South Wales 'Metro' updates

[positron]

There are crossovers between the end of the proposed Newport West site and Ebbw Junction from the relief to the mains, so just run the Ebbws on the newly improved relief lines.

So there is. I was looking on Google maps which doesn't show the crossovers but on satellite view (and OSM) they are.

In that case it's intriguing they don't mention this. Stopping them at Newport West at least would make sense to me. Save you having to go all the way to Cardiff to come all the way back again (I know there's an hourly to Newport Central from December too).

I guess maybe they will and they just don't mention it in the consultation as it won't effect all the stations or improve union connectivity.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Back to my original question - unless I've missed something there's no pledge of money from Westminster or Cardiff Bay. Let alone a timescale etc is there?

No money yet but nor would you expect there to be. As the consultation document decribes this stage of the process; "We share our plans with the public to gather feedback. This feedback helps us to finalise the project design and complete the business case."

For obvious reasons, funding decisions follow the completion of the business plan rather than vice-versa. No Government would commit to a scheme before it was properly costed - unless it's HS2, of course!

As it happens, I think the political stars are aligning for this scheme - but we shall see!

 

[John R]

I would counter that assertion. As they're on the relief lines there's no plan for services such as the ebbw trains to stop. Which feels like a missed opportunity. 4tph in the best case (though it says 3 most likely) is not frequent enough.

If the only downside of the cost saving of not having the complete changeover that @oglord described is that Ebbw Vale services cannot call at the new stations then I think that is a sensible compromise. I suspect it's already going to be a very expensive scheme - new stations on a four track main line tend not to come cheap, even if only two lines are platformed.

 

[CardiffKid]

No money yet but nor would you expect there to be. As the consultation document decribes this stage of the process; "We share our plans with the public to gather feedback. This feedback helps us to finalise the project design and complete the business case."

But no formal confirmation that the UK Govt are prepared to pay for it?

As it happens, I think the political stars are aligning for this scheme - but we shall see!

I hope I'm being overly cynical. Time will tell.

Can't help remember in the Cardiff South by-election - 11 years ago next month - the then FM Caryn Jones saying he'd love to see a railway station in the east of Cardiff.

Cardiff Parkway is essentially on hold by the WG despite funding and a business case existing, and here we are talking about six more - plus lets not forget their aspirations for Ely Mill etc in the West of Cardiff.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

I hope I'm being overly cynical. Time will tell.

Can't help remember in the Cardiff South by-election - 11 years ago next month - the then FM Caryn Jones saying he'd love to see a railway station in the east of Cardiff.

Cardiff Parkway is essentially on hold by the WG despite funding and a business case existing, and here we are talking about six more - plus lets not forget their aspirations for Ely Mill etc in the West of Cardiff.

All of which is true.

On the other hand, the electrification of the CVL is happening as are Ebbw Vale - Newport services. Sometimes these schemes come off and sometimes they don't. That's not a particularly Welsh, or even British, problem, it's just the way things are!

Neither you nor I can know for sure whether this particular scheme will some to fruition but I do think the trifecta of a likely Labour government in Westminster, a Labour government in Wales and a Labour mayor of the combined West of England city-region gives grounds for optimism.

 

[Richard Scott]

Neither you nor I can know for sure whether this particular scheme will some to fruition but I do think the trifecta of a likely Labour government in Westminster, a Labour government in Wales and a Labour mayor of the combined West of England city-region gives grounds for optimism.

I think you're being very optimistic, previous Labour Governments haven't exactly been noted for their investment in rail projects.

 

[56xx]

As they're on the relief lines there's no plan for services such as the ebbw trains to stop.

Ebbw Vale - Cardiff is just ok at about an hour because of the fast run from Ebbw Junction to Cardiff. The prospect of six station stops and travelling on the relief lines would be very damaging to passenger numbers on the branch.

 

[oglord]

Ebbw Vale - Cardiff is just ok at about an hour because of the fast run from Ebbw Junction to Cardiff. The prospect of six station stops and travelling on the relief lines would be very damaging to passenger numbers on the branch.

This plan only adds two additional stops, not six. It's add odd service with a mix of frequent-stopping branch and non-stop mainline. It probably shouldn't run on the mains anyway if it's a local Class 2 stopping service.

 

[slowroad]

Most likely is that nothing will happen. The business case for the stations will show minimal effects on M4 traffic (the original rationale), costs will be very high, and integration with other services problematic.

 

[markymark2000]

Ebbw Vale - Cardiff is just ok at about an hour because of the fast run from Ebbw Junction to Cardiff. The prospect of six station stops and travelling on the relief lines would be very damaging to passenger numbers on the branch.

In the same way that it would be damaging for passengers on the Cheltenham Spa line that not only do they suffer from 2 TOCs who are happy to cancel trains on a whim with the hope that the other operator will take the passengers (TFW often cancelling at Gloucester and Cross Country often cancelling from Birmingham) and now they get even slower journeys all to satisfy..... A few people.

As for the Ebbw Vale line, it wouldn't be an additional 6 stops, it would be 3 stops. Newport West, Cardiff Parkway and Cardiff East stations. Could that be done and then have the Cheltenham Spa line serving the new stations between Newport and Severn Tunnel? No one suffers as large delays to the journey and the same number of stations served. After all, it should be noted that Ebbw Vale is a commuter line and should stop at commuter stops, Cheltenham Spa isn't as much a commuter line and so should be a bit faster.

 

[positron]

In the same way that it would be damaging for passengers on the Cheltenham Spa line that not only do they suffer from 2 TOCs who are happy to cancel trains on a whim with the hope that the other operator will take the passengers (TFW often cancelling at Gloucester and Cross Country often cancelling from Birmingham) and now they get even slower journeys all to satisfy..... A few people.

As for the Ebbw Vale line, it wouldn't be an additional 6 stops, it would be 3 stops. Newport West, Cardiff Parkway and Cardiff East stations. Could that be done and then have the Cheltenham Spa line serving the new stations between Newport and Severn Tunnel? No one suffers as large delays to the journey and the same number of stations served. After all, it should be noted that Ebbw Vale is a commuter line and should stop at commuter stops, Cheltenham Spa isn't as much a commuter line and so should be a bit faster.

At least Cheltenham has a fast service tbf. But I agree ebbw is a commuter service and should stop at the 2 stops (and Parkway if that happens separately).

 

[oglord]

As for the Ebbw Vale line, it wouldn't be an additional 6 stops, it would be 3 stops. Newport West, Cardiff Parkway and Cardiff East stations. Could that be done and then have the Cheltenham Spa line serving the new stations between Newport and Severn Tunnel?

That messes up local services in Newport. People in Maesglas/Duffryn would then not be able to catch services to Newport High Street/Somerton/Llanwern and vice versa.

 

[56xx]

Would a Cardiff - Chepstow shuttle be better?

 

[oglord]

Would a Cardiff - Chepstow shuttle be better?

That's essentially what the current Cheltenham service is, but with better onward connections. There are no connections at Chepstow (other than occasional XC trains to Cheltenham!), so it would be an odd place to terminate.

 

[59CosG95]

Updates on LinkedIn from an outgoing PM for the THT line:

Jeet Dhelaria on LinkedIn: THT (Treherbert Branch) Blockade Package 7 (Station Works-Dinas Rhonda…

THT (Treherbert Branch) Blockade Package 7 (Station Works-Dinas Rhonda Station) in Rhonda Valleys Our collaborative teams of infrastructure delivery partners…

www.linkedin.com

Jeet Dhelaria on LinkedIn: THT (Treherbert Branch) Blockade Package 7 (Station Works-Treherbert…

THT (Treherbert Branch) Blockade Package 7 (Station Works-Treherbert Station) in Rhonda Valleys Our collaborative teams of infrastructure delivery partners…

www.linkedin.com

 

[positron]

https://x.com/transport_wales/status/1714190761351070198

Take a look at some of the progress at Treherbert, Dinas and Porth as we work to deliver our biggest programme of works to date as part of the South Wales Metro.

Not too much to see that we didn't already know but they've posted an update video.

 

[Zoomer]

Really interesting reading all your posts on this forum. I live in the Rhondda along the Treherbert line so am taking a keen interest.

An earlier post mentioned that the 398s won't be in service until November 2024. On today's Twitter/X update posted by @positron the comms partner in the video mentioned they'll be introducing the new Metro vehicles early next year. Is this the 398s?

 

[rf_ioliver]

Quick query: is the new Devil's Bridge in place? The bridge between Trefforest and Tonteg. Does anyone have a picture of it?

 

[anthony263]

Really interesting reading all your posts on this forum. I live in the Rhondda along the Treherbert line so am taking a keen interest.

An earlier post mentioned that the 398s won't be in service until November 2024. On today's Twitter/X update posted by @positron the comms partner in the video mentioned they'll be introducing the new Metro vehicles early next year. Is this the 398s?

Probably the class 756s to start

 

[Signal_Box]

That messes up local services in Newport. People in Maesglas/Duffryn would then not be able to catch services to Newport High Street/Somerton/Llanwern and vice versa.

People in those areas don’t use trains, they barley use the limited bus - it’s often cancelled after attacks after dark !

 

[oglord]

People in those areas don’t use trains, they barley use the limited bus - it’s often cancelled after attacks after dark !

People in those areas, without a train service, don't use the trains. Great argument! The crappy local service from Rogerstone and Pye Corner goes the wrong way, and you are suggesting that yet another station has a service that goes the wrong way. That is not a useful local rail service that will get people out of their cars.

 

[positron]

People in those areas, without a train service, don't use the trains. Great argument! The crappy local service from Rogerstone and Pye Corner goes the wrong way, and you are suggesting that yet another station has a service that goes the wrong way. That is not a useful local rail service that will get people out of their cars.

To clarify I was merely suggesting that the ebbw service to Cardiff stop at the additional stops. I think the Chepstow and Bristol should also stop there. And Ebbw would still have it's other train the Newport Central (starting this December).

 

[56xx]

With the news that Welsh Government has had to bail out TfW for some £125 million just to keep the trains running presumably until March and that there will probably be the need for a substantial increase in the revenue budget for next financial year are the Metro plans too ambitious?

The fall in income with reduced passenger numbers due to Covid and WFH together with the difficulty in recruiting staff will mean it's going to be very expensive running 12 tph north of Pontypridd and 4 tph north of Caerphilly / Bargoed.

I am aware that the capital budget itself is overstreched but given the infrastructure and rolling stock is now almost in place it is the operating costs that will hurt.

I'm sure the travelling public would be happy with a reliable 1/2 hourly service to Treherbert, Aberdare and Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney folk would welcome the increase to 1/2 hourly.

I think the capacity problems south of Pontypridd and Caerphilly would best be served by 398s running short services into the bay platforms at both stations and the upper valleys being served by 756s at 1/2 hourly intervals on more or less existing 150 diagrams. I'm not sure of the balance of rolling stock but I would think there will be a surplus of 398s if the 15 min frequency was not initially programmed.

 

[John R]

With the news that Welsh Government has had to bail out TfW for some £125 million just to keep the trains running presumably until March and that there will probably be the need for a substantial increase in the revenue budget for next financial year are the Metro plans too ambitious?

The fall in income with reduced passenger numbers due to Covid and WFH together with the difficulty in recruiting staff will mean it's going to be very expensive running 12 tph north of Pontypridd and 4 tph north of Caerphilly / Bargoed.

I am aware that the capital budget itself is overstreched but given the infrastructure and rolling stock is now almost in place it is the operating costs that will hurt.

I'm sure the travelling public would be happy with a reliable 1/2 hourly service to Treherbert, Aberdare and Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney folk would welcome the increase to 1/2 hourly.

I think the capacity problems south of Pontypridd and Caerphilly would best be served by 398s running short services into the bay platforms at both stations and the upper valleys being served by 756s at 1/2 hourly intervals on more or less existing 150 diagrams. I'm not sure of the balance of rolling stock but I would think there will be a surplus of 398s if the 15 min frequency was not initially programmed.

Given the travelling public have been promised a doubling of frequency for the last 5 years and have endured no end of disruption to achieve it, I doubt they will be remotely happy with being told that after all there will be no increase in services. And it would also mean that the majority of the infrastructure changes north of Pontypridd would have been unnecessary.

 

[anthony263]

Given the travelling public have been promised a doubling of frequency for the last 5 years and have endured no end of disruption to achieve it, I doubt they will be remotely happy with being told that after all there will be no increase in services. And it would also mean that the majority of the infrastructure changes north of Pontypridd would have been unnecessary.

Us i think.the increased would bring extra revenue. Fares have gone up so much even the sharp increase in bus fares its still cheaper to use z bus if you got one.

Westminster cutting back isn't helping plus I do think they need to add some restrictions to working from home as that's a big issue here

 

[Markdvdman]

Actually the T4 bus fare from Cardiff to Merthyr single was £5.80 (more expensive than the train) - and is now £7 - much more expensive than the train! Subsidising the trains and ignoring the buses is not very good as buses go far more places than trains can! However, I agree to promise increased frequencies with the hellish bus replacements we had to put up with - then to cut back would be inforgiveable!

 

[John R]

plus I do think they need to add some restrictions to working from home as that's a big issue here

Are you suggesting that employers are made to reduce WFH simply so that passenger volumes on transport networks increase. That would be a bizarre case of the tail wagging the dog. Employers (including public sector employers) need to determine themselves what works for them in relation to the balance of WFH/in office, and the economics of the public transport network shouldn't be a factor in that consideration.

 

[AdamWW]

. And it would also mean that the majority of the infrastructure changes north of Pontypridd would have been unnecessary.

The money is spent either way - if it doesn't make sense to run 4 tph I wouldn't say that having a large amount of sunk costs should change that. And some of the work was electrification not increasing capacity.

And while it's not the same benefit as 4 tph, the extra infrastructure should considerably increase resiliance with a 2 tph service when things go wrong.

But yes, it wouldn't be very pleasant after all the disruption.

 

[takno]

With the news that Welsh Government has had to bail out TfW for some £125 million just to keep the trains running presumably until March and that there will probably be the need for a substantial increase in the revenue budget for next financial year are the Metro plans too ambitious?

The fall in income with reduced passenger numbers due to Covid and WFH together with the difficulty in recruiting staff will mean it's going to be very expensive running 12 tph north of Pontypridd and 4 tph north of Caerphilly / Bargoed.

I am aware that the capital budget itself is overstreched but given the infrastructure and rolling stock is now almost in place it is the operating costs that will hurt.

I'm sure the travelling public would be happy with a reliable 1/2 hourly service to Treherbert, Aberdare and Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney folk would welcome the increase to 1/2 hourly.

I think the capacity problems south of Pontypridd and Caerphilly would best be served by 398s running short services into the bay platforms at both stations and the upper valleys being served by 756s at 1/2 hourly intervals on more or less existing 150 diagrams. I'm not sure of the balance of rolling stock but I would think there will be a surplus of 398s if the 15 min frequency was not initially programmed.

The infrastructure and rolling stock have been paid for, and the staff are presumably in place and largely trained. You could save costs, but at that point it's not at all clear that you'd save more than you lost in revenue, and you'd be achieving terrible value from your public assets. It's an obviously stupid idea in economic terms, but even in cash accounting terms you almost certainly wouldn't net out with more cash for at least another year because of the cost of laying people off.

 

[positron]

I think it would be political suicide to cut the 4tph promise so late in the game. For a perceived cost saving. Not to mention the more frequent trains is what will get people on them again. The solution isn't cutting WFH, the solution is road pricing to entice people to use the train rather than their car. We need a massive modal shift and trying to achieve that with 2tph just isn't going to happen.

Also is it really a "bailout" if it's a company owned by the government already? More just allocating required levels of funding?


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Oct 2023 ==

I'm assuming what it does mean is Gabalfa and the new Treforest Estate aren't gonna happen anytime soon as they were supposed to be funded from revenue.