Conwy Valley Line - Time to say good bye?

Belperpete · 5 Jul 2026

Is this 20 mph restriction what has killed the revised timetable that was due to be implemented later this year?

If the Ffestiniog tunnel is going to need expensive work carried out on it, then this really should be the final straw to call into question the lines viability. Just how much money is going to be thrown at shoring up a service that is next to useless?

At one time, converting all or part of the line to a heritage operation might have been plausible, but with most heritage railways struggling these days, I don't think anyone in their right mind would take on the Conwy Valley these days. Especially with its propensity for swallowing sizeable sums of money in infrastructure costs. I certainly can't see the Ffestiniog touching it with a bargepole. And if running at only 25mph, the increase in journey time would mean it would only be tourists using it.

I must admit that Blaenau having the same ticketing statistics as Betws is odd. Is that because much of Betws traffic is tourists, many of whom are on rover tickets, so don't show on the stats. I have to admit that I am not up to date on what bus and rail rovers are available these days, since the demise of the red rover. I also wonder how the free concessionary travel affects the statistics, as I suspect that a lot of local passengers are travelling on such passes - at places like Llandudno and the Junction you are told to get the ticket on the train, but many guards only want to issue them when they have time on their hands after Betws.

A 2tp3h (or a train every 90 minutes) would be little better than what we have now. It would mean that you would have alternate bad and very bad connections. What is needed is no connection at all - a through service. And god help us if we need to make connections at both Blaenau and Betws.

RailUK Forums

Krokodil · 5 Jul 2026

Belperpete said:
Is this 20 mph restriction what has killed the revised timetable that was due to be implemented later this year?

I don't know. The SRT appears to have had an extra couple of minutes added to it. It could just be a case that the new timetable still hasn't been agreed. Network Rail may have objected, Train Planning may just be too busy to make the changes (they said that Deganwy would cease to be a request stop at least a year before they actually got on and changed it).

Belperpete said:
And if running at only 25mph, the increase in journey time would mean it would only be tourists using it.

Only 5mph different from the current speed, though the FR is restricted to 20mph anyway.

Belperpete said:
tourists, many of whom are on rover tickets

Other than a tiny handful of Britrail passes, virtually no one using Betws-y-Coed is travelling on a rover ticket. If you did a survey of one of the busy trains you'll find most passengers on Llandudno or Llandudno Junction day return tickets/concessions. Not forgetting all of those pesky kids, who I used to work hard to ensure that they'd actually paid for their trip to jump in the waterfalls.

Belperpete · 5 Jul 2026

Farigiraf said:
A five-hour ride is already approaching the territory of bus/coach travel that only the most budget-conscious Flixbus/NatEx travellers will pick - even 2-3h for medium-distance journeys is pushing it with the limited legroom and unreliable toilets that can be expected. Extending to Swansea/Cardiff, or diverting to Llandudno, is unlikely to win over that many more travellers compared to a well-timed connection at a rail station.

Except that Llandudno won't have a well timed connection into the new Carmarthen service. It will require a minimum of two changes to connect with it. Whereas if the service were to run from Llandudno, passengers from Bangor and all other North Coast towns, could connect to it with one change at the Junction.

The problem with the current Bangor to Carmarthen service is that it involves a quite short connection at Aberystwyth, where as far as I can see there are no toilets near the bus interchange (a similar problem to the Dolgellau interchange). With no toilets on the buses, that makes the journey unviable as far as I am concerned. I am hoping that the coaches for the new through service have on board toilets.

At least Blaenau and Porthmadog have public toilets close to the bus interchanges.

Harpo · 6 Jul 2026

Belperpete said:
….short connection at Aberystwyth, where as far as I can see there are no toilets near the bus interchange (a similar problem to the Dolgellau interchange). With no toilets on the buses, that makes the journey unviable as far as I am concerned. I am hoping that the coaches for the new through service have on board toilets.

Ceredigion would like to be rid of public toilets that don’t make a profit (!) and has consulted on this. (Below)

On Aberystwyth specifically, public loos are primarily seafront around a quarter of a mile away but the bus station has a Spoons next door……

The idea of using a bus (Aberystwyth to Carmarthen) for 2+ hours without a loo, straight after lunch on a planned circular trip isn’t going to work for me.

options for toilets that are not being supported through a lease, SLA or contribution.
Options could include:
• To consult on whether a private interest or other organisation would be prepared to run and maintain the toilets.
• To consult with existing businesses, that have toilets, to see whether they would be prepared to make their toilets available to the public.

https://council.ceredigion.gov.uk/documents/s10791/Scrutiny%20Report%20Public%20Toilets.pdf?LLL=0

Bletchleyite · 6 Jul 2026

Belperpete said:
Is this 20 mph restriction what has killed the revised timetable that was due to be implemented later this year?

Where is this 20mph restriction and why?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2026 ==

Belperpete said:
If the Ffestiniog tunnel is going to need expensive work carried out on it, then this really should be the final straw to call into question the lines viability. Just how much money is going to be thrown at shoring up a service that is next to useless?

It's not next to useless. It even sometimes carries standing loads these days. Do you ever even go there?

Belperpete said:
A 2tp3h (or a train every 90 minutes) would be little better than what we have now. It would mean that you would have alternate bad and very bad connections. What is needed is no connection at all - a through service. And god help us if we need to make connections at both Blaenau and Betws.

A through service to where?

And Swiss style connections aren't always what you need. If you're going wild camping near Roman Bridge, for instance, half an hour at the Junction to pop into Aldi for your provisions (or to grab chips on the way back) is ideal. Don't assume a Swiss style 5 minute connection is necessary on this sort of leisure journey - it's not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2026 ==

stevieinselby said:
With much of the route south of Betws-y-Coed being in tunnel, it's probably fair to say that going by bus would be more scenic!

Another person who appears never to even have been there!

South of Betws is one of the most spectacular pieces of railway in the UK. Possibly even THE most spectacular, though it depends on what scenery you like, I guess!

(To be fair it is a nice bus ride - when the T1 existed I liked to go one way by train, one way by bus)

Practically though if we were going to do something (e.g. if the tunnel did fail - I'd rather it stayed open otherwise) I would like to see a package of both investment and retrenchment roughly thus:

Truncate the line to Betws
South of Betws to be gifted to Sustrans with a deed of covenant requiring maintenance as a cycle path in perpetuity and prohibiting sale of any sections. Before this the rails would be lifted and a wheelchair accessible tarmac path and suitable access points put in place similar to around Threlkeld. It would be almost as enjoyable (if not more so) on a bike! The tunnel would close, though.
Install ETCS on the system used by the Cambrian and a passing loop about half way (not sure where that would be) and use two units to operate an hourly clockface service connecting with the Manchester service (likely to be the highest demand I think).
On the present Betws short stay car park (the one directly outside the station) build a high quality covered bus interchange using local slate.
Recast the bus network to make this connection the centre of it, with the station renamed (a la Oxenholme) "Betws Y Coed - Gateway to Eryri" (and Welsh translation).
Increase the amount of car parking at Betws (possibly consider double decking the existing long stay car park, again clad in local slate) so as to make it also a park and ride for those arriving by car.

That should give you a pretty effective Swiss style setup - maybe a bit costlier than now but could be part funded by making all parking in the Park £10/day or something for those who won't use the park and ride.

Harpo · 6 Jul 2026

Bletchleyite said:
Install ETCS on the system used by the Cambrian

Why? What gains do you envisage? It would add cost (more fitted units) and the ops complexity of cycling fitted units to get there.

As an aside, the only reason for the Cambrian having ETCS was as a pilot chosen because it’s lightly-trafficked (less train fitment), self contained and mostly freight-free. Otherwise, it would have been an extremely low priority for fitment.

Bletchleyite · 6 Jul 2026

Harpo said:
Why? What gains do you envisage? It would add cost (more fitted units) and the ops complexity of cycling fitted units to get there.

Because if we're building a new loop it might be the easiest way to do it?

If not, traditional signalling would be fine.

cactustwirly · 6 Jul 2026

Bletchleyite said:
Because if we're building a new loop it might be the easiest way to do it?

If not, traditional signalling would be fine.

Surely you'd use token block?

zwk500 · 6 Jul 2026

Bletchleyite said:
Because if we're building a new loop it might be the easiest way to do it?

If not, traditional signalling would be fine.

ETCS L2 requires on-train fitment and a new interlocking to allow interlocking-RBC communication, as well as all the on-track fitment. NSTR controlled from Llandudno Jn SB would probably be the simplest way to do it (Although subject to the increasing obsolescence of physical token instruments) even if it's not cheap on absolute terms.

Bletchleyite · 6 Jul 2026

cactustwirly said:
Surely you'd use token block?

I'm not fixated on what to use, but for an hourly clockface Betws service it does need a new loop half way between Betws and Llandudno (not the Junction), Llanrwst is too far south. Tal y Cafn would probably be the place to do it. Is it worth installing legacy signalling systems now? If it is, then by all means do that, I'm just thinking of it being a decent future proofing for the northern section of the line at the expense of the southern section which is less important for tourism etc.

Harpo · 6 Jul 2026

Bletchleyite said:
Because if we're building a new loop it might be the easiest way to do it?

If not, traditional signalling would be fine.

Ah. OK. I’ve no knowledge of it’s existing signalling but I’m guessing that a low cost solution is preferable.

Bletchleyite · 6 Jul 2026

Harpo said:
Ah. OK. I’ve no knowledge of it’s existing signalling but I’m guessing that a low cost solution is preferable.

RETB* would be ideal if it was still something being installed afresh! You want something with minimal assets that could be affected by flooding, so the more radio-based and remote the better!

I suppose to be fair that kind of points to train staff working south of the loop with a key on the staff for the signalling and sprung points!

* Radio electronic token block, as used on Scottish rural lines and formerly on the Cambrian.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2026 ==

Harpo said:
Ah. OK. I’ve no knowledge of it’s existing signalling

It's some sort of physical token based thing, I don't know the exact term.

zwk500 · 6 Jul 2026

Harpo said:
Ah. OK. I’ve no knowledge of it’s existing signalling but I’m guessing that a low cost solution is preferable.

Existing Signalling is Electric Token between Llandudno Jn and North Llanwrst, and No Signaller Token between North Llanwrst and Blaenau. Any change would almost certainly need to eliminate the current signaller position at North Llanwrst to justify itself.

I'm fairly sure "sprung" (hydraulic) points are not permitted for new installations, at least for facing moves. The line would also need to have some approach for the large number of level crossings between signals. That might be non-interlocked (like the trialled system on the heart of Wales), or by converting to TCB with axle counters breaking the track into slightly smaller sections for better advice to LC Users.

The other alternative, especially if going to a Swiss-style timed interchanges would be to convert the line to tram operation, with some or all of the length on Batteries if OLE is not acceptable in the most scenic areas (although the Swiss seem to cope with it in the Alps...). Separate the line entirely from NR and heavy rail's cost base, run the line as it's own self-contained operation from bay platforms at Llandudno Jn. Could even take over (or interwork) the branch to Llandudno itself if you wanted.
Keeping the line separate from Heavy Rail would be critical to any ideas of lessening subsidy though - the moment you need to meet heavy rail standards, the benefits of converting to light rail start withering away.

AndrewE · 6 Jul 2026

Belperpete said:
Is this 20 mph restriction what has killed the revised timetable that was due to be implemented later this year?

If the Ffestiniog tunnel is going to need expensive work carried out on it, then this really should be the final straw to call into question the lines viability. Just how much money is going to be thrown at shoring up a service that is next to useless?

If the tunnel could end up closing the line, does it actually need to have a very expensive repair? I don't think it is particularly tight and I seem to remember pictures of great caverns, so could the iffy bits be lined with concrete sections of some sort and then the rock around them supported by pumping concrete in?

yoyothehobo · 6 Jul 2026

AndrewE said:
If the tunnel could end up closing the line, does it actually need to have a very expensive repair? I don't think it is particularly tight and I seem to remember pictures of great caverns, so could the iffy bits be lined with concrete sections of some sort and then the rock around them supported by pumping concrete in?

As far as I am aware the tunnel is completely unlined and goes through very complex geology with steeply dipping slates, so would be tough. It has just had a whole load of rock bolting done in it to help improve its stability, so i dont know what repairs are being mentioned.

Jez · 6 Jul 2026

They can't close the Conwy Valley I still want to visit the least used station in Wales - Roman Bridge!

I also want to visit Pont Y Pant and Dollwyddellan. I've only done the line in full once back in 2012 on a 150. A couple of years ago I did go as far as Betws y Coed.

Dai Corner · 6 Jul 2026

One significant factor I don't think has been mentioned so far is that railway infrastructure (bar the Core Valley Lines around Cardiff) isn't devolved to Wales. Like the remainder in Wales the Conwy Valley line is maintained at the expense of the UK Government. I believe it's already had large sums spent on repairs and mitigation in the Llanwrst area.

If, as some are calling for, the infrastructure was devolved at some future date and major, expensive work became necessary the Welsh Government would have to make some difficult decisions.

Krokodil · 6 Jul 2026

Harpo said:
but the bus station has a Spoons next door…

So a long yomp to the toilets then, if it's like any other Spoons

Bletchleyite said:
Where is this 20mph restriction and why?

Ffestiniog Tunnel, due to be implemented in December because of concerns about the effect of vibration.

Harpo said:
Ah. OK. I’ve no knowledge of it’s existing signalling but I’m guessing that a low cost solution is preferable.

Token working, the points at Llanrwst are sprung (presumably in anticipation of RETB fitment that never happened).

AndrewE said:
does it actually need to have a very expensive repair?

From what NR staff have told me, yes. In the absence of funding it's getting a speed restriction.

BenBracken · 6 Jul 2026

Politically, I can’t see any form of closure or downgrade of rail services happening in north Wales, or anywhere else outside of Cardiff. (Take the cut and reinstatement of the HoWL 5th daily service after political pressure for example). You can imagine the uproar as over a billion has been spent on electrifying the Valley Lines for then a rural service to be scrapped in the north due to lack of funding for maintenance, repairs and reliable stock.

Belperpete · 12 Jul 2026

BenBracken said:
Politically, I can’t see any form of closure or downgrade of rail services happening in north Wales, or anywhere else outside of Cardiff. (Take the cut and reinstatement of the HoWL 5th daily service after political pressure for example). You can imagine the uproar as over a billion has been spent on electrifying the Valley Lines for then a rural service to be scrapped in the north due to lack of funding for maintenance, repairs and reliable stock.

Just closing the line would I agree be politically unacceptable. Replacing it with a much more frequent bus service, with additional and more convenient stops, might be a different matter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2026 ==

Bletchleyite said:
It's not next to useless. It even sometimes carries standing loads these days. Do you ever even go there?

As per my previous posts, I now live locally, and when I do travel on the line, it is not uncommon that on the train back to Blaenau I find I have the coach to myself by the time we get to Blaenau. The line south of Betws carries more fresh air than passengers.

Bletchleyite said:
And Swiss style connections aren't always what you need. If you're going wild camping near Roman Bridge, for instance, half an hour at the Junction to pop into Aldi for your provisions (or to grab chips on the way back) is ideal. Don't assume a Swiss style 5 minute connection is necessary on this sort of leisure journey - it's not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2026 ==

That is all very well for tourists. But I would rather the service were tailored for locals, who would use the service year-round, not just a few weeks in high summer and holidays.

Bletchleyite said:
Another person who appears never to even have been there!

Pot calling kettle! Your perception of the line appears to be based on infrequent trips as a tourist, rather than a local who would like a useable service.

Bletchleyite said:
South of Betws is one of the most spectacular pieces of railway in the UK. Possibly even THE most spectacular, though it depends on what scenery you like, I guess!

When was the last time you travelled on the line? South of Betws, you are in green tunnel if not in actual tunnel, for much of the route. The most spectacular bit, Gethin's bridge, is spectacular if you are looking at the railway, but travelling on the train is easily missed.

Bletchleyite said:
Practically though if we were going to do something (e.g. if the tunnel did fail - I'd rather it stayed open otherwise) I would like to see a package of both investment and retrenchment roughly thus:

Truncate the line to Betws

Here I do agree with you. Truncating the line south of Betws would be the best solution. With a through bus service between the transport hubs of Porthmadog and Llandudno/Llandudno Junction.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2026 ==

zwk500 said:
Existing Signalling is Electric Token between Llandudno Jn and North Llanwrst, and No Signaller Token between North Llanwrst and Blaenau. Any change would almost certainly need to eliminate the current signaller position at North Llanwrst to justify itself.

I'm fairly sure "sprung" (hydraulic) points are not permitted for new installations, at least for facing moves.

Correct, for heavy rail. How you signalling the loop(s) is the critical bit. With motor worked points, you would need track circuits or axle counters, some means of controlling and proving the points, and some form of interlocking. This is expensive.

zwk500 said:
The line would also need to have some approach for the large number of level crossings between signals. That might be non-interlocked (like the trialled system on the heart of Wales), or by converting to TCB with axle counters breaking the track into slightly smaller sections for better advice to LC Users.

Signalling the loop(s) and converting the level crossings would need significant investment. And this as I have said before is the crux of the problem. It is investment that is never going to be justifiable. There isn't the population density and potential for significant traffic increase to justify it, unlike the South Wales Valleys.

And there is no incentive for the Senedd to make such investment while Westminster is saddled with the ongoing costs of keeping the existing going. However, if the service deteriorates further, because of long speed restrictions or perhaps even RRBs being introduced if the tunnel is deemed unsafe, then perhaps TfW might be spurred into action.

zwk500 said:
The other alternative, especially if going to a Swiss-style timed interchanges would be to convert the line to tram operation, with some or all of the length on Batteries if OLE is not acceptable in the most scenic areas (although the Swiss seem to cope with it in the Alps...). Separate the line entirely from NR and heavy rail's cost base, run the line as it's own self-contained operation from bay platforms at Llandudno Jn. Could even take over (or interwork) the branch to Llandudno itself if you wanted.
Keeping the line separate from Heavy Rail would be critical to any ideas of lessening subsidy though - the moment you need to meet heavy rail standards, the benefits of converting to light rail start withering away.

How are you going to keep a tram route to Llandudno separate from the heavy rail route? Flyover?

The trams would need their own maintenance depot. As well as the trams in service, you would need to have sufficient spares to allow for overhauls and maintenance, for such a small fleet this could potentially double the number of trams needed. A small, isolated fleet of vehicles is not a recipe for success, particularly once it becomes obsolete.

And again, conversion to a self contained tram service would need significant investment, which is never going to be justifiable. Any investment justification is going to require comparison with the alternatives, and the investment needed for a bus equivalent would be tiny by comparison.

chrisjo · 12 Jul 2026

How about connecting the Great Orme Tramway to the rest of the system at Llandudno, then running the trams all the way to Blaenau? OK, there might be a few minor issues to overcome, but where there's a will.....job's a good 'un.

Krokodil · 12 Jul 2026

Belperpete said:
Pot calling kettle! Your perception of the line appears to be based on infrequent trips as a tourist, rather than a local who would like a useable service.

Whereas I spent seven years working the line. Why don't you canvas opinion in Blaenau and see what they think of having their railway line taken away?

You could double the frequency to make a far more usable service with no changes to the infrastructure at all.

Would have more room for the dozen bikes that were on yesterday too...

Belperpete said:
When was the last time you travelled on the line?

In my case, yesterday. It is one of the most spectacular heavy rail lines south of the Scottish border.

Belperpete said:
How are you going to keep a tram route to Llandudno separate from the heavy rail route?

Why would you need to separate it? Trams run on heavy rail routes in South Yorkshire and South Wales.

Egg Centric · 12 Jul 2026

tbtc said:
I read Roger Ford's very interesting article about the bus to Tilbury Riveside:

Every route 99. 4 of 25.

Tuesday 10th March 2026 I’m pretty sure this route 99 will be one of the least used to be featured in this year’s fortnightly series looking at all Britain’s 25 bus services beari…

busandtrainuser.com

A decision was taken in the early nineties that (since BR wanted to close the branch, on the grounds that it was a railway built to serve a ferry terminal that no longer had any ferries, due to the Dartford Crossing obliterating the need for boats shuttling over the river) a bus would have to run at the same frequency as the former railway line. Forever.

The 99 is protected by an Act of Parliament. Unlike normal bus routes, cutting/withdrawing this service would require all of the expensive faffing about needed to close an inch of railway line

So the argument that replacing this infrequent branch line would automatically see a bus route that would be scrapped shortly afterwards isn't strictly true. Why couldn't we have a similar Act of Parliament to ensure that a replacement bus was at least as frequent as the trains had been (on the days that the line was fully open, there were sufficient staff, the operator didn't have a shortage of stock...)

Otherwise this is a perfect example of the Sunk Cost Fallacy. We have to spend a few more million fixing the track that washed away, since we've previously spent tens of millions on propping it up, and we just cross our fingers that we absolutely definitely won't be spaffing yet more millions on it in months to come

Compare and contrast the hysteria on here every time the sea wall at Dawlish sees the line closed for a few hours ("we must spend hundreds on millions on an alternative BECAUSE RESILIENCE!") with the shoulder shrugging every time this fragile branch fails

I don't understand how the lesson you take from a small waste of money caused by out of date inflexible legislation is that we should have a lot more of the latter causing much greater wastes of money.

To my mind rural railways should be treated like the royal family - any attempt at discussing value to the public purse needs to be shut down ruthlessly as essentially an attack on our culture*. If you start going down the value for money route there's absolutely no reason to stop at bustitution. Resist the urge!

*This is not a contradiction with the first paragraph. Loss making rural bus services are not a part of our culture.

Belperpete · 13 Jul 2026

Krokodil said:
Whereas I spent seven years working the line. Why don't you canvas opinion in Blaenau and see what they think of having their railway line taken away?

As I said previously, if that were all you were proposing, there would be uproar. But if you were proposing to replace it with a significantly more reliable and frequent bus service, the reaction would likely be very different. Particularly if that bus service were to drop you off outside Asda, the retail park, or stops along the length of Llandudno shopping centre,ike the X1 used to, rather than dumping you down the back-end of a side-street like the train does. That reason alone was why significant numbers of locals deserted the train for the X1.

Krokodil said:
You could double the frequency to make a far more usable service with no changes to the infrastructure at all.

How? My understanding is that the service was cut because the signalling at Llanrwst was deemed no longer fit for regular crossing of trains.

Krokodil said:
In my case, yesterday. It is one of the most spectacular heavy rail lines south of the Scottish border.

North of Llanrwst, where the train parallels the River Conwy, I might agree. But not south of Betws, where you are running in a pine tree tunnel for much of the way until you reach the natural tree line.

Krokodil said:
Why would you need to separate it? Trams run on heavy rail routes in South Yorkshire and South Wales.

See the post I was responding to.

Thinking about this topic further, if an hourly through bus service were introduced between Port and Llandudno, there would hardly be a need for an hourly train service to Betws. Most of the locals would desert the train for the bus, as they did when the X1 ran. A two hourly train service to Betws would surely suffice for the remaining traffic, and would be better than the current three hourly interval service. And while there would be scope for infrastructure savings, it could be achieved with no upfront investment at all, just turn the train back at Betws. The line to Blaenau could be retained for a Sunday only type parliamentary service, for those who want it kept as a tourist attraction.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2026 ==

Egg Centric said:
To my mind rural railways should be treated like the royal family - any attempt at discussing value to the public purse needs to be shut down ruthlessly as essentially an attack on our culture*. If you start going down the value for money route there's absolutely no reason to stop at bustitution. Resist the urge!

If they are being retained purely because of their cultural value, rather than their usefulness as a transport service, perhaps we should hand them over to the National Trust?

Egg Centric · 13 Jul 2026

Belperpete said:
If they are being retained purely because of their cultural value, rather than their usefulness as a transport service, perhaps we should hand them over to the National Trust?

I would not be against this in principle. Pragmatically though, let's be clear that their cultural value includes their usefulness (in as much as there is some) and doing this more than slightly risks them being run more like a tourist attraction/preserved railway. In a very small number of cases that might actually be a good thing, but not usually.

Krokodil · 13 Jul 2026

Belperpete said:
As I said previously, if that were all you were proposing, there would be uproar. But if you were proposing to replace it with a significantly more reliable and frequent bus service, the reaction would likely be very different.

So are you going to canvas the locals or not? I look forward to hearing your findings.

Belperpete said:
That reason alone was why significant numbers of locals deserted the train for the X1.

So many that the bus service was later deemed uneconomic by the operator and withdrawn.

Belperpete said:
How? My understanding is that the service was cut because the signalling at Llanrwst was deemed no longer fit for regular crossing of trains.

Understanding from where? Is this supposed rule written down somewhere?

What was the service cut from? When was a two-train service actually run (not counting excursions, charters or Eisteddfod extras)? Have you got an old timetable showing a two-train service running all day (swapping 101s between the Holyhead stopper and the Branch once per day doesn't count)?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2026 ==

Belperpete said:
North of Llanrwst, where the train parallels the River Conwy, I might agree. But not south of Betws, where you are running in a pine tree tunnel for much of the way until you reach the natural tree line.

The best bit of the line is between Pont-y-Pant and Ffestiniog Tunnel. Great views of Moel Siabod and Yr Wyddfa.

Belperpete said:
See the post I was responding to.

The one suggesting running into the former bay platforms 3A/4A at Junction?

Bletchleyite · 14 Jul 2026

Belperpete said:
As I said previously, if that were all you were proposing, there would be uproar. But if you were proposing to replace it with a significantly more reliable and frequent bus service, the reaction would likely be very different. Particularly if that bus service were to drop you off outside Asda, the retail park, or stops along the length of Llandudno shopping centre,ike the X1 used to, rather than dumping you down the back-end of a side-street like the train does. That reason alone was why significant numbers of locals deserted the train for the X1

Untrue. The main reason the locals deserted the railway for the X1 was that they were largely passholders (most who could afford cars would simply drive anyway) and passes were valid on the X1 but not the railway. When they made passes valid on the railway, loads switched back, and as a result the X1, which was only really propped up by passholder travel, seriously retrenched, though if I recall it didn't entirely go away until Express Motors collapsed in a heap. There was a LOT of moaning about this by Express's owners at the time.

Having said that, the X1 was (as with everything Express did) a very poor quality operation. A Trawscymru spec electric double decker might see different results.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2026 ==

Krokodil said:
What was the service cut from? When was a two-train service actually run (not counting excursions, charters or Eisteddfod extras)? Have you got an old timetable showing a two-train service running all day (swapping 101s between the Holyhead stopper and the Branch once per day doesn't count

I'm fairly sure the service went down to a single dedicated unit when the 175s arrived and the Holyhead stopper was binned off. 175s don't fit on the branch. There would (aside from any passing loop issues, which I have heard before) be scope to reverse that once (almost) everything uses 197s.

I don't think a full two train service has been run in a VERY long time though.

The afternoon timetable gap was for years filled with a bus run - in the pre 1998 timetable it was an early evening run (1900ish off the Junction), later I think it was either a school or evening commuter run, I forget. This was only taken out of the rail timetable when the X1 started.

whoosh · 14 Jul 2026

Farigiraf said:
I still think it's worth keeping the train service going as it is right now for a number of reasons - for one, it costs more to close than keep open frankly,

Dai Corner said:
One significant factor I don't think has been mentioned so far is that railway infrastructure (bar the Core Valley Lines around Cardiff) isn't devolved to Wales. Like the remainder in Wales the Conwy Valley line is maintained at the expense of the UK Government. I believe it's already had large sums spent on repairs and mitigation in the Llanwrst area.

If, as some are calling for, the infrastructure was devolved at some future date and major, expensive work became necessary the Welsh Government would have to make some difficult decisions.

I think it has been somewhat overlooked that railway infrastructure, such as bridges, tunnels, cuttings and embankments, still need a certain degree of maintenance even after a line has closed. This is then a cost for no service whatsoever. It be better 'value for money' to keep the service running with the line open.

The millstone factor is why land gets sold for only £1 sometimes.

There seem to be some who think that a Line Closure = washing your hands of all costs. That isn't the case.

Bletchleyite · 14 Jul 2026

whoosh said:
I think it has been somewhat overlooked that railway infrastructure, such as bridges, tunnels, cuttings and embankments, still need a certain degree of maintenance even after a line has closed. This is then a cost for no service whatsoever. It be better 'value for money' to keep the service running with the line open.

I think in this case this would be true as it would become a potentially popular cycle and walking route south of Betws (even if unofficial, but I'd strongly advocate handing it over to Sustrans in this case). Cycling on the main road there is grim, so it would have significant value in that form.

Unlikely that the tunnel would be included, though (given that a major collapse in that would be the most likely cause of truncation or closure), so it'd be similar to Woodhead in just being "down to Roman Bridge and back". Even so I reckon it'd be very popular.

Dai Corner · 14 Jul 2026

whoosh said:
I think it has been somewhat overlooked that railway infrastructure, such as bridges, tunnels, cuttings and embankments, still need a certain degree of maintenance even after a line has closed. This is then a cost for no service whatsoever. It be better 'value for money' to keep the service running with the line open.

The millstone factor is why land gets sold for only £1 sometimes.

There seem to be some who think that a Line Closure = washing your hands of all costs. That isn't the case.

Different budgets though.

Conwy Valley Line - Time to say good bye?

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member