South Wales 'Metro' updates

[iantherev]

It's like taking a toddler out:

Do you need to go to the toilet?
No.
Are you sure?
Yes.
Can you just try, just in case?

Or as my mother used to say - have a squeeze!

 

[krus_aragon]

From what I can see, the only area that gets very little is Bridgend-Maesteg

I think you're right within the Metro area. There are some unmentioned areas elsewhere in the franchise area, but that's for another thread.

 

[MarkyT]

Combining this with the new stations at "Loudoun Square" and "The Flourish", I anticipate a new station on the current alignment half way along Bute Road, and then a street-running extension beyond the current Cardiff Bay station toward the Flourish.

I doubt it will actually share traffic lanes although it may cross them on the level. The main thing is as 'segregated tramway' it will not require fully fencing off from pedestrians, and may have tighter curves and possibly steeper gradients where expedient.

 

[CardiffKid]

It won't be done to Metro standards (ie not a tram), but it will be part of the metro. It's on the map, but I would guess that it'll be done with the "South Wales DMU" that will be part of the new build.

If there are to be six trains an hour to Cardiff Bay/The Flourish does this mean two trains an hour to/from Treherbert, Aberdare and Merthyr? (With the other 2tph from those three rail heads going to Cardiff Central)


If so that presumably means the end for platform 1 at Queen Street?

 

[krus_aragon]

I doubt it will actually share traffic lanes although it may cross them on the level. The main thing is as 'segregated tramway' it will not require fully fencing off from pedestrians, and may have tighter curves and possibly steeper gradients where expedient.

Agreed: Crossing Hemmingway Road (south of the current station) on the level there's space to the west of Lloyd George Avenue to reach down to the Flourish, especially if you're willing to relocate the current bus/coach stops there.

 

[krus_aragon]

If there are to be six trains an hour to Cardiff Bay/The Flourish does this mean two trains an hour to/from Treherbert, Aberdare and Merthyr? (With the other 2tph from those three rail heads going to Cardiff Central)

As I read it, 6 to the Bay (presumably 3 form each railhead), with the other 6 looping round the Coryton loop and heading back up North.

The numbers don't quite add up on that map. North of Queen Street toward Crwys Road you've got 2tph to Coryton and 6 to Caerphilly, total: 8. South of Cardiff Central toward Grangetown you've got 4tph Penarth, 3tph Barry Island and 3 tph Rhoose and Bridgend, total 9. Okay, there could be one terminator at Central. But when you add in the 6tph from the Valleys to the Flourish (or the other 6tph that go through Queen St and head back North) I can't see how they get a figure of 18tph at Queen Street unless they've dropped the Coryton services!

 

[CardiffKid]

Agreed: Crossing Hemmingway Road (south of the current station) on the level there's space to the west of Lloyd George Avenue to reach down to the Flourish, especially if you're willing to relocate the current bus/coach stops there.

You could re-design the junction.

Close the east west bit of Bute Street immediately south of the Station and make Bute Street two way. Then tweek the road layout at the bottom of Lloyd George Avenue/The Florish. As Krus said you'd just need to find a new home for the coach parking.

Green is rail, yellow is road.

 

[krus_aragon]

You could re-design the junction.

Close the east west bit of Bute Street immediately south of the Station and make Bute Street two way. Then tweek the road layout at the bottom of Lloyd George Avenue/The Florish. As Krus said you'd just need to find a new home for the coach parking.

Green is rail, yellow is road.

Good thinking, but I think that takes it a bit too far, as some street running is required. Quoting from Ken Skates' forthcoming speech:

To ensure all bidders offered a future–proof solution from the outset, the contract requires a short section of on-street running in Cardiff Bay

 

[CardiffKid]

Good thinking, but I think that takes it a bit too far, as some street running is required. Quoting from Ken Skates' forthcoming speech:

Mixing pedestrians, cyclists, cars and tram-trains, what could possibly go wrong.

 

[CapitalStar378]

The VoG line frequency enhancement in 2023 is very unhelpful to the WG's aspirations for Cardiff Airport. Seems strange that TfW/WG haven't specified an earlier improvement, especially as everything is in place as mentioned in a previous post.

An hourly train service is completely unsuitable to an airport and is not going to encourage a take up of public transport or help to increase the passenger numbers. All very odd when you consider who owns the airport!

 

[MarkyT]

Mixing pedestrians, cyclists, cars and tram-trains, what could possibly go wrong.

Having an on street tramway section doesn't mean corralling all these vehicles and users into exactly the same space, it just means the very rigid barriers between them are not required as necessary today for 'heavy rail'. We don't have impenetrable barriers between say cyclists and HGVs, but a bit of good road design with separate lanes and properly designed junctions and crossings can protect the more vulnerable road user.

 

[CardiffKid]

, but a bit of good road design with separate lanes and properly designed junctions and crossings can protect the more vulnerable road user.

That assumes that every driver, cyclist and pedestrian will a) know what to do and b) do as they're told.

I assume these plans will mean a redesign of The Flourish and hope that there is no crossover between road and rail. A level crossing in the country side is one thing, creating a brand new one in a busy area with six trains coming in and six trains going out an hour would be madness.

 

[krus_aragon]

That assumes that every driver, cyclist and pedestrian will a) know what to do and b) do as they're told.

I assume these plans will mean a redesign of The Flourish and hope that there is no crossover between road and rail. A level crossing in the country side is one thing, creating a brand new one in a busy area with six trains coming in and six trains going out an hour would be madness.

But Ken Skates say there will be "a short section of on-street running in Cardiff Bay", which will be seeing 6tph. It seems he disagrees with you.

 

[gareth950]

As I read it, 6 to the Bay (presumably 3 form each railhead), with the other 6 looping round the Coryton loop and heading back up North.

The numbers don't quite add up on that map. North of Queen Street toward Crwys Road you've got 2tph to Coryton and 6 to Caerphilly, total: 8. South of Cardiff Central toward Grangetown you've got 4tph Penarth, 3tph Barry Island and 3 tph Rhoose and Bridgend, total 9. Okay, there could be one terminator at Central. But when you add in the 6tph from the Valleys to the Flourish (or the other 6tph that go through Queen St and head back North) I can't see how they get a figure of 18tph at Queen Street unless they've dropped the Coryton services!

You could have 2tph from Pontypridd going via the City line into Cardiff Central rather than through Queen St, then you've got 18tph through Queen St. This would mean longer journeys on these services but it would save the need for a Central - Radyr via City line shuttle.
From reading a BBC article, it seems that all Barry, Penarth & VoG services will be sent to Coryton & Rhymney, so when VoG does get another tph, that will have to terminate at Central or maybe be sent up to Ebbw Vale.
I think through running between Barry - Radyr - Pontypridd will end. But who knows, we're all trying to decipher so much info and separate the detail from the spin.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-44355934

 

[MarkyT]

That assumes that every driver, cyclist and pedestrian will a) know what to do and b) do as they're told.

I assume these plans will mean a redesign of The Flourish and hope that there is no crossover between road and rail. A level crossing in the country side is one thing, creating a brand new one in a busy area with six trains coming in and six trains going out an hour would be madness.

Assuming a crossing is required, it would be equivalent to a road junction and as far as the tram-trains are concerned operated on sight or 'locally monitored' I guess with road vehicles brought to a stand by conventional traffic lights rather than wig wags and barriers, and I would expect road lanes and junctions in this busy area to be extensively redesigned as neccessary with slip lanes etc to prevent block backs while waiting for trams to cross. I would also expect road closed time would be comparatively short compared to any typical heavy rail crossings too. Whether or not vehicle crossings are proposed I am certain there will be pedestrian crossings on the level. I tend to agree that where possible road crossings should be avoided, or that the layout is redesigned so that only minor low traffic access roads need to cross the rails. Failing that, signal prioritisation must ensure that any road congestion cannot lead to rail delays.

 

[Envoy]

Surely, to reach ‘The Florish’ (fountains at southern end of Lloyd George Avenue) - you can simply extend the Cardiff Bay line southwards through the grassy area and not encroach on any roads - apart from crossing the one by the old station?

The City Line (west section) is marked as being down for tram conversion. Can I take it that such trams or tram-trains will be allowed to enter the Central station from the west using the present lines?

 

[krus_aragon]

Surely, to reach ‘The Florish’ (fountains at southern end of Lloyd George Avenue) - you can simply extend the Cardiff Bay line southwards through the grassy area and not encroach on any roads - apart from crossing the one by the old station?

The City Line (west section) is marked as being down for tram conversion. Can I take it that such trams or tram-trains will be allowed to enter the Central station from the west using the present lines?

That's how I read it. (On both counts.)

Tram-trains must meet train standards for running on train infrastructure: it's mainly on the tram-style infrastructure that you'll see the savings.

 

[krus_aragon]

You could have 2tph from Pontypridd going via the City line into Cardiff Central rather than through Queen St, then you've got 18tph through Queen St.

Aha, a reason to reopen (bay) platform 5 at Central! :P

In all seriousness, that's a reasonable interpretation, given that there are already some "fast" services that run non-stop down the City line to get to Central.

 

[MarkyT]

I'd expect something like this with the new rail terminal placed in the green strip alongside the coach bays:

 

[krus_aragon]

I'd expect something like this with the new rail terminal placed in the green strip alongside the coach bays:

That matches my thoughts.

 

[MarkyT]

The City Line (west section) is marked as being down for tram conversion. Can I take it that such trams or tram-trains will be allowed to enter the Central station from the west using the present lines?

Being tram-trains I see no reason to prevent that. The only question mark is what electrification system if any is to be used for this section.

 

[gareth950]

The City Line (west section) is marked as being down for tram conversion. Can I take it that such trams or tram-trains will be allowed to enter the Central station from the west using the present lines?

That's how I read it. (On both counts.)

Tram-trains must meet train standards for running on train infrastructure: it's mainly on the tram-style infrastructure that you'll see the savings.

I don't think we will see any widespread 'tram conversion' of the Valley lines, because as I quoted from Ken Skates statement today:

"The Metro Vehicles will use a technology often referred to as Tram-Train. They will operate under Heavy Rail regulations on conventional railway, but will be capable of use in Light Rail (or Tram) mode for extendibility."

Which suggests that these tram-train Metro vehicles will be running to the exact same regulations on lines via Pontypridd as 150s and Pacers do now, using HR signalling. Which asks the Q why are they bothering with tram-trains on these lines? There's no mention of any LR extensions up the Valleys in today's announcements. The only street running section is in the Bay. Essentially you have tram-trains on these lines 'just in case' there are any on-street extensions in the Valleys in the distant future (maybe in the next post 2033 franchise!)
The only infrastructure differences I think we'll see between the lines via Pontypridd and Caerphilly, is 25 Kv AC for Caerphilly lines and 750v DC for Pontypridd lines.

 

[Lee Smith]

Yes the last diagram above looks like the most obvious route to allow the station to move closer to the Senedd.

The bigger issue to solve is how people get from Cardiff Central to Cardiff Bay as the current route only runs from Queen Street!

Also I think it would be a good idea to remove the whole 'raised' line which segregates Bute Street from Lloyd George Avenue and lower it to street level to help create a more cohesive ONE Cardiff Bay - no more old vs new bay!

Good things could happen on the back of all this but I fear the money will not be spent on improving things enough.

 

[B&I]

I don't think we will see any widespread 'tram conversion' of the Valley lines, because as I quoted from Ken Skates statement today:

"The Metro Vehicles will use a technology often referred to as Tram-Train. They will operate under Heavy Rail regulations on conventional railway, but will be capable of use in Light Rail (or Tram) mode for extendibility."

Which suggests that these tram-train Metro vehicles will be running to the exact same regulations on lines via Pontypridd as 150s and Pacers do now, using HR signalling. Which asks the Q why are they bothering with tram-trains on these lines? There's no mention of any LR extensions up the Valleys in today's announcements. The only street running section is in the Bay. Essentially you have tram-trains on these lines 'just in case' there are any on-street extensions in the Valleys in the distant future (maybe in the next post 2033 franchise!)
The only infrastructure differences I think we'll see between the lines via Pontypridd and Caerphilly, is 25 Kv AC for Caerphilly lines and 750v DC for Pontypridd lines.

If what you say is correct, it sounds like costs will not be much lower from using tram trains compared to conventional HR. The only saving will be 750 v DC electrification compared to 25 kv AC. What has the light-rail-at-all-costs brigade got to say about that ?

If it's going to be light rail to the Bay, why not use this added flexibility to have another stop around Callaghan Square for easier transfer from non-Queen Street services at Central (and better access to the metro from the southern part of the city centre, without having to walk to Queen Street) ? And what about an eventual extension of the line from the Bay over that causeway thing to Penarth ?

 

[MarkyT]

...Which asks the Q why are they bothering with tram-trains on these lines? There's no mention of any LR extensions up the Valleys in today's announcements.

The 4tph to Merthyr, Treherbert and Aberdare will require some additional infrastructure. Some double track or passing loops. At least on the Merthyr and Treherbert these could be engineered using light rail techniques with accessible second platform access via pedestrian level crossing rather than expensive and unsightly ramp or lift equipped footbridges.

The technical feasibility of future extensions has the potential to create the will to achieve them even though non are formally planned in any way at the moment. When they are envisaged, the technical feasibility will not automatically rule them out as impossibly expensive and they can be fairly assessed on their BCRs and the willingness of developers to fund them. Get your crayons out boys (and girls)!

The only infrastructure differences I think we'll see between the lines via Pontypridd and Caerphilly, is 25 Kv AC for Caerphilly lines and 750v DC for Pontypridd lines.

I don't know about 25kV for the Rhymney. The trimode term could mean diesel/battery/750v capability rather than (or as well as) AC. With Metro coming from Radyr on the City Line it could be the Valleys line platforms at Central are exclusively DC. which solves any compatibility between there and Queen St as well (assuming the Metro tram trains are not AC/DC). I wouldn't want to have to rely on batteries through this critical section, where maximum assured performance is required. It could be the so called trimodes are in fact also AC compatible which would make them useful for main line services towards Newport and beyond as well. For an AC capable 'bi/tri-mode' DC capability is fairly trivial as modern traction control systems universally run natively at the lower DC voltage anyway with a big transformer rectifier to down convert from the higher line voltage. The complex waveforms for driving the motors are then generated from that base DC supply. So what I'm suggesting is the so called trimodes may actually be a fairly large fleet of very flexible multisystem bimodes with additional batteries that could 'coast' them through power changes under moderate power without starting engines while also being able to run under diesel outside urban areas for longer unwired segments.

 

[Envoy]

I wonder what if anything is going to be done regarding the building of a line off the City Line at Fairwater, to serve all the new housing developments such as Plasdwr and north of J33 up to Cregiau? No mention of that as far as I am aware - which means additional traffic through Fairwater, Llandaff etc.. Also, no mention of a new station by the new Ely Mill development despite Ken saying last autumn that it was high priority. Mention has been made of a new station at Miskin on the main line. Presumably this will have a free car park and induce many car drivers from Llantrisant / Beddau to take the fast train into Central. No point then in a P&R bus based system at J33 (Cardiff West)?

It is highly regrettable that it is not the intention to put 2 trains per hour on the line through Rhoose & Llantwit Major until 2013. I would have thought that this should have been the number 1 priority as soon as stock was available. It could even have saved some money by not having to pay for all those buses that keep running to & from the city centre to the Airport. I wonder if it would be a good idea to send the Cheltenham to Maesteg stoppers to Bridgend via Rhoose so as to make it be more of an inducement for people in the Cheltenham / Gloucester area to consider Cardiff as a choice for air travel? (It would also boost Barry/Llantwit Major as a seaside day trip for these people). Maesteg could be served by a twice hourly service to Ebbw Vale thus serving stops on the main line between Cardiff & Bridgend. (Can’t think why people in Gloucester/Cheltenham would want to go to the Maesteg valley but Rhoose & Barry - maybe)?

 

[gareth950]

I don't know about 25kV for the Rhymney. The trimode term could mean diesel/battery/750v capability rather than (or as well as) AC. With Metro coming from Radyr on the City Line it could be the Valleys line platforms at Central are exclusively DC. which solves any compatibility between there and Queen St as well (assuming the Metro tram trains are not AC/DC). .

From Ken Skates' statement today:

"The tri-modes trains will bring together three well proven technologies – diesel, batteries and 25kV electric traction (from renewable energy sources) – and builds on well-established bi-mode trains."

https://gov.wales/about/cabinet/cabinetstatements/2018/railservicesupdate/?lang=en

 

[krus_aragon]

If what you say is correct, it sounds like costs will not be much lower from using tram trains compared to conventional HR. The only saving will be 750 v DC electrification compared to 25 kv AC. What has the light-rail-at-all-costs brigade got to say about that ?

If it's going to be light rail to the Bay, why not use this added flexibility to have another stop around Callaghan Square for easier transfer from non-Queen Street services at Central (and better access to the metro from the southern part of the city centre, without having to walk to Queen Street) ? And what about an eventual extension of the line from the Bay over that causeway thing to Penarth ?

The Metro services from Pontypridd etc. that don't go to the Bay appear to go through both Central and Queen Street before returning north, so there's no need to walk to Queen St.

As for extending light-rail in the Bay over the barrage toward Penarth: fine, but then you have to follow the shore back to Cogan or go up the steep incline that is Paget Road to get to Penarth. (Granted, a tram could do a better job of such a hill than a regular train.)

 

[mallard]

I'd expect something like this with the new rail terminal placed in the green strip alongside the coach bays:
View attachment 47830

And that location does seem to match this rendering from the BBC article:

 

[MarkyT]

If what you say is correct, it sounds like costs will not be much lower from using tram trains compared to conventional HR. The only saving will be 750 v DC electrification compared to 25 kv AC.

Which might be considerable on an old Victorian railway in the light of difficulties experienced by many main line wiring projects.
Additional costs for making the tram-train vehicles 'street legal' are fairly low and mainly revolve around providing brake and turn signals, side skirts and fenders, extra powerful brakes (usually magnetic) and improved all round visibility from the drivers cab.

If it's going to be light rail to the Bay, why not use this added flexibility to have another stop around Callaghan Square for easier transfer from non-Queen Street services at Central (and better access to the metro from the southern part of the city centre, without having to walk to Queen Street) ? And what about an eventual extension of the line from the Bay over that causeway thing to Penarth ?

Good extension ideas for the future there, all possible with tram-train technology. I also like the interchange idea for Callaghan Square. Perhaps linked to the redeveloped south entrance at Central via a covered pedestrian walkway through new developments on the south side of the square.