Thoughts on the South West Metro including suggestions for alternative options

[Envoy]

I have been wading through the report and have some thoughts.

South East Wales Transport Commission: final recommendations | GOV.WALES

Final report on new sustainable transport options for south East Wales.

gov.wales

I note that they propose having the present relief lines converted into the express lines with the present express lines being used by the freights and stoppers. I also see a suggestion that the tram-trains (Class 398’s) would go through the Bay area (on roads presumably before reaching the ‘steelworks tracks’) and then, if eastbound, have to cross three of the main line tracks in order to reach the eastbound ‘stopper’ line (currently the fast). Surely, this is a recipe for disaster? These tram-trains will never keep to schedule if they have to go ‘wandering’ around the bay area and would thus screw up things on the main line. I think it best of they are kept off the main line - especially as they can only do 60 mph. I really do wonder if we should keep the lines as they are and just insert the stations with the reliefs having higher speeds?

I also dislike the idea of having P1 at Newport be used by express trains with the loss of the westbound central through track - as mentioned by previous poster. Let us not forget that under the present arrangement, people can get off a west bound train from say Bristol on P2 and just walk straight across the platform to a service bound for The Marches. Bring the westbound trains from Bristol (& beyond) onto P1 and everybody has to drag across the bridge.

The report mentions that all 4 tracks have a running max speed of 90 mph. I would like to have seen the express lines have higher speeds being as they are more or less in a straight line. (Not sure what they would do if Bishton flyover becomes the eastbound express line as surely that would slow things down)? I can’t understand why TfW have ordered 100 mph Stadler Flirts (Class 231) for the Cheltenham/Gloucester line to be diesel only when they will be under wires between STJ and Cardiff Central? Surely, if these are going to make extra stops at places like Magor, Newport West and Cardiff East Parkway, you would want them to have the superior acceleration of electric power?

I am pleased to see the suggestion on P67 that employment zones should be located in city centres rather than on the outskirts by motorway junctions. City centres like Cardiff and to some extent smaller towns such as Pontypridd, are at hubs of the rail system. Building places of employment at motorway junctions just jams up such junctions & is is not for the greater good of the region. The planned business parks for land at J33 should be not be built as they will just encourage those people with employment at these places to drive along the motorway. As I have said before, the plans by Cardiff Council’s LDP - as approved by a Welsh Government inspector - are going to be a disaster. This junction needs flyovers plus a possible connection with the A4119 that does not impede the main flow. Huge areas of housing are going up with the traffic being forced to use the present road network through Radyr, Groes Faen, St. Fagans, Llandaff & Fairwater. (Yes, I know about the proposed Metro line through this area but that will mainly be used for people going to the city centre - although, they could change at Fairwater for the central valleys).

P68 mentions the need for a master plan for the region rather than letting Local Authorities draw up their own LDP’s. At last, some common sense especially as we have so many local authorities in this densely populated part of Wales. The Cardiff Council LDP with business park at J33 bungs up even more the main junction serving Cardiff Airport as well as Barry and much of Cardiff. (I see that that yet another low cost airline is now setting up at Bristol Airpot = Jet2. The fact that the M4 is jammed at Newport and the refusal to build a new motorway is surely another reason for their being a reluctance to operate out of Cardiff)?

Much of the traffic on the M4 in the Newport area is going to/from Bristol. When things get back to normal, I think that GWR should be encouraged to have some promotion of their improved services on this corridor. We have the electric IET’s running along the mainline - often at 30 minute intervals but what many people don't realise is the improvements to/from Bristol Temple Meads now that HST ‘Castle Class’ trains with 4 coaches have replaced the shorter clapped out non air conditioned Sprinter trains. Likewise, Class 165/6’s often in 5 car formations are now providing more seats on those services that go on to Bath and Southampton and Portsmouth. Not exactly a step up from the 158’s with non working air conditioning plus the fact that the former have much 5 across seating. These GWR services are something that the Welsh Government need to look at and not be just concentrating on TfW. What GWR clearly need is a new fleet for all of their non London routes - possibly bi-modes to take advantage of the wires between Cardiff & Bath. Fares are another issue on this route. Cardiff to Swansea day return = £12.50 peak or £10 off peak. Similar distance Cardiff to Bristol = £19.50 peak or £14.30 off peak. Both being a similar distance. So, high fares on the Bristol services are bound to be an incentive to use the car. Anybody who has used the trains on this route previously is likely to have had a bad experience with over crowding.

I note that the report mentions that Newport west should have limited parking to discourage car use in favour of local buses. All well and good but will it work? I think that if a resident of Newport west wishes to travel say to Cardiff and has to first walk to a bus stop, wait for the bus and then switch to a train and then do the whole thing in reverse, that they will just say “blow that, we’ll just drive straight to Cardiff". If on the other hand, they can just jump in the car, drive the short distance to the station and have free parking without all the faff with those horrible parking machines where you have tiny buttons to insert your number plate, then they will be more likely to use the train. So, I would suggest that these new stations have plenty of free parking.

It is regrettable that no mention is made of having a way of leaving the M4 by the former toll booths in order to go into a free car park at STJ. However, I am pleased to see that they suggest a link from the M48.

 

[anthony263]

I have been wading through the report and have some thoughts.

South East Wales Transport Commission: final recommendations | GOV.WALES

Final report on new sustainable transport options for south East Wales.

gov.wales

I note that they propose having the present relief lines converted into the express lines with the present express lines being used by the freights and stoppers. I also see a suggestion that the tram-trains (Class 398’s) would go through the Bay area (on roads presumably before reaching the ‘steelworks tracks’) and then, if eastbound, have to cross three of the main line tracks in order to reach the eastbound ‘stopper’ line (currently the fast). Surely, this is a recipe for disaster? These tram-trains will never keep to schedule if they have to go ‘wandering’ around the bay area and would thus screw up things on the main line. I think it best of they are kept off the main line - especially as they can only do 60 mph. I really do wonder if we should keep the lines as they are and just insert the stations with the reliefs having higher speeds?

I also dislike the idea of having P1 at Newport be used by express trains with the loss of the westbound central through track - as mentioned by previous poster. Let us not forget that under the present arrangement, people can get off a west bound train from say Bristol on P2 and just walk straight across the platform to a service bound for The Marches. Bring the westbound trains from Bristol (& beyond) onto P1 and everybody has to drag across the bridge.

The report mentions that all 4 tracks have a running max speed of 90 mph. I would like to have seen the express lines have higher speeds being as they are more or less in a straight line. (Not sure what they would do if Bishton flyover becomes the eastbound express line as surely that would slow things down)? I can’t understand why TfW have ordered 100 mph Stadler Flirts (Class 231) for the Cheltenham/Gloucester line to be diesel only when they will be under wires between STJ and Cardiff Central? Surely, if these are going to make extra stops at places like Magor, Newport West and Cardiff East Parkway, you would want them to have the superior acceleration of electric power?

I am pleased to see the suggestion on P67 that employment zones should be located in city centres rather than on the outskirts by motorway junctions. City centres like Cardiff and to some extent smaller towns such as Pontypridd, are at hubs of the rail system. Building places of employment at motorway junctions just jams up such junctions & is is not for the greater good of the region. The planned business parks for land at J33 should be not be built as they will just encourage those people with employment at these places to drive along the motorway. As I have said before, the plans by Cardiff Council’s LDP - as approved by a Welsh Government inspector - are going to be a disaster. This junction needs flyovers plus a possible connection with the A4119 that does not impede the main flow. Huge areas of housing are going up with the traffic being forced to use the present road network through Radyr, Groes Faen, St. Fagans, Llandaff & Fairwater. (Yes, I know about the proposed Metro line through this area but that will mainly be used for people going to the city centre - although, they could change at Fairwater for the central valleys).

P68 mentions the need for a master plan for the region rather than letting Local Authorities draw up their own LDP’s. At last, some common sense especially as we have so many local authorities in this densely populated part of Wales. The Cardiff Council LDP with business park at J33 bungs up even more the main junction serving Cardiff Airport as well as Barry and much of Cardiff. (I see that that yet another low cost airline is now setting up at Bristol Airpot = Jet2. The fact that the M4 is jammed at Newport and the refusal to build a new motorway is surely another reason for their being a reluctance to operate out of Cardiff)?

Much of the traffic on the M4 in the Newport area is going to/from Bristol. When things get back to normal, I think that GWR should be encouraged to have some promotion of their improved services on this corridor. We have the electric IET’s running along the mainline - often at 30 minute intervals but what many people don't realise is the improvements to/from Bristol Temple Meads now that HST ‘Castle Class’ trains with 4 coaches have replaced the shorter clapped out non air conditioned Sprinter trains. Likewise, Class 165/6’s often in 5 car formations are now providing more seats on those services that go on to Bath and Southampton and Portsmouth. Not exactly a step up from the 158’s with non working air conditioning plus the fact that the former have much 5 across seating. These GWR services are something that the Welsh Government need to look at and not be just concentrating on TfW. What GWR clearly need is a new fleet for all of their non London routes - possibly bi-modes to take advantage of the wires between Cardiff & Bath. Fares are another issue on this route. Cardiff to Swansea day return = £12.50 peak or £10 off peak. Similar distance Cardiff to Bristol = £19.50 peak or £14.30 off peak. Both being a similar distance. So, high fares on the Bristol services are bound to be an incentive to use the car. Anybody who has used the trains on this route previously is likely to have had a bad experience with over crowding.

I note that the report mentions that Newport west should have limited parking to discourage car use in favour of local buses. All well and good but will it work? I think that if a resident of Newport west wishes to travel say to Cardiff and has to first walk to a bus stop, wait for the bus and then switch to a train and then do the whole thing in reverse, that they will just say “blow that, we’ll just drive straight to Cardiff". If on the other hand, they can just jump in the car, drive the short distance to the station and have free parking without all the faff with those horrible parking machines where you have tiny buttons to insert your number plate, then they will be more likely to use the train. So, I would suggest that these new stations have plenty of free parking.

It is regrettable that no mention is made of having a way of leaving the M4 by the former toll booths in order to go into a free car park at STJ. However, I am pleased to see that they suggest a link from the M48.

You'll probably find some motorists getting off the m4 and onto the M48 in order to use the car park at STJ.

I think the class 231 flirts can be fitted with a pantograph when required and providing these 769s prove their worth I can see them being kept by tfw too.

 

[edwin_m]

I note that they propose having the present relief lines converted into the express lines with the present express lines being used by the freights and stoppers. I also see a suggestion that the tram-trains (Class 398’s) would go through the Bay area (on roads presumably before reaching the ‘steelworks tracks’) and then, if eastbound, have to cross three of the main line tracks in order to reach the eastbound ‘stopper’ line (currently the fast). Surely, this is a recipe for disaster? These tram-trains will never keep to schedule if they have to go ‘wandering’ around the bay area and would thus screw up things on the main line. I think it best of they are kept off the main line - especially as they can only do 60 mph. I really do wonder if we should keep the lines as they are and just insert the stations with the reliefs having higher speeds?

It would indeed be a bad idea for a tram-train to run with general traffic and risk missing its path on joining the railway. Is there not scope to create an off-street (but off-rail) route through the Bay area? Or even shared tram and bus lanes on the existing roads?

 

[Envoy]

It would indeed be a bad idea for a tram-train to run with general traffic and risk missing its path on joining the railway. Is there not scope to create an off-street (but off-rail) route through the Bay area? Or even shared tram and bus lanes on the existing roads?

I think that to get from the south west side of Cardiff Central to the present Bay Line, that some way of getting over Callaghan Square - avoiding the roads, should be found.
The present plan involves removing the embankment on which the Bay branch is set and making it one track each way more or less at street level - which should work. The present connection via bridges to Queen Street station will remain. The plan is to close the present Bay station and extend the line south by a short distance would involve crossing a road. The problems arise from here on if they wish to continue towards the industrial area to the east and then reach the residential district known as Splott - through which off street lines serving a mill exist and eventually join the mainline. By doing this, it might not be for the greater good of the network as you could lose the ability to keep everything running to schedule. It would be the upper valleys - where trains need to pass at passing loops at precise times which would suffer the most if things go wrong in Cardiff. I as I said before, I can’t see these tram-trains being able to go onto the main slow lines towards Newport either without making a hash of things for the proposed stoppers interspersed with the freights.

Here is the Google Map view of the south Cardiff area (with live traffic enabled). Pull on the yellow man and have a look around on street view.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.co.uk

 

[edwin_m]

Here is the Google Map view of the south Cardiff area (with live traffic enabled). Pull on the yellow man and have a look around on street view.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.co.uk

I'd suggest:

• Delta Junction with the Flourish line at the junction of Bute Place and Lloyd George Avenue.
• New route swings east to follow the green area between Dragon Centre and where the A4232 emerges from tunnel.
• Switch to the central reservation when it gets to grade, through the middle of Queens Gate roundabout.
• Switch to north side running where there are freight lines that could probably be adapted to tram-train operation all the way to the main line.

 

[Envoy]

I'd suggest:

• Delta Junction with the Flourish line at the junction of Bute Place and Lloyd George Avenue.
• New route swings east to follow the green area between Dragon Centre and where the A4232 emerges from tunnel.
• Switch to the central reservation when it gets to grade, through the middle of Queens Gate roundabout.
• Switch to north side running where there are freight lines that could probably be adapted to tram-train operation all the way to the main line.

It looks like the Dragon Centre might be demolished to make way for a new arena/conference centre - which might also go on the site of County Hall. The middle of the Queens Gate roundabout has been left bare because it was set-aside for a flyover for the expressway. The current Labour administration obviously decided not to stump up the money for the flyover and have only extended the expressway by about 1 mile eastward. (It should have been completed all the way to link up with the Rumney flyover and hence the A48 Eastern Avenue).

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

It looks like the Dragon Centre might be demolished to make way for a new arena/conference centre - which might also go on the site of County Hall. The middle of the Queens Gate roundabout has been left bare because it was set-aside for a flyover for the expressway. The current Labour administration obviously decided not to stump up the money for the flyover and have only extended the expressway by about 1 mile eastward. (It should have been completed all the way to link up with the Rumney flyover and hence the A48 Eastern Avenue).

Just for info, the expressway extention was what's known as a 'political road'. It was built as part of a deal between Welsh Labour and the Liberal Democrats to get the Welsh Governement's budget through the Senedd rather than as part of a coherent transport plan.

It's the same reasoning that means that the Carmarthen-Aberystwyth rail reopening never quite goes away. Plaid keep demanding yet more studies as a price for their support in key votes.

 

[edwin_m]

It looks like the Dragon Centre might be demolished to make way for a new arena/conference centre - which might also go on the site of County Hall. The middle of the Queens Gate roundabout has been left bare because it was set-aside for a flyover for the expressway. The current Labour administration obviously decided not to stump up the money for the flyover and have only extended the expressway by about 1 mile eastward. (It should have been completed all the way to link up with the Rumney flyover and hence the A48 Eastern Avenue).

So there is scope to include a tram line in the new development and in place of a flyover that's no longer needed?

 

[Envoy]

Just for info, the expressway extention was what's known as a 'political road'. It was built as part of a deal between Welsh Labour and the Liberal Democrats to get the Welsh Governement's budget through the Senedd rather than as part of a coherent transport plan.

Nope - It was always intended to have the A4232 expressway go all the way eastward to the Rumney flyover and hence Eastern Avenue. By doing this, much traffic would be removed from Newport Road and Splott with the new road of course being on much of the route of Rover Way. This would have for example have allowed the citizens of Penarth to have faster road access to/from the M4 east rather than either having to go all the way west in the wrong direction to J33 or traverse the congested streets of Cardiff. Needless to say, it would also have benefited the Bay area and Butetown/ Grangetown. The plain fact is that the anti road Labour Welsh Government have done nothing about completing this expressway. So, the 1 mile extension to which you refer was indeed part of a coherent transport plan.

Here is the proof that what I am saying is true:> https://cardiff.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s13772/CAB 15 Dec 2016 - EBL.pdf

1. South Glamorgan County Council granted planning permission for the Eastern Bay Link in 1994 (28 July 1994). The scheme was described as a dual 7.3m carriageway with a minimum design speed of 70kph between the end of the Butetown Link and the nose of the southern slip roads of the Lamby Way/Rover Way junction and 60kph from this point to Southern Way to match the alignment of the existing East Moors viaduct.

 

[Dai Corner]

Nope - It was always intended to have the A4232 expressway go all the way eastward to the Rumney flyover and hence Eastern Avenue. By doing this, much traffic would be removed from Newport Road and Splott with the new road of course being on much of the route of Rover Way. This would have for example have allowed the citizens of Penarth to have faster road access to/from the M4 east rather than either having to go all the way west in the wrong direction to J33 or traverse the congested streets of Cardiff. Needless to say, it would also have benefited the Bay area and Butetown/ Grangetown. The plain fact is that the anti road Labour Welsh Government have done nothing about completing this expressway. So, the 1 mile extension to which you refer was indeed part of a coherent transport plan.

Here is the proof that what I am saying is true:> https://cardiff.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s13772/CAB 15 Dec 2016 - EBL.pdf

Despite the congested Rover Way bit, Google Maps does recommend a route via the A4232 for a Newport-Penarth journey. Building the missing link shouldn't be controversial from an environmental point of view as it would be through an industrial area.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Nope - It was always intended to have the A4232 expressway go all the way eastward to the Rumney flyover and hence Eastern Avenue. By doing this, much traffic would be removed from Newport Road and Splott with the new road of course being on much of the route of Rover Way. This would have for example have allowed the citizens of Penarth to have faster road access to/from the M4 east rather than either having to go all the way west in the wrong direction to J33 or traverse the congested streets of Cardiff. Needless to say, it would also have benefited the Bay area and Butetown/ Grangetown. The plain fact is that the anti road Labour Welsh Government have done nothing about completing this expressway. So, the 1 mile extension to which you refer was indeed part of a coherent transport plan.

Here is the proof that what I am saying is true:> https://cardiff.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s13772/CAB 15 Dec 2016 - EBL.pdf

You're misunderstanding my point, possibly deliberately.

Of course, there has always been a plan to complete the A4232. I didn't say there wasn't.

The point I was making was that the section between the Queensgate roundabout and Ocean Way wasn't built as a part of a coherent attempt to complete the loop, but as a sop to the Lib Dems. Hence no flyover and a design that actually makes it difficult to incorporate a flyover in the future.

Your tendency to disagree with anything anyone says on this board is a bit tedious but here's a link to prove the point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-40276514

I would also point out that since we're talking about a one mile extension to the expressway opened by a Labour First Minister in 2017 your claim that "the anti road Labour Welsh Government have done nothing about completing this expressway" is simply wrong.

It would be more correct to say that "the anti road Labour Welsh Government did do something about completing the expressway, but only so they could get their budget through."

 

[Envoy]

You're misunderstanding my point, possibly deliberately.

Of course, there has always been a plan to complete the A4232. I didn't say there wasn't.

The point I was making was that the section between the Queensgate roundabout and Ocean Way wasn't built as a part of a coherent attempt to complete the loop, but as a sop to the Lib Dems. Hence no flyover and a design that actually makes it difficult to incorporate a flyover in the future.

Your tendency to disagree with anything anyone says on this board is a bit tedious but here's a link to prove the point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-40276514

I would also point out that since we're talking about a one mile extension to the expressway opened by a Labour First Minister in 2017 your claim that "the anti road Labour Welsh Government have done nothing about completing this expressway" is simply wrong.

It would be more correct to say that "the anti road Labour Welsh Government did do something about completing the expressway, but only so they could get their budget through."

I get what you are saying that it was the Liberal Democrats who forced Labour’s hand to get the 1 mile extension eastward of the A4232 expressway. You then say that this road was opened by a Labour First Minister in 2017 and that my claim that “the anti road Labour Welsh Government have done nothing about completing this expressway” is wrong. No, I am not wrong and you are contradicting yourself as you have already stated that they would not have done that had it not been for the Liberal Democrats forcing their hand on the issue to get the budget through. The fact remains that the Eastern Bay Link section of the A4232 has been on the planning board since 1974 and was given planning permission in 1994. Here we are, approaching 2021 all that has been built is 1 mile - thanks to the Liberal Democrats. The Welsh Labour Government have failed to get this road built. Rhodri Morgan also cancelled the planned (by the Conservatives)dual expressway from the A4232 at Caerau towards Barry and onto Cardiff Airport - and we all know how that has turned out. He also cancelled the early 1990’s planned (by the Conservatives) new M4 south of Newport - and what a disaster that decision turned out to be.

 

[MikePJ]

Hello folks. We're moving to Cardiff later this year; I work for the University (near to Cathays station) and my partner is likely to work at the University Hospital of Wales in Heath. I'm just looking for hints as to the future service pattern on the South Wales Metro so that I can factor that in to where we choose to live. I found this Metro service pattern map on an earlier post in the South Wales Metro Updates thread (which comes from this report from TfW) - is this still the most likely service pattern?

In particular, from that map it appears that:

• living near one of the City Line stations (e.g. Waun-gron Park) would give a through service to Cathays for the University (2tph) - via Central and Queen St - but no service to Heath
• Penarth and Dingle Road will eventually have 4tph to the two Heath stations

What's less clear to me is the situation on the Vale of Glamorgan line. From the diagram, it seems that Cogan station would get 4tph to Central, but it's not totally clear from the diagram if those trains then continue to Rhymney via Heath. Does anyone know if that's the intention?

I also know that there are plans to increase service on the City Line and open a station at Ely Paper Mill / Victoria Park, but as I understand it, none of that is as yet funded. Is that correct?

Thanks!

 

[anthony263]

Hello folks. We're moving to Cardiff later this year; I work for the University (near to Cathays station) and my partner is likely to work at the University Hospital of Wales in Heath. I'm just looking for hints as to the future service pattern on the South Wales Metro so that I can factor that in to where we choose to live. I found this Metro service pattern map on an earlier post in the South Wales Metro Updates thread (which comes from this report from TfW) - is this still the most likely service pattern?

In particular, from that map it appears that:

• living near one of the City Line stations (e.g. Waun-gron Park) would give a through service to Cathays for the University (2tph) - via Central and Queen St - but no service to Heath
• Penarth and Dingle Road will eventually have 4tph to the two Heath stations

What's less clear to me is the situation on the Vale of Glamorgan line. From the diagram, it seems that Cogan station would get 4tph to Central, but it's not totally clear from the diagram if those trains then continue to Rhymney via Heath. Does anyone know if that's the intention?

I also know that there are plans to increase service on the City Line and open a station at Ely Paper Mill / Victoria Park, but as I understand it, none of that is as yet funded. Is that correct?

Thanks!

Yes most services from Barry will be going to Rhymney

 

[MikePJ]

Yes most services from Barry will be going to Rhymney

Thanks!