A 231 and 756 left Canton behind a 37 today, presumably heading for Holyhead.
-
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!
South Wales 'Metro' updates
- Thread starter Envoy
- Start date
A 231 and 756 left Canton behind a 37 today, presumably heading for Holyhead.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 4,577
Which is sort of my point, you get them close but not exact. Perhaps I should have been clearer?
VR494
Member
Ty-Glas is back open and looks like it’s back to the usual routine on the Coryton line this morning, run fast and delays. Interesting to see how much one additional stop can make to the timetable, throw in some crowds of commuters and it’ll be back to Birchgrove terminus.
Well before Ty Glas shut it was almost always there that they turned round at, not Birchgrove.
Even when they had more than enough time to get to Birchgrove and back.
I know it wasn't me you asked, but...
I just know what I've seen as a passenger and I probably don't understand how things work, but from my point of view it would help if it was possible to...
1) Not turn late runing trains round so early that they then sit for 15 minutes before heading back again
2) Let a Coryton train that's a few minutes late out onto the main line rather than having to wait until after the next train from Caerphilly has passed. There is quite a small window between the timetabled departure and the point at which the junction gets set for the main line, even though it's then quite a while before the train on the main line actually passes and the train from Coryton could have got out first without delaying it. It could then make up time because of the additional time in the timetable between Heath Low Level and Queen Street. Instead it's late off the branch, delaying the next one onto the branch, and then it repeats.
Reliability seems to have been a lot better since the 756s came in. It's not obvious to me why given that they don't seem to save any time on the Coryton branch due to the extended dwell times. Maybe it's because Ty Glas closed at the same time.
Before that there seemed to be a period when trains were allowed to run late on the Coryton Line rather than being cut short at the first sign of delay. Maybe it messed up the rest of the network too much but it didn't seem to cause the Coryton Line itself to collapse.
I don't suppose this would be acceptable after all that work extending the platform, but if having Ty Glas open does wreck performance is the answer to close it again?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Under current operation indeed. Which suggests to me that the problem is the operation, not the traction itself.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I do wonder how much more it would have cost to have made it a bit longer. There seems to be plenty of space at the end.
It seems a shame to me that the junction can't just automatically be set later.
I appreciate the logic behind not giving a driver a yellow signal when the following one will almost certainly clear by the time they reach the junction, but as in normal service trains will all call at Heath High Level anyway they are presumably driven prepared to stop there regardless of what the signal protecting the junction is showing.
Perhaps it's got better but my experience before the 756s came in is that it was quite unusual for a signaller to intervene.
Cardiff123
Established Member
You'll find extensive explanations in this thread
TfW class 398 Stadler Citylink tram trains
Thanks for this update. Yesterday, TfW social media shared a video asking passengers on the Pontypridd- Treherbert line what they thought of their new trains. Did it mention that the "new trains" are only temporary? There are three diagrams in the system from May, all coming off Taffs Well...
www.railforums.co.uk
Tumbleweed
Member
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 189
Pleased to see the tram train extension out to Creigiau and Pontyclun/Beddau is still being mentioned.
Anywhere in particular?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Does anyone know if there's a more recent electrification and other enhancements diagram like from before.
Latest one I have is dated 22/12/2023
I'm curious if the Catenary free sections match up with what we ended up with. For example there was one slightly north of pontlottyn, that's not in open street maps?
Also did the Rhymney Sidings get energised or not yet?
Last edited:
VR494
Member
It’s been reported through internal sources there may now be a potential issue with the stable and charging infrastructure at Taffs Well depot. A 398 is reported to have suffered a thermal runaway while under charging.
It looks like the fleet will be out of action for a few days while they and the equipment are inspected to ensure there are no underlying problems that have not been identified.
It looks like the fleet will be out of action for a few days while they and the equipment are inspected to ensure there are no underlying problems that have not been identified.
Last edited:
Where has this been reported please?
TFW have just put out a consultation on temporary closing the south entrance to Rhymney siding and the down Rhymney loop.
What i did notice is what appears to be a new switch(point) south of pontlottyn facing UP the valley.
Does anyone have any information on this?
All the maps and diagrams I've seen show an extended Tir-Phil loop but this would have point work in the other direction obviously.
Has TFW changed the plans?
Is there a new loop / 2nd platform at pontlottyn planned?
What i did notice is what appears to be a new switch(point) south of pontlottyn facing UP the valley.
Does anyone have any information on this?
All the maps and diagrams I've seen show an extended Tir-Phil loop but this would have point work in the other direction obviously.
Has TFW changed the plans?
Is there a new loop / 2nd platform at pontlottyn planned?
Do you have a link to the consultation please.
trainspotter4
Member
I noticed this too when I saw that document but if you go back to Tir-Phil platform length changes, it's also in there:
Am I right in saying that Rhymney used to be dual-track at one point so maybe an old switch over which was never removed, provisionally put in for platform two at Rhymney or just wrong aha?
Rhymney infrastructure seems to be having issues today anyway OLE wise, 756101 running Bargoed-Barry cancelled for the rest of the day, a lot of cancellations for Coryton too.
Yes I was going to try and look back to see when it first appeared.
VR494
Member
These are 3/6/9 PSM and are for the 398 fleet.
Interesting - it looks as if a Coryton bound train today skipped all stations between Heath and Coryton to make up for being 4 minutes late.
Of note because before Ty Glas closed, it seemed to be sacrosanct.
Everything beyond there was served on a "as convenient" basis but Ty Glas was (almost?) never skipped. Likewise when trains were turned short it was nearly always at Ty Glas, regardless of how far the train could have reasonably made it up the line.
Of note because before Ty Glas closed, it seemed to be sacrosanct.
Everything beyond there was served on a "as convenient" basis but Ty Glas was (almost?) never skipped. Likewise when trains were turned short it was nearly always at Ty Glas, regardless of how far the train could have reasonably made it up the line.
CapitalStar378
Member
- Joined
- 22 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 598
This level of service is absolutely shocking, more evidence that TfW don't give two hoots about the Coryton line. What a shambles.
56xx
Member
Makes sense to me as there is only a maximum 6 - 8 minute wait to get off on the way back down.
Pontlottyn, Tirphil & Birthdir passengers have to juggle every train to make sure it either stops to pick up or set down at their stations and that's timetabled.
Yes stop skipping makes perfect sense to me and it's a shame they haven't made more use of it in the past as opposed to just turning a train round at Ty Glas.
I just found it interesting that today they seemed to also skip Ty Glas whereas (before Ty Glas closed for the platform works) they would only skip stops beyond that.
Recently the service has been much, much better.
Maybe not so much now that Ty Glas is open again though.
Announcement from TfW today:
Presumably insufficient 150s are available to support this service.
Presumably insufficient 150s are available to support this service.
Last edited by a moderator:
I cycled past Butetown today and there's a bus lane closure with big concrete barriers on Lloyd George Avenue, and contractors on site working on the Bay end entrance to the station. I suspect they're laying a concrete slab to link the station steps with the pavement, as has already been done at the city end.
They were already talking about canning this service to make timetable space for 398 testing, but I expect that keeping the hours down on the remaining 150s is likely to be an issue with the 398s running so late.
Smwrff
Member
Shouldnt that read 'train unavailability'
I suspect it's partly that, and partly that they need the path for testing 398s but don't want to admit to it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
No it's grammatically perfectly fine to say what they said.
“I am a 23-year old blonde bombshell” is grammatically correct. Doesn’t make it true, though.
Phrasing is fine. Everyone will understand the suspension is due to [issues with] train availability, without the bit in brackets being spelled out. Nobody will have interpreted it as being due to having sufficient trains available. Pedantic to suggest otherwise.
Smwrff
Member
It might be grammatically correct - it might be understood by all.
But it is spin - avoiding the use of negativity.
But it is spin - avoiding the use of negativity.
One more small disappointment...
On a Cardiff-bound train from Coryton we just had an automated announcement approaching Ty Glas that passengers should move forward if intending to alight.
Maybe a hangover from a previous plan to use selective door opening rather than extend the platform? Or something that should only trigger if a 4 car 756 came this way?
(But that wouldn't fit Coryton either).
Seems a bit useless as an instruction anyway - how far forward is one supposed to go?
On a Cardiff-bound train from Coryton we just had an automated announcement approaching Ty Glas that passengers should move forward if intending to alight.
Maybe a hangover from a previous plan to use selective door opening rather than extend the platform? Or something that should only trigger if a 4 car 756 came this way?
(But that wouldn't fit Coryton either).
Seems a bit useless as an instruction anyway - how far forward is one supposed to go?