providing additional seating beyond this. Unless there's significant suppressed demand, additional seating will not result in higher ticket revenues. More seats will not make peoples' lives better. What will make people's lives better is having more services. Going from 2tph to 4tph, or 4tph to 6tph, or 6tph to 8tph, actually makes rail more useful for people. If you go from a 2tph service with a full-but-not-too-full 40m long train to a 4tph service, you will find a 30m long train will do the job. The frequency doubled, so total capacity could be kept the same by halving the train length. Since that extra frequency makes rail more attractive for prospective passengers, you then need to add a little more capacity on top. You will always do more good by increasing frequency and then reducing train lengths. The problems with higher frequencies and shorter trains only come about when there's no mechanism to start lengthening them again.

If you stick with HR, you can often increase frequency but you can't cut costs by enough to make shorter vehicles feasible. With high frequency, there are fewer passengers per train, so the fixed costs of that train are more important. Since there is not unlimited money, it is rather hard to justify massively excess capacity to keep frequencies high. Outside of peak periods HR means going down to low frequencies, meaning worse services for passengers. Sure, you can make each train slightly longer, but people want good frequency and enough capacity, not poor frequency but an excess of capacity. All your expensive infrastructure gets used for less and less. Services can't run as early, nor as late. In the evenings and weekends branches get a minimal service, rather than the one which will be best for them.

Remember that the people who use the Valley Lines are also the people who would be subsidising any HR service, via their taxes. They will only accept this subsidy if they can see a clear benefit as a result. If the benefit consists only of providing huge amounts of empty seats and jobs for guards on off-peak services, then they're not going to be happy. Even when they like the idea of public spending, they would rather that money is spent on any number of other issues like health or education. There is always going to be a useful way to spend taxpayer's money. Just spending money for the sake of 'high investment' doesn't help anyone at all.

So, no reasons why LR in general is actually better, just cheaper. And no consideration of the specific proposals in south Wales at all.

Plus some rather odd thinking about reducing the capacity available in the peaks just so you don't have off-peak trains which are less than full, even though it will cost the same to run them regardless of how many people are aboard. How do you justify the number of empty units sitting around London outside the peaks?

 

[B&I]

As a neutral observer (my personal interest is in North Wales), what has just surprised me is noticing that the vast majority of the old 4 track formation between Radyr and Pontypridd is still intact. Why not extend light rail to Pontypridd and use one of the lines into Cardiff for heavy rail and the other for light rail? Removing all stations between Pontypridd and Radyr from the heavy rail line would speed up journey times and transfer passengers onto the light rail system. 30-35 mins would be a much more sensible maximum journey time for light rail.

Always amazes me how many stretches of 4 track formation lir disused when they provide obvious opportunities for improving services like this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, no reasons why LR in general is actually better, just cheaper.

If it offers something as good[1] for less money, or something better for the same money, that alone is a reason to select it.

[1] Not necessarily in the same way. For example, if LR allowed electrification for the same money as a heavy rail DMU solution but slightly less capacity, that may still be a reason to choose it; capacity can be added later. But the chance of 25kV wires is near nil, and I think the WAG realise that.

 

[NotATrainspott]

So, no reasons why LR in general is actually better, just cheaper. And no consideration of the specific proposals in south Wales at all.

The only unchangeable thing that has been announced for South Wales is the depot design. Since both the SWM and W&B franchise procurement processes are happening simultaneously in that great secrecy you don't like, the Welsh Government are quite clearly unsure about where the dividing line will be, because the outcome of the process may well involve shifting those remaining local HR services over to LR-on-HR. That depot design confirms 50m vehicles and seems to confirm the ability to run as 100m sets in service. This fact and this most probable fact are the core of my entire argument. If there was evidence they wanted standard M5000 sets limited to 60m I wouldn't be arguing this way. Every time you complain about 'the specific proposals' you ignore these things, because they don't point towards things being as bad as you think. Instead, you just focus on the interpretation of the other more woolly facts which does make things look as bad as possible. This is pretty annoying.

Why is cheaper not better? If it is doing the same work for less money, that is a good thing. I do not advocate cutting public transport funding. I do not think there is any reason for us to spend money we don't need to spend simply because of some obsession with HR, or an inferiority complex, or jealousy, or any number of totally irrational concerns that some train enthusiasts seem to have. If you put a Swiss person in charge of the Valleys they would say that LR is right. Demanding a more expensive system be installed for no clear benefit simply so that there's 'fairness' in the amount of money the area receives is nonsense.

And besides, I've explained plenty of times before that LR is flexible in a way that HR is not. If you go for HR, you can never have tweaks and modifications which rely on breaking grade-separation. In Oldham, if it weren't for Metrolink, there would be no way the line could ever have directly served the high street. These sorts of tweaks do not need to happen immediately. Over the lifetime of the system, these tweaks will be proposed incrementally when the funding is available and the timing is right. It might not be guaranteed, but it might happen. If you go for HR, these tweaks can never happen.

Plus some rsther odd thinking about reducing the capscity available in the peaks just so you don't have off-peak trains which are less than full, even though it will cost the same to run them regardless of how many people are aboard. How do you justify the number of empty units sitting around London outside the peaks?

The excess of rolling stock for London is justified by the simply enormous ticket revenue that is generated by the peak period. It is more profitable for a London commuter operator to have extra trains lying around in the off-peak than it is to cut capacity in the peak. That is not true in Wales, because the network never makes a profit. Even when you look at all of the possible societal benefits of public transport (as are captured perfectly by LVT) these are still not enough to justify massive overcapacity off-peak. Even then, off-peak services in London commuterland aren't that brilliant, as the cost of employing the drivers and guards to use all those excess trains isn't justified by fares. Staffing costs are variable according to demand, but they are a fixed cost regardless of train length. Staffing costs on LR are low enough to justify more services running in the off-peak when demand is low.

 

[Dai Corner]

If it offers something as good[1] for less money, or something better for the same money, that alone is a reason to select it.

[1] Not necessarily in the same way. For example, if LR allowed electrification for the same money as a heavy rail DMU solution but slightly less capacity, that may still be a reason to choose it; capacity can be added later. But the chance of 25kV wires is near nil, and I think the WAG realise that.

The chances of 25kV wires are whatever the WG want them to be. If they'll pay, they'll go up. The chances of them paying (via higher taxes if necessary) is near nil though. We're much more likely to hear that we'll-worn phrase "Well we would have, but the English Tories won't give us the money" (conveniently forgetting that public expenditure per head in Wales is almost the same as London and greater than England as a whole).

 

[krus_aragon]

As a neutral observer (my personal interest is in North Wales), what has just surprised me is noticing that the vast majority of the old 4 track formation between Radyr and Pontypridd is still intact. Why not extend light rail to Pontypridd and use one of the lines into Cardiff for heavy rail and the other for light rail? Removing all stations between Pontypridd and Radyr from the heavy rail line would speed up journey times and transfer passengers onto the light rail system. 30-35 mins would be a much more sensible maximum journey time for light rail.

The current two-track heavy rail line has been slewed across the four-track formation to ease the curves around Taff's Well / Walnut Tree Gap, but it's nothing that couldn't be undone if wished (as far as I understand).

 

[MarkyT]

The chances of 25kV wires are whatever the WG want them to be. If they'll pay, they'll go up. The chances of them paying (via higher taxes if necessary) is near nil though. We're much more likely to hear that we'll-worn phrase "Well we would have, but the English Tories won't give us the money" (conveniently forgetting that public expenditure per head in Wales is almost the same as London and greater than England as a whole).

If lower voltage DC wires are SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than AC electrification, which seems very likely, it seems to me that DC is a wise choice for an operation that is largely self contained (and I include the Cardiff end of the VoG in that, with through services maintained to Barry etc). As to vehicles, there's a convergence going on here. HR trains are getting lighter with many features shared with LR, while trams are getting heavier in pursuit of inter-running opportunities on HR lines. Whether a particular fleet is derived from HR technology or LR practice by a particular manufacturer is becoming irrelevant to the key deliverables of size, comfort etc. The manufacturer is making an enclosed box that can be fitted out according to the demands of the customer and the needs of the market. The key advantage of the LR-based solution is what that vehicle can do on any future extension or diversion in terms of curve and gradient negotiation physically, and legally in the degree of separation from traffic and pedestrians that can be tolerated on those deviations if they are legally defined as tramways. As to the division in responsibility for the infrastructure and what that could mean for future through operation, LR-based vehicles today make frequent crossings between T&W and NR infrastructure on the Sunderland route with no problems at all. We don't know what the terms of the WG transfer would be at the moment clearly. It could be a long operate and maintain lease with NR still remaining the landowner or it could be a legal transfer of the freehold. Either way that has no bearing on the technical ability to retain through running across the boundary (subject to clear agreements on who maintains what (especially important in the boundary area ref. Wimbledon).

 

[MarkyT]

The current two-track heavy rail line has been slewed across the four-track formation to ease the curves around Taff's Well / Walnut Tree Gap, but it's nothing that couldn't be undone if wished (as far as I understand).

That could have implications on achievable speed. Also old 19th century standards for clearance were poor compared to today's and '10 foots' between each pair were not always provided on historic routes as they would be today. Tighter clearances often mean more difficult maintenance with more adjacent lines blocked for certain tasks, although if there are more tracks in total then there could be more opportunities to reroute around such work. If one pair was dedicated HR, one LR, then some of that flexibility could be lost without a level of inter-running capability.

 

[Gareth Marston]

What I make of that is that
a. There is no prospect of the light rail network covering the entire current Valleys Lines that the pro-light rail faction here has based its arguments on
B. The Welsh Government is so obsessed with roads that it can't even keep them off public transport maps.

The spin is that the South Wales Metro solves all north to south transport issues and the M4 Relief Road all east to west ones and we all live happily ever after.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I agree with you there Gareth. £300m would have probably been enough to replace the 150s and Pacers and electrify to Swansea (if costs weren't as inflated as the current works. The 140mph capability wouldn't have been necessary, for example).

My point with wiring Valleys Lines is that it is relatively simple in that the a lot of the associated work that always seems to be needed relaying/ realigning track, junctions, extra platforms and re signalling has already been taken care of by CASR. As long as no one trys to put masts in Ystrad Rhondda capable of handling 140mph train in a Force 10 gale then the costs will be much less than we've seen on GWML.

 

[Gareth Marston]

People want transport which is cheap and quick

The people when asked by the Welsh Government overwhelming told them they wanted a seat and second person manning the trains. The people have not asked the Welsh Government for a cheap and cheerful Light Rail system- I've read all the responses by the way. Of course when you say "people" you mean yourself don't you? Where is this groundswell of public opinion backing your theory's? Are you a former member of the Railway Conversion league?

 

[Gareth Marston]

a Swiss person in charge of the Valleys they would say that LR is right.

They would be aghast at destroying a pre existing cross city link whatever there favoured flavour if they had any experience/knowledge of railways/public transport. However I suspect the average Swiss person on the Zurich Metro or whatever wouldn't even have a clue what LR or HR meant!

That depot design confirms 50m vehicles and seems to confirm the ability to run as 100m sets in service. This fact and this most probable fact are the core of my entire argument.

No you've been drivelling on ad nasueum about costs, flexibility, extensions and things like Land Tax values and economic theory.

 

[B&I]

The only unchangeable thing that has been announced for South Wales is the depot design. Since both the SWM and W&B franchise procurement processes are happening simultaneously in that great secrecy you don't like, the Welsh Government are quite clearly unsure about where the dividing line will be, because the outcome of the process may well involve shifting those remaining local HR services over to LR-on-HR. That depot design confirms 50m vehicles and seems to confirm the ability to run as 100m sets in service. This fact and this most probable fact are the core of my entire argument. If there was evidence they wanted standard M5000 sets limited to 60m I wouldn't be arguing this way. Every time you complain about 'the specific proposals' you ignore these things, because they don't point towards things being as bad as you think. Instead, you just focus on the interpretation of the other more woolly facts which does make things look as bad as possible. This is pretty annoying.

Why is cheaper not better? If it is doing the same work for less money, that is a good thing. I do not advocate cutting public transport funding. I do not think there is any reason for us to spend money we don't need to spend simply because of some obsession with HR, or an inferiority complex, or jealousy, or any number of totally irrational concerns that some train enthusiasts seem to have. If you put a Swiss person in charge of the Valleys they would say that LR is right. Demanding a more expensive system be installed for no clear benefit simply so that there's 'fairness' in the amount of money the area receives is nonsense.

And besides, I've explained plenty of times before that LR is flexible in a way that HR is not. If you go for HR, you can never have tweaks and modifications which rely on breaking grade-separation. In Oldham, if it weren't for Metrolink, there would be no way the line could ever have directly served the high street. These sorts of tweaks do not need to happen immediately. Over the lifetime of the system, these tweaks will be proposed incrementally when the funding is available and the timing is right. It might not be guaranteed, but it might happen. If you go for HR, these tweaks can never happen.



The excess of rolling stock for London is justified by the simply enormous ticket revenue that is generated by the peak period. It is more profitable for a London commuter operator to have extra trains lying around in the off-peak than it is to cut capacity in the peak. That is not true in Wales, because the network never makes a profit. Even when you look at all of the possible societal benefits of public transport (as are captured perfectly by LVT) these are still not enough to justify massive overcapacity off-peak. Even then, off-peak services in London commuterland aren't that brilliant, as the cost of employing the drivers and guards to use all those excess trains isn't justified by fares. Staffing costs are variable according to demand, but they are a fixed cost regardless of train length. Staffing costs on LR are low enough to justify more services running in the off-peak when demand is low.

So, as I thought, not better, just cheaper.

You have no evidence at all that doubled-up trams will be run. The fact that they could be is not evidence that they will be.

I find it pretty annoying that your arguments are based on assuming that everything will be done in a certain way just to support your argument that LR is superior to HR. You have already demonstrated this by your insistence that cross-city services will continue to run post-lightrailification, ignoring the map which clearly suggests that they won't be.

Btw at 9 pm last night your beloved Metrolink could not provide enough capacity to give everyone who wanted to travel to Altrincham a seat, despite the fare charged being 2/3 of what I paid to travel from Liverpool to Manchester on the first part of my journey. Also, I had the joy of sitting on an uncovered bench at Trafford Bar while transferring - 1 of 3 whole seats on that platform - because of the austerity fetishism around which Metrolink has been planned, of which you are again such a fan. I suppose that's your idea of how to attract new users to public transport.

 

[B&I]

If lower voltage DC wires are SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than AC electrification, which seems very likely, it seems to me that DC is a wise choice for an operation that is largely self contained (and I include the Cardiff end of the VoG in that, with through services maintained to Barry etc). As to vehicles, there's a convergence going on here. HR trains are getting lighter with many features shared with LR, while trams are getting heavier in pursuit of inter-running opportunities on HR lines. Whether a particular fleet is derived from HR technology or LR practice by a particular manufacturer is becoming irrelevant to the key deliverables of size, comfort etc. The manufacturer is making an enclosed box that can be fitted out according to the demands of the customer and the needs of the market. The key advantage of the LR-based solution is what that vehicle can do on any future extension or diversion in terms of curve and gradient negotiation physically, and legally in the degree of separation from traffic and pedestrians that can be tolerated on those deviations if they are legally defined as tramways. As to the division in responsibility for the infrastructure and what that could mean for future through operation, LR-based vehicles today make frequent crossings between T&W and NR infrastructure on the Sunderland route with no problems at all. We don't know what the terms of the WG transfer would be at the moment clearly. It could be a long operate and maintain lease with NR still remaining the landowner or it could be a legal transfer of the freehold. Either way that has no bearing on the technical ability to retain through running across the boundary (subject to clear agreements on who maintains what (especially important in the boundary area ref. Wimbledon).

What you advocate sounds less like Metrolink-type LR, and more like T&W LR - LR vehicles and staffing policies used on what is otherwise close to an HR system, with close-to-HR capacity / seating levels, and similar speeds. I don't think many would object to a S Wales metro consisting of T&W-type vehicles and 750v DC on lines unlikely to be used again by HR, as long as features like cross-city running were maintained.

The source of the arguments on here is a. the hints (and hints are all we have thanks to the secret squirrel procurement process) that the Welsh government seem determined to implement a low quality system, just as long as it's THEIR low quality system b. the attitude of certain posters that such a low quality system is all that anyone outside London needs or deserves, and that cheapness, and building down to the lowest common denominator of a system which will actually physically get the current number of passengers onto the vehicles (even if they have to travel under someone's armpit) is the only important factor when planning a public transport system.

 

[Llanigraham]

The excess of rolling stock for London is justified by the simply enormous ticket revenue that is generated by the peak period. It is more profitable for a London commuter operator to have extra trains lying around in the off-peak than it is to cut capacity in the peak. That is not true in Wales, because the network never makes a profit. Even when you look at all of the possible societal benefits of public transport (as are captured perfectly by LVT) these are still not enough to justify massive overcapacity off-peak. Even then, off-peak services in London commuterland aren't that brilliant, as the cost of employing the drivers and guards to use all those excess trains isn't justified by fares. Staffing costs are variable according to demand, but they are a fixed cost regardless of train length. Staffing costs on LR are low enough to justify more services running in the off-peak when demand is low.

But we do NOT have Land Value Tax, and no Party is proposing it! Therefore you mentioning it is pointless.
Why do you think this is the panacea for all the ills on the South Wales Metro?

 

[Chester1]

The current two-track heavy rail line has been slewed across the four-track formation to ease the curves around Taff's Well / Walnut Tree Gap, but it's nothing that couldn't be undone if wished (as far as I understand).

I guess that any line speed decreases from moving the track back would be more than componsated by removing the 2-3 intermediate stations from the heavy rail line and making them Metro only stops. Pontypridd to Cardiff could still be economic alongside a heavy rail line because of intermediate journeys. If / when the line is converted all the track will need to be replaced if any future street running is intended due to different wheel profiles between trams and trains. Sheffield's tram train trial shows the problems of trying to have wheels capable of running on heavy rail and light rail tracks. If WG are absolutely determined to convert the three branches from Pontypridd they could do and still maintain heavy rail from Pontypridd to Radyr as an extension of the City line. The extra cost would be moving some track and signalling and installing new stuff for light rail alongside.

If DC overhead is actually cheaper then why go for trams rather than Tyne and Wear style light(ish) heavy rail units, especially with no plans for street running? That would allow wiring to Penarth and Barry Island while still allowing a very limited number of DMU services to Bridgend (1tph?) with double or treble the signal blocks for safety. The City Line to Central to Queen Street could be segregated too. That would be a true Metro system converting everything apart from mainline and an hourly Ebbw Vale to Bridgend DMU. I am a fan of light rail but the plan makes less sense the more I read about it. How conclusive is the evidence that it will be trams rather than T&W style trains? The latter could be articulated 50m units and easily double up.

So, as I thought, not better, just cheaper.

You have no evidence at all that doubled-up trams will be run. The fact that they could be is not evidence that they will be.

I find it pretty annoying that your arguments are based on assuming that everything will be done in a certain way just to support your argument that LR is superior to HR. You have already demonstrated this by your insistence that cross-city services will continue to run post-lightrailification, ignoring the map which clearly suggests that they won't be.

Btw at 9 pm last night your beloved Metrolink could not provide enough capacity to give everyone who wanted to travel to Altrincham a seat, despite the fare charged being 2/3 of what I paid to travel from Liverpool to Manchester on the first part of my journey. Also, I had the joy of sitting on an uncovered bench at Trafford Bar while transferring - 1 of 3 whole seats on that platform - because of the austerity fetishism around which Metrolink has been planned, of which you are again such a fan. I suppose that's your idea of how to attract new users to public transport.

As I have stated multiple times Metrolink capacity could be doubled simply by buying more units. There are very few services running doubled up and Trafford Park to Crumpsall will begin in 2020. Single units the same length of double units (57m) would further increase capacity by replacing length used by 2 cabs and coupling with seating. If the Altrincham line was at capacity then it would show the limitations of light rail but its not and it doesn't. One day 10tph of 57m units on Altrincham line and 15tph on Bury line may not be enough but that may never happen. The suggested 2040 Metro tunnel would be on the opposite axis (Piccadilly to Salford Crescent), indicating that TfGM thinks demand on either line will not grow that level.

 

[NotATrainspott]

They would be aghast at destroying a pre existing cross city link whatever there favoured flavour if they had any experience/knowledge of railways/public transport. However I suspect the average Swiss person on the Zurich Metro or whatever wouldn't even have a clue what LR or HR meant!

And yet, having LR doesn't mean you have to cut any cross-city links. A Swiss transport planner/politician would say that LR would be suitable for taking over the Valley Lines network. LR advocacy is not about wanting to cut spending, or hating public transport.

No you've been drivelling on ad nasueum about costs, flexibility, extensions and things like Land Tax values and economic theory.

Aren't they some of the most important things to discuss about a transport network? I mean seriously, if economics and costs and flexibility and extensions aren't important things, then what are? Having comfy seats on occasional diesel trains?

So, as I thought, not better, just cheaper.

You have no evidence at all that doubled-up trams will be run. The fact that they could be is not evidence that they will be.

Then why, in your mind, are there plans to retain the 100m length of the Taffs Well platforms? Platform extensions are not cheap. This is on the core bit of the 'Core Valley Lines' network you think will be handed over to tiny little trams. If the extensions aren't necessary, why are they spending money on it?

I find it pretty annoying that your arguments are based on assuming that everything will be done in a certain way just to support your argument that LR is superior to HR. You have already demonstrated this by your insistence that cross-city services will continue to run post-lightrailification, ignoring the map which clearly suggests that they won't be.

And yet, the Welsh Government appear to be so unsure about the dividing line between the Metro and the rest of the W&B franchise that they aren't talking about either. If they had concrete knowledge that the split would be as described in these plans, they would have no reason not to release the W&B information at least. What I think is the case is that the maps describe an absolute minimum network, and that they're looking to see what can be done on top of it.

Btw at 9 pm last night your beloved Metrolink could not provide enough capacity to give everyone who wanted to travel to Altrincham a seat, despite the fare charged being 2/3 of what I paid to travel from Liverpool to Manchester on the first part of my journey. Also, I had the joy of sitting on an uncovered bench at Trafford Bar while transferring - 1 of 3 whole seats on that platform - because of the austerity fetishism around which Metrolink has been planned, of which you are again such a fan. I suppose that's your idea of how to attract new users to public transport.

And of course, the alternative is that there would be a 12 car EMU network running at 10tph instead to carry these once-in-a-blue-moon high passenger loads. How well does the glorious HR network cope with events today? Even if the infrastructure is capable of running long trains, do they run? No.

How long did you have to wait at Trafford Bar? You didn't have to say, so I can only assume it wasn't for long. If an LR network has better frequencies than a bus network, why should it need more passenger facilities at stops? You only provide the waiting facilities you need for the sorts of waiting that go on. Anything extra is a waste of everyone's money.

But we do NOT have Land Value Tax, and no Party is proposing it! Therefore you mentioning it is pointless.
Why do you think this is the panacea for all the ills on the South Wales Metro?

Is it really that hard to understand why I'm mentioning it? I know we don't have it, and I know it's not happening any time soon. I mention it because some people are saying that I don't care for all the other societal benefits of public transport investment. I'm saying that even if you capture every single one, you still can't justify HR over LR.

I guess that any line speed decreases from moving the track back would be more than componsated by removing the 2-3 intermediate stations from the heavy rail line and making them Metro only stops. Pontypridd to Cardiff could still be economic alongside a heavy rail line because of intermediate journeys. If / when the line is converted all the track will need to be replaced if any future street running is intended due to different wheel profiles between trams and trains. Sheffield's tram train trial shows the problems of trying to have wheels capable of running on heavy rail and light rail tracks. If WG are absolutely determined to convert the three branches from Pontypridd they could do and still maintain heavy rail from Pontypridd to Radyr as an extension of the City line. The extra cost would be moving some track and signalling and installing new stuff for light rail alongside.

Sheffield is going from a tram-only to a tram-train compatible wheel profile. If you have a network built from scratch for tram-train compatibility, you don't have as much to worry about.

Also, are fast services really that necessary? Would it not be better for everyone to just ramp up to a consistently high frequency? On a commuter railway the wait time and journey time to and from stations is particularly significant. Cutting out stations is only really necessary when there are particular time pressures. The Metropolitan line justifies fast running because it is responsible for serving places beyond the M25.

If DC overhead is actually cheaper then why go for trams rather than Tyne and Wear style light(ish) heavy rail units, especially with no plans for street running? That would allow wiring to Penarth and Barry Island while still allowing a very limited number of DMU services to Bridgend (1tph?) with double or treble the signal blocks for safety. The City Line to Central to Queen Street could be segregated too. That would be a true Metro system converting everything apart from mainline and an hourly Ebbw Vale to Bridgend DMU. I am a fan of light rail but the plan makes less sense the more I read about it. How conclusive is the evidence that it will be trams rather than T&W style trains? The latter could be articulated 50m units and easily double up.

T&W or DLR-style heavy-ish light rail really isn't that different to high floor trams. I mean, they're actually pretty much the same. DLR trains have been cascaded back onto the streets of Essen, because the design is fundamentally set up for street running. Sure, you can order them with street running-incompatible signalling and power supplies but that's really not a meaningful design difference.

If there are going to be 100m trains, they will only be able to do that sort of heavy-ish LR that you're suggesting. But, having them as 50m sets capable of street running means that you can also do that without needing the costs of a whole separate system. You can inter-run the two systems seamlessly with some valleys getting both the existing routes and new routes that involve street running. This is fundamentally impossible with an HR-based Valley Lines network.

 

[Chester1]

So basically you are suggesting 50m trams that could run on streets as single units but not as double units and that would basically be high floor versions of 399s to allow limited running on heavy rail tracks in the future e.g. to Penarth or Barry? That could work but the benefits of street running in Cardiff are so small it would make more sense to just go for trains like T&W or even just get a follow on order of their new stock.

 

[gareth950]

I agree, it is appalling that millions could well have been spent putting in the modern signalling system in the valleys for all of this to now be ‘thrown away,’ if indeed, they do go for a light rail system that does not utilise the signalling system. This money could have been spent electrifying the mainline to Swansea. Why did the Welsh Government not make clear their possible intentions prior to Network Rail doing all this work at great expense?

Because when CASR was agreed in 2011, the plans were very much for the Valleys to stay as a HR system. WG didn't start dithering until around 2014, when it started rowing with Westminster over who was going to pay & how much for VL electrification. Then along came the vague Metro / light rail proposals. Then the competitive dialogue idea in 2015. By which time it was too late to stop / change CASR.
If you google 'CASR January 2017' you'll see a picture of Ken Skates with Mark Carne on the NR website at the opening of P8 last January, all smiles, taking credit for an infrastructure enhancement project that he never intends to use and wants to rip out. Along with demolishing the brand new rear entrance of Central station.

Money influences everything, because while it is possible to do pretty much anything, it isn't possible to do everything at any reasonable cost. If you reject this, then there's no point debating.

It's possible to do anything at any costs when it comes to roads in Wales. Let's compare road vs rail spend in South Wales alone.

Latest stretch of A465 HoV road overspend = £50m. Total cost = £270m at least.
Stretch that was closed this weekend = £800m
Next stretch for just 12 miles = £1.2 billion
Carwyn's pet M4 project = At least £1.5 billion.

Total = At least £3.77 billion. There are more expensive road projects going on in north Wales at the expense of the railway up there.

VL electrification = £730 million.

Draw your own conclusions.

The only unchangeable thing that has been announced for South Wales is the depot design. Since both the SWM and W&B franchise procurement processes are happening simultaneously in that great secrecy you don't like, the Welsh Government are quite clearly unsure about where the dividing line will be, because the outcome of the process may well involve shifting those remaining local HR services over to LR-on-HR. That depot design confirms 50m vehicles and seems to confirm the ability to run as 100m sets in service. This fact and this most probable fact are the core of my entire argument.

The proposed, outline planning permission depot design confirms absolutely nothing. (Please tell me you know the difference between applying for outline and full planning permission) The demolition and re-build of Taffs Well platform confirms nothing.
What is widely known, which you and the other LR enthusiasts consistently ignore, is the split of the network. So I'll say it again.
Welsh Govt want everything north of Queen St for a tram network. Not a tram-train network.
Network Rail are keeping everything else for a no enhancements planned, HR network. I posted NR's strategic plan for CP6 here a few pages back. No enhancements anywhere in Wales in CP6 are planned.

If lower voltage DC wires are SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than AC electrification, which seems very likely, it seems to me that DC is a wise choice for an operation that is largely self contained (and I include the Cardiff end of the VoG in that, with through services maintained to Barry etc).

I'm tearing my hair out when reading the LR enthusiasts posts now. NO enhancements for the VoG line to Barry and nothing for Penarth in phase 2 are included. It's DMUs for the foreseeable future. There will be no futuristic, fantasy cross-city tram-train running. No wires of any sort are going up beyond Central out to the west.

The spin is that the South Wales Metro solves all north to south transport issues and the M4 Relief Road all east to west ones and we all live happily ever after.

And upon leaving the EU and losing ERDF, there's a magic money tree of billions and billions and billions available to fund it all.

Please can our resident LR heads explain to me how on earth you terminate at least 24 trams per hour in Queen St? How you increase frequency out to the VoG and City line terminating it all at Central? How you justify effectively mothballing the recently re-signalled and upgraded Queen St - Central HR link and making people walk between the two stations?

 

[B&I]

Then why, in your mind, are there plans to retain the 100m length of the Taffs Well platforms? Platform extensions are not cheap. This is on the core bit of the 'Core Valley Lines' network you think will be handed over to tiny little trams. If the extensions aren't necessary, why are they spending money on it?

Retained or extended? Which is it? If something is being retained, it probably costs less than demolishing it, so I suspect that would be your answer, thought in your world view I suppose spare platforms ahould be dismantled to save the colossal costs of maintaining them.


QUOTE="NotATrainspott, post: 3342798, member: 19150"]
And yet, the Welsh Government appear to be so unsure about the dividing line between the Metro and the rest of the W&B franchise that they aren't talking about either. If they had concrete knowledge that the split would be as described in these plans, they would have no reason not to release the W&B information at least. What I think is the case is that the maps describe an absolute minimum network, and that they're looking to see what can be done on top of it.[/QUOTE]


The best indication we have so far is a mao showing phase 2. The 'Core' lines remain as per phase 1. The other lines, the ones which currently see the cross-Cardiff services which peopleactually use, see only some unspecified form of enhancement. None of the extensions whoch you seem to think will flow from lightrailification are visible.

I know you don't like engaging with evidence which contradicts your obsessive dedication to LR, but try occasionally, it might make the discussion more interesting.


QUOTE="NotATrainspott, post: 3342798, member: 19150"]
And of course, the alternative is that there would be a 12 car EMU network running at 10tph instead to carry these once-in-a-blue-moon high passenger loads. How well does the glorious HR network cope with events today? Even if the infrastructure is capable of running long trains, do they run? No.[/QUOTE]


Now you're just being silly. How about joining and dividing 3 or 4 car EMUs as necessary, in accordance with current and future Merseyrail practice? There aren't 10 services an hour on the Metrolink branches at 9 pm on a Saturday, so why would there be on an HR line?


QUOTE="NotATrainspott, post: 3342798, member: 19150"]
How long did you have to wait at Trafford Bar? You didn't have to say, so I can only assume it wasn't for long. If an LR network has better frequencies than a bus network, why should it need more passenger facilities at stops? You only provide the waiting facilities you need for the sorts of waiting that go on. Anything extra is a waste of everyone's money.[/QUOTE]


8 minutes. In the open air. On 1 of 3 seats at the stop. Luckily a. It wasn't raining, for once in Manchester b. the half dozen other people waiting for the same length of time allowed me to sit (probably a by-product of how old I am starting to look). I boarded the tram at Victoria, and followed the journey planner's advice to change at Trafford Bar. I wasn't hanging around a glorified bus stop, without even a shelter, for the good of my health.

Now I am a captive customer, because I can't drive. If I did, I would have driven from Liverpool to Altrincham rather than pay good money to take 45 mnutes, including change and sitting on that platform, to travel avout 8 miles after leaving the EMU which had carried me over 30 miles in the same time.

This is what you don't seem to get. If public transport is provided at the lowest possible standard, people (outside the London commuter peaks) will vote with their feet and use private transport. This is what existing and prospective passengers think about, not cutting running costs to the bare minimum (and then paying more than for the equivalent HR journeys), non-existent expansion programmes, or land value taxes which are unlikely ever to be implemented, and which have no relevance whatsoever to present-day public transport issues.

 

[B&I]

So basically you are suggesting 50m trams that could run on streets as single units but not as double units and that would basically be high floor versions of 399s to allow limited running on heavy rail tracks in the future e.g. to Penarth or Barry? That could work but the benefits of street running in Cardiff are so small it would make more sense to just go for trains like T&W or even just get a follow on order of their new stock.

Yes, but then IT WOULDN'T LOOK LIKE LIGHT ENOUGH RAIL!!!!!

 

[B&I]

I'm tearing my hair out when reading the LR enthusiasts posts now. NO enhancements for the VoG line to Barry and nothing for Penarth in phase 2 are included. It's DMUs for the foreseeable future. There will be no futuristic, fantasy cross-city tram-train running. No wires of any sort are going up beyond Central out to the west.

Please can our resident LR heads explain to me how on earth you terminate at least 24 trams per hour in Queen St? How you increase frequency out to the VoG and City line terminating it all at Central? How you justify effectively mothballing the recently re-signalled and upgraded Queen St - Central HR link and making people walk between the two stations?

It is absolutely amazing that a topic like this could attract such total, blind fanaticism. Makes me wonder hoe often some of the people concerned use public transport, and whether they live within 100 miles of the networks they eulogise.

 

[Dai Corner]

Retained or extended? Which is it? If something is being retained, it probably costs less than demolishing it, so I suspect that would be your answer, thought in your world view I suppose spare platforms ahould be dismantled to save the colossal costs of maintaining them.

FWIW, the Taffs Well platforms are 143m according to the Sectional Appendix so 100m would be a shortening.

 

[Llanigraham]

Is it really that hard to understand why I'm mentioning it? I know we don't have it, and I know it's not happening any time soon. I mention it because some people are saying that I don't care for all the other societal benefits of public transport investment. I'm saying that even if you capture every single one, you still can't justify HR over LR.

And you haven't answered my question.
If you admit that Land Value tax isn't on the agenda why do you keep mentioning it? It is totally and completely irrelevant.
Concentrate on the system of Council Tax that we have and all it's variable rates across all the different Councils in this area of South Wales and explain how the economics of THAT will work (or not) with the South Wales Metro.

 

[gareth950]

I guess that any line speed decreases from moving the track back would be more than componsated by removing the 2-3 intermediate stations from the heavy rail line and making them Metro only stops. Pontypridd to Cardiff could still be economic alongside a heavy rail line because of intermediate journeys. If / when the line is converted all the track will need to be replaced if any future street running is intended due to different wheel profiles between trams and trains. Sheffield's tram train trial shows the problems of trying to have wheels capable of running on heavy rail and light rail tracks. If WG are absolutely determined to convert the three branches from Pontypridd they could do and still maintain heavy rail from Pontypridd to Radyr as an extension of the City line. The extra cost would be moving some track and signalling and installing new stuff for light rail alongside.

Network Rail have just, in the last few weeks, been carrying out extensive track, sleeper and ballast renewals across the Valleys. Time to tear that out as well?

FWIW, the Taffs Well platforms are 143m according to the Sectional Appendix so 100m would be a shortening.

Yes, as all platforms Treherbert - Pontypridd - Cardiff are currently capable of managing 6 x 20m DMUs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Network Rail have just, in the last few weeks, been carrying out extensive track, sleeper and ballast renewals across the Valleys. Time to tear that out as well?

It is totally false. Metrolink ran for something like 10 years on the original track on the Bury and Alty lines exactly as it was.

 

[NotATrainspott]

So basically you are suggesting 50m trams that could run on streets as single units but not as double units and that would basically be high floor versions of 399s to allow limited running on heavy rail tracks in the future e.g. to Penarth or Barry? That could work but the benefits of street running in Cardiff are so small it would make more sense to just go for trains like T&W or even just get a follow on order of their new stock.

But my point is that the T&W trains, current and future, are essentially high-floor trams. The only meaningful change is that they run at 1500V DC (too high for shared running) and they don't have the pedestrian protection.

Because when CASR was agreed in 2011, the plans were very much for the Valleys to stay as a HR system. WG didn't start dithering until around 2014, when it started rowing with Westminster over who was going to pay & how much for VL electrification. Then along came the vague Metro / light rail proposals. Then the competitive dialogue idea in 2015. By which time it was too late to stop / change CASR.

I think the LR proposals came about as a direct consequence of HR electrification costs increasing. Back in 2011 the idea was that the Valleys could be easily wired up once the GWML job arrived in Swansea and the 315s would be available at a pittance once the 345s took over the Shenfield job. Since the assumptions haven't panned out, the plan has had to change.

If you google 'CASR January 2017' you'll see a picture of Ken Skates with Mark Carne on the NR website at the opening of P8 last January, all smiles, taking credit for an infrastructure enhancement project that he never intends to use and wants to rip out. Along with demolishing the brand new rear entrance of Central station.

Again, an obsession with LR conversion meaning 'ripping out' all that CASR work. What do you think they would be doing? Removing all the track and starting again?

The proposed, outline planning permission depot design confirms absolutely nothing. (Please tell me you know the difference between applying for outline and full planning permission) The demolition and re-build of Taffs Well platform confirms nothing.
What is widely known, which you and the other LR enthusiasts consistently ignore, is the split of the network. So I'll say it again.
Welsh Govt want everything north of Queen St for a tram network. Not a tram-train network.

I do know there are different sorts of planning permission. What I can tell you is that depots have to be designed around the sort of rolling stock that will be used. The plans they've submitted are entirely 100% based around 50m long LR stock. Any change would necessitate almost complete redesign of the depot, since it's all on a very constrained site. There's little point applying for outline planning approval if there's a chance the whole thing would need to be redone, or even moved entirely.

Again, you're saying that any infrastructure split must necessarily result in an operational split. Sure, the Welsh Government want control of the infrastructure north of Queen Street. Does that preclude the idea of through running onto NR tracks? No.

If the Welsh Government were planning to split the network operationally, they would have little reason not to go about the W&B franchise in an entirely normal way. If an operational split were guaranteed, they would be able to guarantee bidders for W&B that they would need to run the services to Penarth and Barry and Radyr. Why haven't they done this? Is it all a massive secret conspiracy?

Network Rail are keeping everything else for a no enhancements planned, HR network. I posted NR's strategic plan for CP6 here a few pages back. No enhancements anywhere in Wales in CP6 are planned.

I'm tearing my hair out when reading the LR enthusiasts posts now. NO enhancements for the VoG line to Barry and nothing for Penarth in phase 2 are included. It's DMUs for the foreseeable future. There will be no futuristic, fantasy cross-city tram-train running. No wires of any sort are going up beyond Central out to the west.

Ah yes, I understand. The Welsh Government are going to go about their procurement process in absolute secrecy but then NR will spill all the beans in their reports. This is a nonsense. From my reading of these documents, NR (or the people responsible for this document) know little more than we do. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable for them to act on the assumption that only things that have been guaranteed to happen will occur. Until then, anything else would be speculative. NR isn't going to start talking about having 750V DC strung up to Penarth, Barry Island and Radyr until such a thing is officially confirmed. This really isn't that strange.

Please can our resident LR heads explain to me how on earth you terminate at least 24 trams per hour in Queen St? How you increase frequency out to the VoG and City line terminating it all at Central? How you justify effectively mothballing the recently re-signalled and upgraded Queen St - Central HR link and making people walk between the two stations?

Because you don't. You keep the connection and LR trains continue running to Central, and onto the other parts of the Cardiff rail network.

You know, if all the truth comes out and you were right all along, you can rub it in my face all you like. I'm not defending the system you're criticising. I'm saying the likelihood that this outcome would happen is rather smaller than you seem to think.

Retained or extended? Which is it? If something is being retained, it probably costs less than demolishing it, so I suspect that would be your answer, thought in your world view I suppose spare platforms ahould be dismantled to save the colossal costs of maintaining them.

If you look at the plans, you'll see that the northbound platform is being half rebuilt. Right now the platforms at Taffs Well are staggered but they'll end up totally aligned. The bit of the northbound platform that is already aligned is long enough for a 50m train. A totally new 50m section will be built to the north to keep the length when the southernmost 50m is demolished. That's what I mean by 'retention' - I simply assumed you had looked at the documents and understood what I was on about. Clearly there's little point demolishing excess platform length if trains do get shorter.

The best indication we have so far is a mao showing phase 2. The 'Core' lines remain as per phase 1. The other lines, the ones which currently see the cross-Cardiff services which peopleactually use, see only some unspecified form of enhancement. None of the extensions whoch you seem to think will flow from lightrailification are visible.

In my view, this is simply because they can't yet commit to those changes happening. They're working - in secret - with the SWM and W&B franchise bidders to get them worked out. They've produced maps to the effect of the minimum case, not the maximum. It looks like they're depending on the bidders to suggest tram-train technology and through running rather than mandating it themselves.

I know you don't like engaging with evidence which contradicts your obsessive dedication to LR, but try occasionally, it might make the discussion more interesting.

I don't have an obsessive dedication to LR. I can simply see that in cases like this it presents lots of exciting opportunities. There are plenty of places where LR isn't the answer.

Now you're just being silly. How about joining and dividing 3 or 4 car EMUs as necessary, in accordance with current and future Merseyrail practice? There aren't 10 services an hour on the Metrolink branches at 9 pm on a Saturday, so why would there be on an HR line?

Does Merseyrail magically provide enough capacity all the time? No. HR networks do not find it easier to provide capacity at the moments it's required, because the realistic capacity is set by everyday levels of demand and provision. LR makes it a lot easier to have a high capability even at times of low demand.

8 minutes. In the open air. On 1 of 3 seats at the stop. Luckily a. It wasn't raining, for once in Manchester b. the half dozen other people waiting for the same length of time allowed me to sit (probably a by-product of how old I am starting to look). I boarded the tram at Victoria, and followed the journey planner's advice to change at Trafford Bar. I wasn't hanging around a glorified bus stop, without even a shelter, for the good of my health.

Now I am a captive customer, because I can't drive. If I did, I would have driven from Liverpool to Altrincham rather than pay good money to take 45 mnutes, including change and sitting on that platform, to travel avout 8 miles after leaving the EMU which had carried me over 30 miles in the same time.

This is what you don't seem to get. If public transport is provided at the lowest possible standard, people (outside the London commuter peaks) will vote with their feet and use private transport. This is what existing and prospective passengers think about, not cutting running costs to the bare minimum (and then paying more than for the equivalent HR journeys), non-existent expansion programmes, or land value taxes which are unlikely ever to be implemented, and which have no relevance whatsoever to present-day public transport issues.

Oh no. 8 minutes! That's just terrible! I mean, no one ever waits outside for 8 minutes at a bus stop, or at any reasonably modern low-ish-demand HR station. You know what would have been worse? Waiting for 15 minutes, on a line with a maximum 4tph service. HR doesn't mean plush waiting rooms.

Here's a fascinating little fact for you: the annual usage of the Altrincham and Bury lines pre-conversion was 7.5 million, but by 1994 Metrolink was carrying up to 14 million. If the imposition of Metrolink and LR upon the good people of Manchester had turned people away from public transport, then I don't think we would have seen that. Clearly for normal people all that low-quality LR is actually very appealing.

It is absolutely amazing that a topic like this could attract such total, blind fanaticism. Makes me wonder hoe often some of the people concerned use public transport, and whether they live within 100 miles of the networks they eulogise.

I don't have a car and I am totally dependent on public transport.

 

[Dai Corner]

I don't have a car and I am totally dependent on public transport.

That might explain why you didn't appear to understand that a reasonably comfortable travelling environment with a seat for all but the shortest journeys is the expectation in South Wales. People who have the option will drive if they don't get that.