South Wales 'Metro' updates

[MikePJ]

Interesting that no new platform appears to be going in at Rhymney anymore?

This project plan only goes to December 2025 - I think that the second Rhymney platform was supposed to happen in the spring of 2026?

 

[tigermonstera]

A new consultation has gone live, and it's the project plan for the rest of 2025. We also get a whole set of track diagrams showing what's to be changed (worth noting that new items are in red, and items to be removed are in green).

The diagram for the Bay Line is interesting. Some observations:

1. The tram-train transfer area includes provision for a "Triple Class 398 (Tram-Train) Consist".
2. The transfer area appears to include signals that are a hybrid between train and tram signalling. For example, "VC5003 to be a 2 aspect with a red aspect and a standard line of sight proceed aspect".
3. If this is the final layout, then Cardiff Bay will continue to use MPH rather than switching to KPH.

 

[AdamWW]

The diagram for the Bay Line is interesting. Some observations:

1. The tram-train transfer area includes provision for a "Triple Class 398 (Tram-Train) Consist".
2. The transfer area appears to include signals that are a hybrid between train and tram signalling. For example, "VC5003 to be a 2 aspect with a red aspect and a standard line of sight proceed aspect".
3. If this is the final layout, then Cardiff Bay will continue to use MPH rather than switching to KPH.

Does anyone know if the 398 speedometers marked in kph as well as mph?

And what a "standard line of sight proceed aspect" looks like?

 

[tigermonstera]

And what a "standard line of sight proceed aspect" looks like?

From the diagram, it looks the same as a tram signal — so 5 white dots in a vertical line.

 

[positron]

The future provision for Butetown junction is interesting, not the layout I'd have expected.

 

[edwin_m]

The transfer area appears to include signals that are a hybrid between train and tram signalling. For example, "VC5003 to be a 2 aspect with a red aspect and a standard line of sight proceed aspect".

This is most likely a fixed red with he five vertical white lights underneath it, as used on Metrolink where it transitions between railway-like and tramway signalling.

 

[AdamWW]

This is most likely a fixed red with he five vertical white lights underneath it, as used on Metrolink where it transitions between railway-like and tramway signalling.

That makes sense. Like a calling on signal. Red because there's no guarantee that the block ahead is clear, but a subsidiary signal gives permission to proceed.

(I thought Metrolink was all line of sight now though).

 

[Smwrff]

The future provision for Butetown junction is interesting, not the layout I'd have expected.

That appears to suggest that the Central-Bay down line will pass under the Queen Street- Bay lines - maybe using the existing under bridge near Callaghan Square....but seems tight....

 

[edwin_m]

That makes sense. Like a calling on signal. Red because there's no guarantee that the block ahead is clear, but a subsidiary signal gives permission to proceed.

(I thought Metrolink was all line of sight now though).

Yes, similar to a calling on signal, and probably approach controlled too.

As far as I know Metrolink is still "railway" signalled on between Navigation Road and Altrincham, due to this section being controlled by Network Rail. I can't swear to them having signals like that there, but they certainly had them at Victoria and what is now Deansgate-Castlefield when they were the limits of line of sight operation.

 

[J663738]

I notice the Platform displays at Cardiff Central now have 'Aberdare P2' on them as the destination. A bit confusing IMHO as they will also call at Aberdare P1, so why not just drop P1 and P2 bit and call it Aberdare?

 

[AdamWW]

I notice the Platform displays at Cardiff Central now have 'Aberdare P2' on them as the destination. A bit confusing IMHO as they will also call at Aberdare P1, so why not just drop P1 and P2 bit and call it Aberdare?

Even more confusing when it's just something like "Aberdare1" which I think I've seen on the the trains themselves.

Presumably the two platforms are treated as separate locations and maybe can't both have the same name.

Perhaps the system isn't flexible enough to be reprogrammed to give less confusing information.

 

[eta]

Presumably the two platforms are treated as separate locations and maybe can't both have the same name.

They are; they made a totally separate timing point location (TIPLOC) for Aberdare's second platform — in effect treating it like a different station.

I think this is to avoid having timetables where trains go from Aberdare platform 2 to Aberdare platform 1 without any calling points in between; I wouldn't be surprised if that had the potential to break some railway systems.

 

[MikePJ]

Yet another consultation: this time to install a signal on the platform at Tir-Phil and consequently shorten the active part of the platform.

 

[Snow1964]

Yet another consultation: this time to install a signal on the platform at Tir-Phil and consequently shorten the active part of the platform.

Says 8m shortening from 124m to 116m

Obviously not going to get 6car 150s at 120m these days, but 116m is not that useful a platform length, a pair of 3car 756s is 130m, a 5car 197 set is 119.5m, (and if they ever happen, a triple 398 set is 121m although expected to operate as single units or pairs).

As normal practice for new fleets, or new works is to try and have 5m longer platforms than the train, does appear it will limit the service to 4car

 

[WelshBluebird]

I know Ton Pentre station had its platform shortened as part of the electrification works, and according to a doc on the TfW site so did Porth and Dinas - https://tfw.wales/sites/default/fil...r the Transformation Programme 22 12 2023.pdf

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

I know Ton Pentre station had its platform shortened as part of the electrification works, and according to a doc on the TfW site so did Porth and Dinas - https://tfw.wales/sites/default/files/2024-01/Consultation Document CVL G1 Network Change Proposal CVLNCCP01-G1-05-V1 for the Transformation Programme 22 12 2023.pdf

From memory, I think this goes back to the very early days of devolution when platforms were extended with the intention of increasing capacity by providing longer trains on the existing timetables. ATW though were unwilling to pay for additional units to take advantage of the longer platforms.

Just another lack of joined-up thinking.

 

[Daniel Boone]

There is currently some type of RRV between Caerffili and Aber, presumably conducting OLE work.

 

[Cardiff123]

From memory, I think this goes back to the very early days of devolution when platforms were extended with the intention of increasing capacity by providing longer trains on the existing timetables. ATW though were unwilling to pay for additional units to take advantage of the longer platforms.

Just another lack of joined-up thinking.

Yes, platform extensions were paid for by Welsh Government for up to 6 car 150s on Rhymney to Penarth and Treherbert to Cardiff, but as it wasn't specified by the DfT / Strategic Rail Authority in ATW's 15 year standstill / no growth franchise, their response was

Welsh Government did source and pay for some extra 150s over the course of ATW's franchise, but it wasn't enough for longer trains on the Valleys.

 

[Bob Price]

I was at Hengoed yesterday and there are masts from the north of the station as far as the road bridge. Two photos showing this progress

 

[WelshBluebird]

From memory, I think this goes back to the very early days of devolution when platforms were extended with the intention of increasing capacity by providing longer trains on the existing timetables. ATW though were unwilling to pay for additional units to take advantage of the longer platforms.

Indeed I just about remember that happening, I guess what I dont know is why those platforms have now been shortened again. Maybe so passengers dont end up miles away from where the tram-trains will stop? I guess as that least those 3 have been done by just gating across some of the platform rather than actually removing some of the platform it means reextending them should be easy enough in the future if needed.

 

[59CosG95]

I was at Hengoed yesterday and there are masts from the north of the station as far as the road bridge. Two photos showing this progress

Very unusual seeing Twin Track Cantilevers on the inside of a curve. The radial load on the outer track's going to have to be enormous!

 

[positron]

I was at Hengoed yesterday and there are masts from the north of the station as far as the road bridge. Two photos showing this progress

Interesting originally the track surrounding the Hengoed station area was going to be catenary free.

 

[J663738]

Does anyone know how TfW classify their Route Status indicators, currently at Penarth there has only been one train in the past 3 and a half hours, but still this is classified as "Minor Delays" by TfW or do they filter out cancellations and just go on the timing of services that actually run, which is very naughty and not what is meant by route status!

Live train status | Transport for Wales

Transport for Wales | Buy Cheap Train Tickets and Check Train Times

tfw.wales

 

[AdamWW]

Does anyone know how TfW classify their Route Status indicators, currently at Penarth there has only been one train in the past 3 and a half hours, but still this is classified as "Minor Delays" by TfW or do they filter out cancellations and just go on the timing of services that actually run, which is very naughty and not what is meant by route status!

It's utterly useless.

if it says there's disruption then you need to go and look at real time departures see how what the disruption is.

if it says there isn't disruption you can't tell if it's correct or not so you need to look at real time departures anyway.

They should either make it work or just get rid of it.

They do say they have arranged ticket acceptance with Cardiff Bus and Stagecoach which is nice but in my experience there is a very high chance that either:
1) They haven't actually done so or
2) They have done so but the information hasn't been passed to the drivers.

I had to pay on the bus on Saturday though I shouldn't have had to.

 

[positron]

Tbf on Tfw the actual disruption today wasn't their fault (at least initially) there was an incident at Queen Street this morning that caused mayhem for trains not being spaced apart properly and the like.

Though I agree their service status indication was poor, it could work out that the Bay line was major delays but nothing else.

I wonder if it's partly the signalling system and the lack of proper signalling for Coryton and Penarth maybe impacts things.

 

[AdamWW]

Tbf on Tfw the actual disruption today wasn't their fault (at least initially) there was an incident at Queen Street this morning that caused mayhem for trains not being spaced apart properly and the like.

Though I agree their service status indication was poor, it could work out that the Bay line was major delays but nothing else.

Their service status indicator just doesn't work.

On the plus side, the list of buses where they say they had arranged ticket acceptance was somewhat more comprehensive than usual.

I'm not sure what could be improved to Coryton and Penarth by changing the signalling. They need loops in order to have some resiliance.

 

[positron]

To clarify I meant if it impacts their service status indicator assuming it used signaling to know if there's issues. But as you say it's probably just done manually and they're poor at doing it.

 

[5021]

It's utterly useless.

if it says there's disruption then you need to go and look at real time departures see how what the disruption is.

if it says there isn't disruption you can't tell if it's correct or not so you need to look at real time departures anyway.

They should either make it work or just get rid of it.

They do say they have arranged ticket acceptance with Cardiff Bus and Stagecoach which is nice but in my experience there is a very high chance that either:
1) They haven't actually done so or
2) They have done so but the information hasn't been passed to the drivers.

I had to pay on the bus on Saturday though I shouldn't have had to.

According to BBC Travel it was a trespass incident but only 10 miniute delays through Queen St were indicated.

Tbf on Tfw the actual disruption today wasn't their fault (at least initially) there was an incident at Queen Street this morning that caused mayhem for trains not being spaced apart properly and the like.

Though I agree their service status indication was poor, it could work out that the Bay line was major delays but nothing else.

I wonder if it's partly the signalling system and the lack of proper signalling for Coryton and Penarth maybe impacts things.

To clarify I meant if it impacts their service status indicator assuming it used signaling to know if there's issues. But as you say it's probably just done manually and they're poor at doing it.

 

[AdamWW]

To clarify I meant if it impacts their service status indicator assuming it used signaling to know if there's issues. But as you say it's probably just done manually and they're poor at doing it.

Ah I see your point. Yes live reporting isn't as good on the Coryton and Penarth lines as elsewhere. But I don't think that's the problem.

The live departure boards for Queen Street can be a sea of red and the status page is blissfully assuring people that everything is fine on all lines.

 

[56xx]

Interesting originally the track surrounding the Hengoed station area was going to be catenary free.

It still seems to be the case in the latest plan with a gap from just south of Hengoed to just north.

The original footbridge and the cycle path bridge on the abutments of the former Pontypool Road - Neath line are probably too low for catenary. The cycle path bridge has ramps leading to both platforms so presumably can provide accessibility.

The platform footbridge may survive as the last example of RR / GWR type on the valleys network.