Carmarthen to Aberystwyth Reopening?

[Bald Rick]

Interesting question: how many cars does a class 158 need to take off the road to result in reduced greenhouse gas emmisions overall?

About 60.

 

[Rhydgaled]

About 60.

Is that 60 cars, or 60 passengers, which at average car occupancy of 1.6 would be 37.5 cars, which sounds a bit more reasonable, but still alot more than I would have thought given that, I think, it only takes around 6 or 7 cars to equal the emmisions of a bus, based on a conservative estimate of the fuel economy of a bus at 6mpg (conservative because I've read that certain bus models manage 9-10mpg) and cars doing 40mpg. Maths isn't my strong suit though, so if anyone can check my figures that could be helpful.

Interestingly I seem to have picked up a figure of 6mph for a 2-car 15x from somewhere. Whether that applies to 158s or only lessor sprinters I don't know, and the figure itself could of course just be plain wrong, but if true it suggests a 158 uses no more fuel than some of the less-efficient buses. Probably false then.

 

[Greenback]

An interesting idea, but Newcastle Emlyn was a branch off the Aberystwyth-Carmarthen line, not part of the through route. If you wanted a phased re-opening, I guess the first stage would have to be one of Carmarthen-Pencader, Carmarthen-Lampeter, Aberystwyth-Llanfarian or Aberystwyth-Llanilar. All of these suffer from including one of the 'expensive bits' where a new route would be required. The old route has been built on at the Aberystwyth end, and at the Carmarthen end (south of Pencader) I expect the curvature of the former route would significantly lengthen journey times. If the train isn't faster than driving there is absolutely zero case for re-opening.

The suggestion wasn't really intended as a staged reopening, more an attempt to illustrate how poor the case for reopening the entire line is. I doubt that the case for reopening to Newcastle Emlyn is that much better.

Having driven that way many a time, I'd be amazed if the train could beat the car - there is some congestion around Carmarthen town at peak times, but any time that costs the motorist would be cancelled out by having to get to their destination from the station.

For anyone not heading to Carmarthen town centre, for example Johnstown, the railway would be pretty useless.

Carmarthen and Aberystwyth are not 'two remote small market towns, socially and economically remote from each other'. In the context of our area, they are large towns, and the hourly bus service between them was the busiest TrawsCambria bus route.

You've undermined your own argument a bit there, because Carmarthen and Aberystwyth are small towns in the grand scheme of things. yes, they are important to the areas around them simply because the areas are more rural and sparsely populated compared to many other parts of the UK, and also quite a few parts of Wales.

The bus service is perfectly adequate for the area. Even assuming that a rebuilt railway attracted more people than use the buses, and I accept that will be the case, there still won't be enough to fill a 155.

If the route had survived back in the 60's and 70's it would be retained today. Sadly, that didn't happen and there's no way that it will ever be restored, at least not in my lifetime, which I hope will last at least another 20 years.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is that 60 cars, or 60 passengers, which at average car occupancy of 1.6 would be 37.5 cars, which sounds a bit more reasonable, but still alot more than I would have thought given that, I think, it only takes around 6 or 7 cars to equal the emmisions of a bus, based on a conservative estimate of the fuel economy of a bus at 6mpg (conservative because I've read that certain bus models manage 9-10mpg) and cars doing 40mpg. Maths isn't my strong suit though, so if anyone can check my figures that could be helpful.

Interestingly I seem to have picked up a figure of 6mph for a 2-car 15x from somewhere. Whether that applies to 158s or only lessor sprinters I don't know, and the figure itself could of course just be plain wrong, but if true it suggests a 158 uses no more fuel than some of the less-efficient buses. Probably false then.

60 cars.

IIRC, a typical modern DMU will average 2-4mpg per vehicle, ie 1-2mpg per 2car unit. It is at the bottom end of this range in routes that are hilly, curvy, with regular stops and/or changes in speed. E.g. like the old Camarthen - Aberystwth line. And these figures don't allow for empty moves at the end of the day.

My old 2 litre Golf (2005) does 50mpg+ combined cycle. On the roads of west Wales it has done 60mpg. Newer models will do 70mpg, some can get to 80mpg. I've assumed 60.

So 60mpg per car, vs 1mpg for the train.


As an aside I think it is pretty unlikely that if this line was reopened it would take many, if any, cars off the road. The line would be slow in terms of journey time; anyone with access to a car would surely continue to use it as door to door journey time would be so much quicker. A pretty unlikely ask, but is there anyone on this forum who knows of anyone that lives along the line that currently drives to Camarthen or Aberystwth (or Lampeter) that would genuinely use the train instead?

What it would do is take people off the buses (which presumably would continue to run) and generate new traffic. But not much. Not enough to pay for the running costs, let alone the billion quid or so it would take to build.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

60 cars.

IIRC, a typical modern DMU will average 2-4mpg per vehicle, ie 1-2mpg per 2car unit. It is at the bottom end of this range in routes that are hilly, curvy, with regular stops and/or changes in speed. E.g. like the old Camarthen - Aberystwth line. And these figures don't allow for empty moves at the end of the day.

My old 2 litre Golf (2005) does 50mpg+ combined cycle. On the roads of west Wales it has done 60mpg. Newer models will do 70mpg, some can get to 80mpg. I've assumed 60.

So 60mpg per car, vs 1mpg for the train.

Out of interest, and if it's not too far off-topic, do you know why the difference is so great? I appreciate that a DMU is massively heavier than your average car, but I would have expected a train to have proportionately much less friction on the rails than car tyres on a road, and much less air resistance, which ought to make it relatively more efficient (compared to weight) when going at constant speed. So I'm surprised that the difference is so great.

I'd also be curious to know how that compares with an EMU for fuel efficiency.

 

[Bald Rick]

Out of interest, and if it's not too far off-topic, do you know why the difference is so great? I appreciate that a DMU is massively heavier than your average car, but I would have expected a train to have proportionately much less friction on the rails than car tyres on a road, and much less air resistance, which ought to make it relatively more efficient (compared to weight) when going at constant speed. So I'm surprised that the difference is so great.

I'd also be curious to know how that compares with an EMU for fuel efficiency.

A 2 car DMU is roughly 60 times the weight of a typical hatchback, and somewhat less aerodynamic. It also has much more on board to power, not least heating and air con of proportionately much more air 'space' but also doors, brakes, and all sorts of control gear.

At a constant speed a train will be relatively efficient per seat compared to a car. However, getting to that speed is where the physics is all about the mass to be accelerated.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The line would be slow in terms of journey time;

.... Not enough to pay for the running costs, let alone the billion quid or so it would take to build.

I thought the cost had been estimated at around £750m. If that's a sound estimate, then I would imagine you could do something about the slow journey time if you had £1bn or more to spend on it.

Google says it takes 1hr 22min to drive, on that basis I suggest the railway needs to be built to enable 1hr 15min journey times or better, which could well cost £1bn+. Carmarthen-Cardiff also needs to be brought down to 70minutes or less, through linespeed improvements and use of the Swansea District Line. If you can't acheive both of those journey times, then the idea of a railway between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen needs to be killed off and increased bus services provided instead.

 

[edwin_m]

much less friction on the rails than car tyres on a road

The friction is what allows it to get a grip but doesn't affect energy consumption unless it starts slipping. The important factor is rolling resistance (and yes it is much greater for a rubber tyre than a steel wheel when other things are equal).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance

 

[Bald Rick]

I thought the cost had been estimated at around £750m. If that's a sound estimate, then I would imagine you could do something about the slow journey time if you had £1bn or more to spend on it.

Google says it takes 1hr 22min to drive, on that basis I suggest the railway needs to be built to enable 1hr 15min journey times or better, which could well cost £1bn+. Carmarthen-Cardiff also needs to be brought down to 70minutes or less, through linespeed improvements and use of the Swansea District Line. If you can't acheive both of those journey times, then the idea of a railway between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen needs to be killed off and increased bus services provided instead.

£750m now would be a billion by the time it was built, just through inflation. Look at the costs of the Borders railway.

 

[coppercapped]

60 cars.

IIRC, a typical modern DMU will average 2-4mpg per vehicle, ie 1-2mpg per 2car unit. It is at the bottom end of this range in routes that are hilly, curvy, with regular stops and/or changes in speed. E.g. like the old Camarthen - Aberystwth line. And these figures don't allow for empty moves at the end of the day.

My old 2 litre Golf (2005) does 50mpg+ combined cycle. On the roads of west Wales it has done 60mpg. Newer models will do 70mpg, some can get to 80mpg. I've assumed 60.

So 60mpg per car, vs 1mpg for the train.
SNIP

Are you sure that the dmu fuel consumption figures are right? Doing a sanity check on Type 4 diesels (1000s and Class 47s) both had fuel tank capacities of around 850 gallons - give or take a bit for various modifications and changes. These could run diagrams of 700 miles or so before fuelling which implies a consumption of around 1 mpg - hauling trains 8 to 12 coaches long. Allowing for the weight of the locomotive this makes a total train weight of around 500 tons - so I would think that a dmu consumption should be a lot less than 1 mpg.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

60 cars.

IIRC, a typical modern DMU will average 2-4mpg per vehicle, ie 1-2mpg per 2car unit. [/I][/B]

That's a very interesting set of figures. Perhaps you might point us to where such information might be obtained.

 

[Rhydgaled]

IIRC, a typical modern DMU will average 2-4mpg per vehicle, ie 1-2mpg per 2car unit.

That's a very interesting set of figures. Perhaps you might point us to where such information might be obtained.

I second that question. The class 230 Wikipedia article suggests that "Vivarail claims that fuel consumption will be around 0.5 litre per car per mile. This is about half the fuel consumption of a Pacer." Doubling that would put a Pacer at 2 litres per mile, which I think is somewhat more economic than 1mpg suggested by Bald Rick, but as I posted above maths isn't my strong suit.

 

[edwin_m]

Bald Rick's estimated referred specifically to the sort of stop-start duties that would be required for Aberystwyth-Carmarthen. Every stop requires all the kinetic energy of the train to be wasted as heat in the brakes. And Sprinter-type transmissions are also much less efficient below the speed (about 40mph) when the fluid coupling locks up.

 

[furnessvale]

Bald Rick's estimated referred specifically to the sort of stop-start duties that would be required for Aberystwyth-Carmarthen. Every stop requires all the kinetic energy of the train to be wasted as heat in the brakes. And Sprinter-type transmissions are also much less efficient below the speed (about 40mph) when the fluid coupling locks up.

It seems incredible that people are considering 158 type units for such a bus stop service.

We have plenty of 142s available which are much more suitable!

 

[D1009]

Google says it takes 1hr 22min to drive, on that basis I suggest the railway needs to be built to enable 1hr 15min journey times or better, which could well cost £1bn+. Carmarthen-Cardiff also needs to be brought down to 70minutes or less, through linespeed improvements and use of the Swansea District Line. If you can't acheive both of those journey times, then the idea of a railway between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen needs to be killed off and increased bus services provided instead.

That sort of journey time would make an Aberysytwyth-Carmarthen-Paddington journey competitive with Aberystwyth-Shrewsbury-Euston.

 

[Taunton]

As an aside I think it is pretty unlikely that if this line was reopened it would take many, if any, cars off the road. The line would be slow in terms of journey time; anyone with access to a car would surely continue to use it as door to door journey time would be so much quicker. A pretty unlikely ask, but is there anyone on this forum who knows of anyone that lives along the line that currently drives to Camarthen or Aberystwth (or Lampeter) that would genuinely use the train instead?

What it would do is take people off the buses (which presumably would continue to run) and generate new traffic. But not much.

I always got the impression that when this line was open, it was a similar ex-GWR route to Taunton to Barnstaple. Lengthy, infrequent, 43xx locomotive, three ex-GWR coaches, and if you were lucky a dozen passengers and a few parcels. Little through traffic, most of what there was being intermediate, picking up a bit towards both ends. I suspect the bus service is similar, not a high proportion actually travelling through.

I have a couple of times strung together a business visit in Llanelli with one the next day in Aberystwyth, all by car of course, and the drive between the two is a lonely one in the evening. The two towns just don't relate to each other, Aberystwyth, despite what the Welsh assembly thinks, looks more towards Hereford or Birmingham (just like North Wales looks to Chester), and I suspect that a majority of the Carmarthen population have never been to Aberystwyth.

 

[Bald Rick]

I second that question. The class 230 Wikipedia article suggests that "Vivarail claims that fuel consumption will be around 0.5 litre per car per mile. This is about half the fuel consumption of a Pacer." Doubling that would put a Pacer at 2 litres per mile, which I think is somewhat more economic than 1mpg suggested by Bald Rick, but as I posted above maths isn't my strong suit.

I haven't got quotable sources, just info from some work I did a few years ago, and discussions with a TOC fleet engineer. I must admit the numbers seem counter intuitive to me, given that an HST +9 can do Inverness and back on a couple of thousand gallons, albeit not stopping much.

Nevertheless, using the above example of viva rail vs pacer, a 2 car pacer (50 tonnes) at 2 litres per mile; up scaled to a 2 car 158 at 80 tonnes, + air con etc, it's reasonable to assume consumption is going to be above 3litres a mile. Or put another way, in the region of 1-2mpg.

 

[Greenback]

I have a couple of times strung together a business visit in Llanelli with one the next day in Aberystwyth, all by car of course, and the drive between the two is a lonely one in the evening. The two towns just don't relate to each other, Aberystwyth, despite what the Welsh assembly thinks, looks more towards Hereford or Birmingham (just like North Wales looks to Chester), and I suspect that a majority of the Carmarthen population have never been to Aberystwyth.

There were never many through trains between the two towns. I imagine that's because demand for travel between them was never very strong. As you say, the roads are not exactly choc a bloc either, which supports that view.

I bet there's some demand there, and that this, along with the intermediate journeys, is probably enough to support the level of bus service that runs now, though some subsidy is involved as I understand it. it simply isn't enough to support a rail service at the present time.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

http://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/arti...it the buffers&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2016

Anyone surprised at this ..?

 

[TheKnightWho]

http://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/arti...it the buffers&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2016

Anyone surprised at this ..?

But what about the extra £350m a week?

 

[furnessvale]

http://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/arti...it the buffers&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2016

Anyone surprised at this ..?

No surprise at all, except for the angle that people are trying to blame Brexit.

 

[najaB]

But what about the extra £350m a week?

That's going to the NHS.

 

[TheKnightWho]

No surprise at all, except for the angle that people are trying to blame Brexit.

You think all of the projects running into trouble is just a big coincidence then? :roll:

 

[najaB]

No surprise at all, except for the angle that people are trying to blame Brexit.

This particular project may or may not be affected by Brexit, but the combination of: general economic uncertainty, lack of access to Connecting Europe Facility funding and the indeterminate future of the Union itself definitely won't help the progress of large rail projects.

 

[Harbornite]

Wonderful news.
:roll:

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This particular project may or may not be affected by Brexit, but the combination of: general economic uncertainty, lack of access to Connecting Europe Facility funding and the indeterminate future of the Union itself definitely won't help the progress of large rail projects.

Are you referring to the EU financial aid to the outermost regions of the EU that is part of their Cohesive Policy Funding scheme which is part of its European Regional Development and its European Social Fund?

 

[Greenback]

It was never a viable scheme, regardless of whether the UK remained in the EU or not. Maybe the referendum result is a handy excuse not to go any further with this proposal.

 

[furnessvale]

You think all of the projects running into trouble is just a big coincidence then? :roll:

I was talking about this scheme. If you believe the EU would have funded it (with some of our money of course), you give me even more reason to cheer that the vote went for common sense.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

It was never a viable scheme, regardless of whether the UK remained in the EU or not. Maybe the referendum result is a handy excuse not to go any further with this proposal.

Quite - the ghosts of Manchester - Milford can rest.

Note though that plans to re-open Bow Street on the Cambrian seem to be moving on - a transport hub with parking etc - consolation prize ?

 

[TheKnightWho]

I was talking about this scheme. If you believe the EU would have funded it (with some of our money of course), you give me even more reason to cheer that the vote went for common sense.

Clearly a social planning policy is not something you've ever considered. I don't think the scheme should have been automatically funded, but we should definitely consider the effects these lines have outside of immediate economic gain, which is something the EU always did in deprived areas.

And drop the "common sense" rubbish - it's just code for "people who think like me".