South Wales 'Metro' potential works, expansions and impact of possible road schemes on the railway

[Dr Day]

For Bristol it might ultimately need a new tunnel but *something* is going to have to be done eventually. They should probably do it before the current tunnel reaches EOL

Not necessarily. Sometimes we just have to accept that certain aspirations hence enhancements are simply unaffordable for the taxpayer regardless of the organisation their tax has been channelled through to.

These things should all get looked at on a mode-agnostic, underlying problem-driven basis through any business case process, but here the issue is compounded by cross border housing price differentials exacerbated by the lifting of tolls on the bridges over the Severn.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I understand being pessimistic on timelines but it feels like TfW are already trying to look at how to solve some of this. The new burns stations in theory would be served by 4tph in the cardiff direction and 2tph each for Bristol and Cheltenham. Add that to the existing services for the major stations towards / from Bristol (2tph GWR and 1tp2h TfW from later this year hopefully), and the hourly XC to for the major starions towards Cheltenham (when it runs) and I think you do have a really good core there.

 

[The exile]

Induced demand on rail is good because we need modal shift towards rail and away from roads.

Modal shift is by definition not induced demand as the journeys are already being made. The main difference is that induced demand on the railway produces extra revenue at little extra cost (except at certain critical tipping points) - the only extra revenue from increased road mileage is through fuel duty and vat. Fuel consumption is precisely what needs to come down.

 

[mrmartin]

Induced demand on rail is good because we need modal shift towards rail and away from roads.

I completely agree that the M4 in south Wales is a joke but the proposed road solution wouldn't have solved the issue in the long term and the environment south of Newport is far too important to destroy for a road.

I also agree that I doubt new stations alone will be enough to impact congestion massively, we need cheaper tickets at least to Bristol, we need much higher frequency and capacity trains too. But we do need new stations to get people onto the railway. Though I also agree park and rides are needed too. The fact they're looking to build data centres on one the key park and ride sites is incredibly stupid.

How wouldn't it solve the issue? It'd be >100% more capacity on the key bottleneck across South Wales. I am extremely doubtful you could induce 2x the current traffic flows. Would you suggest the Elizabeth line shouldn't be built because it doesn't solve all of London commuting needs "long term"? And I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on the environmental merits of it, if we are considering man made land some sacred environmental thing that needs protected I think we are too far apart to bother debating.

Obviously it'd probably create more issues on local roads, but that's where I think a good park and ride system alongside it (rail based ideally) would help with that. I'm not suggesting building loads of new urban motorways, but we do need to solve serious bottlenecks in the strategic road network for economic reasons.

I guess my view is that if you want economic growth you need new roads in South Wales. Rail is not going to be able to solve this with modal shift.

I also don't really get the "reduce fuel consumption" idea as well given that within 20 years EVs are almost certainly going to become the majority of vehicle miles driven. Ironically taking a diesel train will have a (much) worse environmental profile.

 

[edwin_m]

How wouldn't it solve the issue? It'd be >100% more capacity on the key bottleneck across South Wales. I am extremely doubtful you could induce 2x the current traffic flows.

You wouldn't need to induce that much - just enough that things start jamming up at wherever the second most serious bottleneck currently is.

 

[mrmartin]

You wouldn't need to induce that much - just enough that things start jamming up at wherever the second most serious bottleneck currently is

But that's my point. There's not going to be a second bottleneck like that one. You've got 5 lanes of traffic across both Severn bridges, then the new bypass would start (2/3 on the old M4 and 3 on the new one).

Cardiff is all 3 lane and has spare capacity to absorb a lot of new traffic, you'd have to go towards Swansea when it drops back to 2 for there to be a strategic road issue, but all the Newport/Cardiff/Bridgend/valleys traffic has left by then.

I'm not saying that there won't still be traffic issues, but I don't know of one bottleneck like it for an entire country.

 

[zwk500]

The new burns stations in theory would be served by 4tph in the cardiff direction and 2tph each for Bristol and Cheltenham.

"In theory" is a critical part of that phrase

 

[Christian Schm]

Is that actually a viable solution to all of the M4s problems though? Any metro service will be centred around train access to Cardiff City Centre.
It doesn't neccesarily account for traffic coming from South East Wales going West of Cardiff, or traffic coming from North/Midlands and East of Bristol heading past Cardiff.
Its a sticking plaster solution that will reduce some traffic, but it wont have a massive effect.
From Abergavnney you have a choice of roads through pontypool and cwmbran, which comes out the West Side of Brynglas, or A40 and A449 which people would probably avoid anyway.

The vast majority of traffic on the M4 around Newport is local. Get more of that on the trains and North/Midlands and East of Bristol heading past Cardiff would do fine. Busiest section is actually 27 to 26 - that's Risca to Cwmbran, and of course anyone from Abergavenny to west of Newport...

Why would having a different organisation in charge suddenly provide massively more capacity through Newport station?

The point is that there are rail solutions - TfW consulted on the five (well, six) new stations, the half-hourly train services to Cheltenham, and the additional half-hourly service in autumn 2023. There's also a Marches Line study that shows that you could get additional trains to Abergavenny too. And none of this is new, Sewta did rail corridor studies on both Abergavenny and Chepstow lines in 2011, which showed the benefits of new stations and additional services.

It is just that so far nothing of this gets implemented. The comment on Transport Scotland is that TS has a better track record of delivering improvements - though to be fair to TfW, given the issues that they have experienced with Network Rail I can understand why they concentrate on the Valley Lines...

 

[anthony263]

Maybe look at extending the Ebbw Vale to Newport trains up to Abergavenny if they reopen that bay platform and turnback facility

 

[Christian Schm]

Can you actually go from Abergavenny directly into platform 4 in Newport? Because if not then that movement would require crossing the main SWML tracks twice, wouldn't it?

 

[zwk500]

Can you actually go from Abergavenny directly into platform 4 in Newport? Because if not then that movement would require crossing the main SWML tracks twice, wouldn't it?

I'm fairly sure you can, although it may be more efficient to just take the hit on 2 junction magins and work ex-Abergavenny traffic through platforms 2/3 anyway rather than try and path a wrong-road in from Maindee West to at least Newport.

 

[John R]

Induced demand on rail is good because we need modal shift towards rail and away from roads

I completely agree that the M4 in south Wales is a joke but the proposed road solution wouldn't have solved the issue in the long term and the environment south of Newport is far too important to destroy for a road.

Does a strip of tarmac 32m wide (assuming 6 lanes and a full hard shoulder) destroy an environment? Or simply split it in two?

And exactly how long would the section be through this section? Is it so important as to sustain all the disbenefits that everyone acknowledges the current M4 brings?

 

[positron]

Given that habitat fragmentation is a big part of the drop in UKs biodiversity I would say that yes it does contribute to destroying an environment. So does continuing policies that encourage private car ownership and use by the masses.

As for how long the section would be I'm actually not sure off the top of my head, I can't remember the exact specifics of the route in question anymore.

I obviously feel quite strongly that the new road is not the right solution so no point discussing further the merits, as I'm biased.

What I will say is doing nothing is definitely not a viable solution and they need to get in with the new stations and improved services sooner rather than later.

 

[Dr Day]

The point is that there are rail solutions - TfW consulted on the five (well, six) new stations, the half-hourly train services to Cheltenham, and the additional half-hourly service in autumn 2023. There's also a Marches Line study that shows that you could get additional trains to Abergavenny too. And none of this is new, Sewta did rail corridor studies on both Abergavenny and Chepstow lines in 2011, which showed the benefits of new stations and additional services.

It is just that so far nothing of this gets implemented.

Playing devil's advocate but a lot has changed since 2011. In 2026:

- are the rail solutions operationally feasible without compromising punctuality to existing services?
- are they affordable?
- are they value for money? (not quite the same thing)
- are they actually the best solution to the actual M4 congestion problem?

 

[Christian Schm]

Right, the only road-based option that has shown to generally reduce the daily congestion (which really isn't that great, compared with say Bristol or Cardiff) is the black route. Upgrading the SDR (I've forgotten the name for that, was it red route?) would make some difference to Newport when there is an accident on the M4 (like from very bad congestion to just bad congestion), but would not make a noticeable difference on normal days (because for most journeys even the somewhat-congested M4 is still quicker).

And note the performance of the existing M4 has also changed since 2011. There are fewer problematic accidents - because of the concrete central barriers it is now very rare that both directions are closed. And the 50 mph speed limit has also increased capacity and improved safety too.

So yes a Metro service to Abergavenny and STJ/Bristol/Chepstow is still the best solution - provided it can be delivered. And they would be easily value for money if it could be delivered for Transport Scotland unit prices. Quite possibly even if it could be delivered for TfW Valley Lines unit prices, at least assuming that TfW have learned something and they are coming down. They may also be value for money at Network Rail's Pye Corner and Bow Street new stations unit prices. But not if they end up like Ebbw Vale line enhancement or Wrexham-Chester doubling. And given that the Welsh Government paid for those two, and ended up badly treated/burnt by NR, you can see why WG/TfW would like some assurances. But one reason while I'm still optimistic that the 5 new stations & new services will be deliverable and be delivered is that the consultant who actually led Pye Corner and Bow Street is now working for TfW leading this project.

 

[Envoy]

They could do with a proper car park on the A465 - east side of Abergavenny station. At present, people using the trains are dumping their cars in a lay-by and running across a 60mph road and down a bank to reach the station. This lay-by is often full.

At Chepstow, there is limited parking. The best solution would be to get the timber yard and plastics manufacturer to relocate and use the land for additional parking for rail passengers.

Lydney should be brought into the contactless area. The hike in price between Chepstow and Lydney does nothing to encourage rail travel. People in Lydney wishing to travel into south Wales might just as well drive all the way into Cardiff or wherever as to go to Chepstow for trains is out due to limited parking. Of course, if Lydney was in the contactless area with reasonable prices and free parking, people from that town & environs would be more inclined to use the trains.

Yes, I am all for rail travel but the black route M4 south of Newport is desperately needed. Doing up the southern distributor road is just money down the drain. Also note that if a new southern M4 were built at Newport that the present M4 would still carry traffic between south Wales and the Midlands via the A449/A40/M50.

 

[Christian Schm]

A proper car park on the A465 (east side of Abergavenny station) is planned as part of the new housing development. But that depends on the new local development plan getting approved.

At Chepstow the council looked to buy the coal yard, but so far it seems without success. The timber yard would be more expensive as there’s a much more substantive building on it. Ditto any of the other businesses there.

But in any case, in my view a much better option would be a new station Chepstow East or Tutshill & Sedbury, about where the A48 meets the railway. Plenty of space for a big car park, plenty of space for platforms, and already a bridge over the railway that could function as the station footbridge. What’s not to like?

And there simply never was a business case for the black route, in terms of benefits v costs.