Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
It’s not even that anymore. The trains will now be terminating at the current station with an extra platform added, meaning everywhere they’ll run heavy rail trains could also run.
The tram trains are planned to do a Central Bay and a Splott tram style service in future though.
There will be a fair amount of on-street running from Central to the Bay line and past Cardiff Bay station. The Bay line will be a tram line as well, operating without signalling with a line of sight system.
The other raison d'être behind tram-trains is that it makes extending the network cheaper than traditional heavy rail, on street sections can be added and conversions of freight lines, such as Hirwaun, are easier.
There will be a fair amount of on-street running from Central to the Bay line and past Cardiff Bay station. The Bay line will be a tram line as well, operating without signalling with a line of sight system.
The other raison d'être behind tram-trains is that it makes extending the network cheaper than traditional heavy rail, on street sections can be added and conversions of freight lines, such as Hirwaun, are easier.
We're discussing whether spending money to enable a robust 15 min interval on the Penarth branch is 'the right thing' or whether it could be better spent elsewhere.
Is the current turn up and go service attracting enough passengers to fill four trains an hour all day every day?
Penarth does seem quite well used, though I daresay could manage with less of it had to. In a perfect world the 4tph should be maintained but with the infrastructure made more able to reliably support it. It isn’t just about Penarth though, the whole Cardiff area is full of features which cause chaos when the slightest thing happens. Too many single track sections.
There will be a fair amount of on-street running from Central to the Bay line and past Cardiff Bay station. The Bay line will be a tram line as well, operating without signalling with a line of sight system.
The other raison d'être behind tram-trains is that it makes extending the network cheaper than traditional heavy rail, on street sections can be added and conversions of freight lines, such as Hirwaun, are easier.
Penarth does seem quite well used, though I daresay could manage with less of it had to. In a perfect world the 4tph should be maintained but with the infrastructure made more able to reliably support it. It isn’t just about Penarth though, the whole Cardiff area is full of features which cause chaos when the slightest thing happens. Too many single track sections.
I think the best frequency for Penarth would be every 20 minutes as that wouldn't be too little for the usage but not too much for the infrastructure. The issues is which lines would you link this to to make an even frequency? Of course you'd have to do a timetable rewrite for it to work as well.
They have certainly created traffic jams in Cardiff city centre by inserting bus and cycle lanes forcing cars into one lane where once they had two.
Mention has been made of work on the Bay branch such as making it 2 tracks. I should point out that the intention is (& funded) to have a tramway going from the Bay branch across Callaghan Square to new platforms where the Central station car park is at present. They would then like to connect this to the present tracks to cross the Taff and reach the City Line to the western suburbs. In the Bay, they intend to demolish the Red Dragon Centre and build a new Arena on the land or nearby. That would create additional demand for transport to the Central Station/ Queen Street & beyond. With sudden outflows of people from this Arena, I doubt that the proposed increased rail service could cope. When events take place in the city centre, at least the public are dispersed at Central station onto trains gong in different directions.
Back in the 1980’s when the Bay regeneration scheme was kicking off, it was the intended that the Bay branch would be ripped up and what was *Bute Square would be enlarged eastward to provide a better road layout with Lloyd George Avenue. When the Bay branch started gaining more passengers, its value became apparent. *Labour came to power and the branch remained and Bute Square was renamed Callaghan Square.
On the Penarth line, it is regrettable that a new station was not inserted at Cogan where the Tesco car park now stands. This could have been a P&R for the Marina area. A footpath could have directly linked this with the Pont Y Werin bridge which links to the ice rink, swimming pool and white water centre. The greatest benefit for the least bucks would surely be to link the present Cogan station by footpath with the Pont Y Werin bridge. From time to time, people can be seen crossing the main road to reach that bridge having come off trains at Cogan.
I too have been in that Tescos carpark and thought the line to Penarth is so close to Cogan Station, why no platforms !. And it is a good place for a station as very close to the footbridge across the River Ely into the area with a swimming pool, other sports activities, flats and retail.
The tram proposal doesn't need that much extra in terms of distance, from the station car park to after the road bridge on Herbert Street is under 750m. So with an allowance for a suitable length of ramp to match the height of the current line on its embankment something like 1km of new track. Or 2km of single track length if it is to be a double line.
The cost is going to be in extending Cardiff Central with new platforms at the level of the car park (in reality building a new tram station that happens to be adjacent to the current mainline one.)
Then the cost of getting the tracks across Callaghan square in a way that doesn't absolutely destroy traffic flow or have traffic impede the trams so they don't delay other services on the branch coming from Queen St.
Then the cost of the point work to allow the new track onto the existing branch. I'm not convinced that this won't require signalling even if it is to light rail standards like seen on things like Metrolink when lines merge to prevent side swipe collisions even if the whole branch is otherwise line of sight.
Finally there is a potential cost in fitting the tram trains with the extra equipment they are fitted for but not with currently to make them compliant for on street running. Also potentially a new wheel profile suitable for tram tracks if they don't have it already (see the Sheffield Supertram).
Is it going to be a very expensive short line, yes. Will it make journeys towards the bay from places outside Cardiff a much better travelling experience, personally I also think yes.
All the above being my supposition I'd welcome anyone more expert on the potential cost areas chiming in.
I too have been in that Tescos carpark and thought the line to Penarth is so close to Cogan Station, why no platforms !. And it is a good place for a station as very close to the footbridge across the River Ely into the area with a swimming pool, other sports activities, flats and retail.
Is there really a need, though? Cogan has a 4tph service of its own to Cardiff. Anyone wanting to do a Penarth to Barry journey has a fairly simple change at Grangetown. So the only real journeys not readily catered for are Cogan to Penarth. There is less housing on the Cardiff side of Cogan, for anyone on the other side it’s just as easy to walk to Dingle Road, or even Penarth, bearing in mind that Penarth station itself isn’t actually perfectly centrally located.
I think this is one of those things that looks worthwhile on a map, but in the real world less so.
Any benefits of platforms on the Penarth line could probably be achieved simply by making the area around Cogan station more pedestrian-friendly, so the main road is less of a barrier than it is.
Quakers Yard is showing that trains are stopping there today on various departure boards yet TFW's Journey Check still has it as closed (albeit with no update since the 29th).
Is there really a need, though? Cogan has a 4tph service of its own to Cardiff. Anyone wanting to do a Penarth to Barry journey has a fairly simple change at Grangetown. So the only real journeys not readily catered for are Cogan to Penarth. There is less housing on the Cardiff side of Cogan, for anyone on the other side it’s just as easy to walk to Dingle Road, or even Penarth, bearing in mind that Penarth station itself isn’t actually perfectly centrally located.
I think this is one of those things that looks worthwhile on a map, but in the real world less so.
Any benefits of platforms on the Penarth line could probably be achieved simply by making the area around Cogan station more pedestrian-friendly, so the main road is less of a barrier than it is.
People can sometime be seen (photo 1) crossing the main road to get from Cogan station to the footbridge across the Ely/ Penarth Marina. This problem could easily and cheaply be fixed by having a footpath coming off the Cardiff bound platform at Cogan (photo 2) and passing under the road by the underpass that already exists. Then it would pass over the railways (photo 3) to reach the Pont-Y-Werin footbridge over the Ely and hence the swimming pool/ ice rink / white water and residential areas on the Cardiff side.
Photo 4 shows the Penarth branch (looking south) from the road bridge by Cogan Tesco - whose car park is on the left. Another wasted opportunity to have a station serving the Marina area caused by bad planning!
The tram proposal doesn't need that much extra in terms of distance, from the station car park to after the road bridge on Herbert Street is under 750m. So with an allowance for a suitable length of ramp to match the height of the current line on its embankment something like 1km of new track. Or 2km of single track length if it is to be a double line.
The cost is going to be in extending Cardiff Central with new platforms at the level of the car park (in reality building a new tram station that happens to be adjacent to the current mainline one.)
Then the cost of getting the tracks across Callaghan square in a way that doesn't absolutely destroy traffic flow or have traffic impede the trams so they don't delay other services on the branch coming from Queen St.
Then the cost of the point work to allow the new track onto the existing branch. I'm not convinced that this won't require signalling even if it is to light rail standards like seen on things like Metrolink when lines merge to prevent side swipe collisions even if the whole branch is otherwise line of sight.
Finally there is a potential cost in fitting the tram trains with the extra equipment they are fitted for but not with currently to make them compliant for on street running. Also potentially a new wheel profile suitable for tram tracks if they don't have it already (see the Sheffield Supertram).
Is it going to be a very expensive short line, yes. Will it make journeys towards the bay from places outside Cardiff a much better travelling experience, personally I also think yes.
All the above being my supposition I'd welcome anyone more expert on the potential cost areas chiming in.
Tramway signalling would definitely be needed at the junction with the Bay line, and also at all street crossings unless they are very minor. Changing to a tramway wheel profile would need raised check rails at all sets of "railway" points, as on Metrolink, although this may have been done or be in progress already.
Tramway signalling would definitely be needed at the junction with the Bay line, and also at all street crossings unless they are very minor. Changing to a tramway wheel profile would need raised check rails at all sets of "railway" points, as on Metrolink, although this may have been done or be in progress already.
I believe that the tram trains currently have rail profile wheels and at the moment they haven't adapted points.
If the new "street running" section is actually segregated from road traffic, albeit crossing roads and operating under light rail rules, maybe it can be done with normal rail profile track?
Objections have been raised by local residents on the Taff Vale Estate with regard to the scale of the bridge and ramp structure.
Technically improvements within the railway boundary do not require planning permission but a planning application was submitted in May.
There are various measures being proposed to mitigate the residents objections and of course our ecology friends.
The station will therefore probably be closed until these matters are resolved.
Both Quaker's Yard and Pentrebach loops are now signalled and operational. Had a northbound train passing ours at Quaker's Yard on Saturday as we were held there southbound following a disorder incident at Abercynon.
Purely observational, but when I was there last month the Penarth trains were loading reasonably well, though a bit skewed because most of the trains are now 4-car Stadler units. But I’d say many trains would be busy enough to have most pairs of seats on a 2-car 150 at least singly occupied north of Dingle Road. Same with the Barry line, and even the hourly Barry to Bridgend section seems quite well used.
I’ve no doubt Penarth could manage with 2 or tph though, especially if it kept the 4-car trains.
That would be the Edinburgh tram that has just completed a major extention on time and within budget despite the problems caused by the pandemic. The Welsh Government (or WAG as you and some others wrongly call it) has a record at least as good as the UK Government's in delivering major projects. The only one that's really gone over budget was the A465 duelling at the road's eastern end.
That would be the Edinburgh tram that has just completed a major extention on time and within budget despite the problems caused by the pandemic. The Welsh Government (or WAG as you and some others wrongly call it) has a record at least as good as the UK Government's in delivering major projects. The only one that's really gone over budget was the A465 duelling at the road's eastern end.
That would be the Edinburgh tram that has just completed a major extention on time and within budget despite the problems caused by the pandemic. The Welsh Government (or WAG as you and some others wrongly call it) has a record at least as good as the UK Government's in delivering major projects. The only one that's really gone over budget was the A465 duelling at the road's eastern end.
That would be the same Edinburgh tram which also ran highly over budget and over time on the original scheme, was left with surplus trams and caused years of disruption and economic damage to the city centre during construction.
Yes the same WAG who brought Cardiff Airport for over the market rate, spend millions on it and turned it into a loss making operation.
Forgive me for not having faith in our fantasy chimps tea party government.
That would be the same Edinburgh tram which also ran highly over budget and over time on the original scheme, was left with surplus trams and caused years of disruption and economic damage to the city centre during construction.
Yes the same WAG who brought Cardiff Airport for over the market rate, spend millions on it and turned it into a loss making operation.
Forgive me for not having faith in our fantasy chimps tea party government.
Indeed, the S Wales metro is already behind schedule and over budget apparently, but then so also was the original Edinburgh tram airport to city centre by a. considerable margin as pointed out. The Crossrail project in London was also over budget and significantly late opening. So the WG is maybe unfairly singled out as incompetent in the context of delivering infrastructure late and over initial costing.
In terms of buying tram trains just to allow extension further into the Bay and to connect the latter to Cardiff Central, I cannot but help thinking that investing in new modern clean frequent electric buses from the rear of Central station to and around the Bay area was a viable and quicker alternative, leaving all the core valley lines with new replacement heavy rail vehicles like the Rhymney line, though others may find flaws in this idea.
New heavy rail vehicles would all have toilets unlike the tram trains - the idea that all station would be equipped with toilets to obviate the need for this seems not to be materialising according to the latest maps of the plans recently shared on here.
I hesitate to reference the airport in a rail forum but I gently point out that the WG bought it as it was already heavily loss making at the time and being neglected by the previous private owners, though it is accepted that its fortunes have not improved and not for the first time some company 'saw the WG coming' and saw a chance to squeeze the taxpayer.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I agree entirely on that point. I just wish people could just engage with the issues as they see them without ridicule and name calling.
However I share the great disappointment of others at how poorly TFW has managed the delivery of the much trumpeted improvements including the metro. Other threads outline the debacle of the Borderlands line and the use of short formed 150's on long distance routes. In terms of the core valleys upgrade, while some blockades were inevitable passengers were led to believe that much of the disruption was to be late evening and weekends. People in Rhondda were not told until very late they were to lose their trains completely for half a year, and passengers on Merthyr and Aberdare lines have endured longer total blockades than notified, with one station on the Merthyr branch now out of action for an extended period - if planning consent was needed it should have been applied for earlier, if not needed then why apply and incur an unnecessary delay.
I share the great disappointment of others at how poorly TFW has managed the delivery of the much trumpeted improvements including the metro. Other threads outline the debacle of the Borderlands line and the use of short formed 150's on long distance routes. In terms of the core valleys upgrade, while some blockades were inevitable passengers were led to believe that much of the disruption was to be late evening and weekends. People in Rhondda were not told until very late they were to lose their trains completely for half a year, and passengers on Merthyr and Aberdare lines have endured longer total blockades than notified, with one station on the Merthyr branch now out of action for an extended period - if planning consent was needed it should have been applied for earlier, if not needed then why apply and incur an unnecessary delay.
I think those are very valid criticisms. It is always best to under-promise and over-deliver rather than the opposite!
I think the jury is very much out on TfW's performance. It's a bit sad though that some people (not Tomos) criticise, not the agency, or the way it was set up, but the entire constitutional settlement.
If the Brexit debacle has taught us anything it should be that truth matters and that we assign blame where it belongs rather than bleating about straight bananas and undersized condoms or, for that matter, a "fantasy chimps tea party government."
Getting back on topic, some years ago I was involved in the electrification of the suburban rail network in Adelaide, SA. There, the approach was to have blockades of up to six months or even a year on the outer parts of the network with evening and weekend blockades used on the more central parts of the system. It was brutal - but honest and TfW might have done better to adopt the same approach from the start.
the idea that all station would be equipped with toilets to obviate the need for this seems not to be materialising according to the latest maps of the plans recently shared on here.
New heavy rail vehicles would all have toilets unlike the tram trains - the idea that all station would be equipped with toilets to obviate the need for this seems not to be materialising according to the latest maps of the plans recently shared on here.
I don't think the plan ever was for all stations to have toilets was it? It always has been for certain key stations to have toilets, not all stations.
At the same time, how much of that has been to events out of their control? Covid, the high inflation rate, previously unknown issues found during works, local residents objecting to bridges, the removal of the pacers before new rolling stock was available to replace them, the previous underfunding of the franchise and infrastructure etc etc
At the same time, how much of that has been to events out of their control? Covid, the high inflation rate, previously unknown issues found during works, local residents objecting to bridges, the removal of the pacers before new rolling stock was available to replace them, the previous underfunding of the franchise and infrastructure etc etc
I think the problem is that we don't know because they haven't said.
The approach seems to be just to inform people of closures (and usually they manage to do that accurately) but not give anything but the most top level explanations. I get the impression that the disruption is turning out to be much worse than was implied at the start, but if so they don't appear to have acknowledged it.
As an example, from what's reported here they have not been very forthcoming about the situation at Quakers Yard.
Without information to the contrary, a lot of people will jump to the conclusion that it's caused by incompetence.
(And sometimes it's hard to think of another explanation, e.g. when some of the signs are replaced with more modern ones at a station then a few months later it gets a full re-brand including changing the signs they'd only just installed - or where they put the "£1000 fine if you pass this point" sign where you have to go past it to leave the platform).
At the same time, how much of that has been to events out of their control? Covid, the high inflation rate, previously unknown issues found during works, local residents objecting to bridges, the removal of the pacers before new rolling stock was available to replace them, the previous underfunding of the franchise and infrastructure etc etc
Same is true of many projects but seems people pick and choose on which ones to moan about and which ones they make excuses for depending on political persuasion of the body funding it?
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
