Electrify the cardiff valley lines

[Gareth Marston]

WAG announced today that it was to fund (with Convergence money) a 3 mile dual carriageway link road from Port Talbot Docks to the M4. At £107 million or £35 million a mile.

How many route miles could be electrified for that?

 

[merlodlliw]

WAG announced today that it was to fund (with Convergence money) a 3 mile dual carriageway link road from Port Talbot Docks to the M4. At £107 million or £35 million a mile.

How many route miles could be electrified for that?

This was on the BBC Wales(Cardiff biased) all day news, just to keep local traffic
off the motorway, but hey South Wales rules, fully agree with you Gareth.

 

[LE Greys]

WAG announced today that it was to fund (with Convergence money) a 3 mile dual carriageway link road from Port Talbot Docks to the M4. At £107 million or £35 million a mile.

How many route miles could be electrified for that?

Usual quote I hear is 'a million a [track] mile'. However, I'm sure Old Timer or someone else with more knowledge than me will come up with something more accurate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Correct Ainsworth74. I don;t think the DfT civil servants like or understand the regions of the UK. They only seem to be concerned with London and the South East, and have no interest in places like Manchester or Leeds, where they probably think the inhabitants all wear cloth caps and breed whippets.

It is pointless bickering over which region is worse off. The WAG wants to improve the Valleys routes from Cardiff by electrifying them. I support that, as it's easy to see the beenfits in terms of lower running costs, better journey times, and higher capacity. Perhaps England needs regional assemblies after all?!

I'm sure that the Bretons say similar things about Paris, but it certainly seems to be the case that somebody has lost sight of the regions. Scotland is mostly doing OK (probably because Scotrail is the one major operator, although ATW doesn't seem to have made much of a difference). The economy hasn't rebalanced in the fifty-odd years since heavy industry stopped providing the majority of the country's trade. Money tends to follow prestige, and having a good service around the capital provides prestige (and of course a lot of people live down there). If we had a series of big, prestige investments (HS3 to Swansea, or just the GWML electrification) there would be fringe benefits. Ideally the WAG should be able to provide the money of it's own bat (the Scottish Government could do so) but it can't, either because it is not there, or does not have the power to do so.

As for the regional assemblies, they were badly-planned (following a scheme planned in Brussels, not traditional regional boundaries) and would have simply added an extra stage in bureaucracy. If we had abolished county councils at the same time, or merged district councils, or something, then maybe it would have worked. Personally, I'm glad they got binned.

 

[WatcherZero]

The NOrth West electrification was 90 miles with an estimated cost of £100m, the Great Western electrification was £1bn but not sure on the mileage and that also included signals renewal.

1. Edge Hill Lane Jct. (Liverpool)–Earlestown–Castlefield Jct. (Manchester); (32 miles)

2. Manchester Victoria–Ordsall Lane Jct./Deal St. Jct.–Salford–Bolton–Euxton Jct.; (26 miles)

3. Springs Branch Jct. (Wigan) – St. Helens Central – Huyton Jct. (Liverpool); (15 miles)

4. Fylde Jct. – Blackpool North; (17 miles)

 

[Greenback]

This was on the BBC Wales(Cardiff biased) all day news, just to keep local traffic
off the motorway, but hey South Wales rules, fully agree with you Gareth.

So do I. What a waste of money. The railway should be used for freight anyway.

 

[Solaris]

So do I. What a waste of money. The railway should be used for freight anyway.

Whilst I am strong advocate of public transport (valleys/GWML electrification, etc) I do accept the need for some new/improved roads in Wales. Whether the Port Talbot scheme is the most needed in Wales I would question. However, to challenge the perceived South Wales bias I would ask that you review the WAG forward Trunk Road programme http://wales.gov.uk/docs/det/publications/081204reprioritisationofthetrunkroadforwardprogrammeen.pdf
which clearly shows that vast majority of planned schemes are in mid and north Wales. The area which is the heart of the Welsh economy, the centre of its population and with the greatest transport issues, the Cardiff City Region (1.4M people), has none (now that the M4 relief and airport access roads have been cancelled).

As I mentioned earlier on this thread it is far easier for WAG to implement costly road schemes as they have full powers and funding over roads. Rail on the other hand is far more complex, with the DfT in London and NR having the control with WAG only playing the role of a lobby body. Until this latter issue is resolved I cannot see Wales developing and implementing a truly holistic transport strategy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The NOrth West electrification was 90 miles with an estimated cost of £100m, the Great Western electrification was £1bn but not sure on the mileage and that also included signals renewal.

I think the total for GWML electrification was ~250 miles. Costs I believe include civils, power supply, grid connections, signalling, etc. So probably more per mile than the North West scheme.

 

[Greenback]

The Port Talbot scheme is not needed at all, never mind being the most needed!

You are correct about roads being a priority as the WAG has the power to fund them. This is where the playing field needs to be levelled.

The Cardiff city area and the Bay has been the recipient of a great deal of infrastructure imrovement in recent years. The fact that no more are planned is, to my mind, a recognition that no further schemes are desirable.

I make no comment on perceived bias. I know that Carmarthenshire CC has wasted a lot of money on new roads in this area, including avery expensive link road alongside the railway near Trostre which is almost always pretty deserted. There have also been many costly schemes to 'improve' traffic flow in the town centre, most of which are dug up agin and rebuilt within a couple of years.

It seems that whereas rail schemes are scrutinised endlessly for cost and value for money, the same does not apply when it omes to roads!

 

[Solaris]

The Port Talbot scheme is not needed at all, never mind being the most needed!

You are correct about roads being a priority as the WAG has the power to fund them. This is where the playing field needs to be levelled.

The Cardiff city area and the Bay has been the recipient of a great deal of infrastructure imrovement in recent years. The fact that no more are planned is, to my mind, a recognition that no further schemes are desirable.

I make no comment on perceived bias. I know that Carmarthenshire CC has wasted a lot of money on new roads in this area, including avery expensive link road alongside the railway near Trostre which is almost always pretty deserted. There have also been many costly schemes to 'improve' traffic flow in the town centre, most of which are dug up agin and rebuilt within a couple of years.

It seems that whereas rail schemes are scrutinised endlessly for cost and value for money, the same does not apply when it omes to roads!

Yes, Cardiff did benefit from a number of schemes in the 80's and early 90's -However, the last new road to be buillt was the Butetown tunnel on the PDR which opened in 1994. The last piece of the PDR is the Eastern Bay Link which is needed and is a crucial final piece of the road network in this area. However it is beyond the ability of Cardiff CC to fund it. The other major scheme I would support are the enhancement to the Heads of Valleys Rd. Aside from that, in this region I would direct the vast majority of available funds to rail/tram and other public transport initiatives and make the electrification and upgrade of the valleys lines the priority over the next 10 years as the region served by that network is pretty much half the total population of Wales.

 

[WatcherZero]

Can I say as a regular user of the M4, im actually enjoying for the first time in years the absence of road works and long delays.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Can I say as a regular user of the M4, im actually enjoying for the first time in years the absence of road works and long delays.

Guaranteed to return soon and only end when oil prices go through the roof!

 

[MCR247]

WAG announced today that it was to fund (with Convergence money) a 3 mile dual carriageway link road from Port Talbot Docks to the M4. At £107 million or £35 million a mile.

How many route miles could be electrified for that?

Quite a few, but what will run on them

 

[RP]

Quite a few, but what will run on them

From other threads there has been a suggestion that diesel electric multiple units (Classes 220, 221 222, etc.) could be converted to straight electric units at, I daresay, a cost. I have wondered recently, with all the news of cuts and much less investment money available for brand new stock, whether it would be possible to convert Class 15X units to electric propulsion. Some of them at least are derived from Mark 3 stock and some are similar in construction to electrics (e.g. Class 317, 457). I appreciate that below the solebar there would be major reworking from diesel-hydraulic to electric.

The work that New Zealand railways have done to rework even older Mk 2 coaches into modern looking stock makes one wonder whether we dispose of rolling stock that still has life in it. Worth considering?

 

[krus_aragon]

Anyhow the bad point of WAG is the Minister OF Wales Transport Ieuan Wyn Jones A.M for Anglesey is locked in a fantasy of Wagair & Wagexpress which
only assists his constituency and no one will bring him to task.

The airplane service is very Mona-centric, I'll give you that, but the express does serve other places (though sadly for the two of us, not Colwyn Bay or Wrexham!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whilst I am strong advocate of public transport (valleys/GWML electrification, etc) I do accept the need for some new/improved roads in Wales. Whether the Port Talbot scheme is the most needed in Wales I would question. However, to challenge the perceived South Wales bias I would ask that you review the WAG forward Trunk Road programme http://wales.gov.uk/docs/det/publications/081204reprioritisationofthetrunkroadforwardprogrammeen.pdf
which clearly shows that vast majority of planned schemes are in mid and north Wales.

Have you seen the work being done between Builth Wells and Newbridge-on-Wye? (no. 4 on the map) It's a very impressive rationalisation of what is currently a very twisty-turny road.

 

[ainsworth74]

From other threads there has been a suggestion that diesel electric multiple units (Classes 220, 221 222, etc.) could be converted to straight electric units at, I daresay, a cost. I have wondered recently, with all the news of cuts and much less investment money available for brand new stock, whether it would be possible to convert Class 15X units to electric propulsion.

Where are the 22x's going to come from to run on the valley lines, they are all needed where they currently are. For that matter a 125mph 22x is somewhat over specified for running on the valley lines me thinks

I would think it would be cheaper and simpler to build new EMUs than to try and convert 15xs.

 

[A0]

Where are the 22x's going to come from to run on the valley lines, they are all needed where they currently are. For that matter a 125mph 22x is somewhat over specified for running on the valley lines me thinks

I would think it would be cheaper and simpler to build new EMUs than to try and convert 15xs.

Absolutely right - the 22x's are not designed to be suburban units - their configuration with doors at each end and 2+2 seating shows this.

The 15x's are all over 20 years old now, so re-engineering to electric probably isn't viable.

 

[LE Greys]

Absolutely right - the 22x's are not designed to be suburban units - their configuration with doors at each end and 2+2 seating shows this.

The 15x's are all over 20 years old now, so re-engineering to electric probably isn't viable.

158s are a possibility. The nearest we had for that is the 323s (Networkers are a completely different family). Still, it's probably cheaper to buy new rather than convert.

 

[sprinterguy]

Building a pantograph coach for 20-odd year old DMUs seems unlikely, given how long the Sprinter classes have been out of production. Plus I imagine there is much greater difficulty converting the hydraulic transmission and drive to allow the train to be powered by electric current than there would be with a DEMU. Vastly expensive no doubt, I agree that new build EMUs would be cheaper, and would also present a greater step up in quality of the service to the passenger. A nice standard fleet of three car, 20m carriage EMUs, perhaps Desiros, would be a great step forward for the Valleys. Plus there is the benefit of the displaced DMUs being available to cascade to other areas that need them.

 

[LE Greys]

Building a pantograph coach for 20-odd year old DMUs seems unlikely, given how long the Sprinter classes have been out of production. Plus I imagine there is much greater difficulty converting the hydraulic transmission and drive to allow the train to be powered by electric current than there would be with a DEMU. Vastly expensive no doubt, I agree that new build EMUs would be cheaper, and would also present a greater step up in quality of the service to the passenger. A nice standard fleet of three car, 20m carriage EMUs, perhaps Desiros, would be a great step forward for the Valleys. Plus there is the benefit of the displaced DMUs being available to cascade to other areas that need them.

Just to work that out, that would mean a lot of Pacers and quite a few 150s, which could either be transferred out or stay in Wales. This is a back-of-an-envelope consideration. I'm assuming all Pacers are dedicated to the Valleys

1 X 121 "Bubble-car", possibly keep.
15 X 142s, scrap (hopefully)
15 X 143s, transfer out (to Northern, along with FGWs units as a common pool)
30?[Please confirm] X 150s, keep 12 within franchise to back up the 153s, transfer rest to FGW (to replace all their 142s and 143s, sending their 142s for scrap)

Therefore, you give Northern some extra unit capacity, get rid of all the FGW Pacers and reinforce Welsh local services, on top of all the electric units you bring in. With their higher availability, 60 should be enough for a like-for-like replacement, with 75 if you want an increased service frequency.

 

[merlodlliw]

The airplane service is very Mona-centric, I'll give you that, but the express does serve other places (though sadly for the two of us, not Colwyn Bay or Wrexham!)

...................................................................

Well Krus, as the new Wrexham Industrial Estate(the largest industrial estate in Europe BTW) linkroad is a goer, I wonder will this be the end of the double track
to Chester, hope not. Agree about Gerald.

later should have said, no trains on the estate at Wrexham

 

[LE Greys]

The airplane service is very Mona-centric, I'll give you that, but the express does serve other places (though sadly for the two of us, not Colwyn Bay or Wrexham!)

...................................................................

Well Krus, as the new Wrexham Industrial Estate(the largest industrial estate in Europe BTW) linkroad is a goer, I wonder will this be the end of the double track
to Chester, hope not. Agree about Gerald.

I'm slightly puzzled about this air service, anyone got a good link? (Yes, I know this is a railway forum).

 

[ainsworth74]

1 X 121 "Bubble-car", possibly keep.
15 X 142s, scrap (hopefully)
15 X 143s, transfer out (to Northern, along with FGWs units as a common pool)
30?[Please confirm] X 150s, keep 12 within franchise to back up the 153s, transfer rest to FGW (to replace all their 142s and 143s, sending their 142s for scrap)

Nice plan, but I wouldn't be scraping the 142s if it was my plan. I would be sending them up north to allow strengthening existing 142 services into 4 car formations. Then send all the 143s to FGW seeing as they operate them and Northern don't.

 

[tbtc]

Just to work that out, that would mean a lot of Pacers and quite a few 150s, which could either be transferred out or stay in Wales. This is a back-of-an-envelope consideration. I'm assuming all Pacers are dedicated to the Valleys

1 X 121 "Bubble-car", possibly keep.
15 X 142s, scrap (hopefully)
15 X 143s, transfer out (to Northern, along with FGWs units as a common pool)
30?[Please confirm] X 150s, keep 12 within franchise to back up the 153s, transfer rest to FGW (to replace all their 142s and 143s, sending their 142s for scrap)

Therefore, you give Northern some extra unit capacity, get rid of all the FGW Pacers and reinforce Welsh local services, on top of all the electric units you bring in. With their higher availability, 60 should be enough for a like-for-like replacement, with 75 if you want an increased service frequency.

Given that any new units ought to be three car minimum and 20m coaches (minimum) they will already be twice the size of Pacers (presumably all stations on the Valley Lines can cope with a 60m train?)...

...so you shouldn't need any coupling up (doubled up EMUs would probably be a non-starter as few stations further up the hills are going to be able to cope with 120m trains (?)...

...and a common fleet would improve driver knowledge/ spares/ maintenance/ availability.

How many units are needed to work the current Valley Lines services (including/ excluding doubled up ones)? Is 60 the daily number required (so seventy gives scope for "spares" and expansion)?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nice plan, but I wouldn't be scraping the 142s if it was my plan. I would be sending them up north to allow strengthening existing 142 services into 4 car formations. Then send all the 143s to FGW seeing as they operate them and Northern don't.

Gets my vote.

I wouldn't scrap anything for the next decade, as we don't have the luxury of being able to waste resources as many parts of the railways are crammed already (at least at certain times).

Pacers may not be brilliant, but we need them to run some services to give people a chance of a seat.

143s for FGW and 142s for Northern makes sense, cascade the 150s to other ATW services (I can't think of any which a 150 wouldn't be able to keep time on, even if they aren't suitable traction for long distance), e.g. double up 150s on the Cardiff - Holyhead service to release 158s that can be doubled up on the Cardiff - Manchester or Manchester - Llandudno services where capacity will be needed

Would be nice to see the "spare" stock beef up the Cardiff - Abergavenny - Hereford - SHrewsbury line to half hourly throughout, but I'd concentrate on giving additional capacity on existing services first

 

[Gareth Marston]

ATW 142/143/150 deployment

Valley Lines Service groups

Treherbert- Cdf Central (2 tph)
Aberdare (2 tph) & Merthyr (2 tph) to Barry (4 tph) then 3 tph to Barry Island 4th goes to Brigend via Vale.
above give 6 tph from Pontypridd to Cardiff
Rhymey (1tph), Bargoed to Penarth (4tph)
Radyr to Coryton "City Line" 2 tph

Ebbw Vale - Cardiff is self contained ( 1tph with long layovers at Cdf end)
Swanline ( train every 2 hours)
Maesteg to Cdf (1 tph) and then to Cheltenham 1 tph peak, every 2 hrs off peak. Some peak Maesteg services have extended Holyhead to Cardiff trains run through.
Wrexham to Bidston (1 tph)

Chuck in aspirations for extension from Aberdare to Hirwuan, 2 tph to Rhymney, 2 tph over vale to Brigend, Maesteg 2 tph, Cheltenham and Swanline frequency improvements. Plus WAG aspiration for turnbacks at Pontypridd and Caerphilly for more services.

Issue is not so much frequency as peak hour capacity around Cardiff with some exceptions. Given current growth rates like for like replacement of 2 car 142/143/150's with 3 Car EMU's will not suffice in medium term given that there will probably be "sparks effect"

150's on Heart of Wales and Conwy Valley Saturday and summer.

 

[tbtc]

Given current growth rates like for like replacement of 2 car 142/143/150's with 3 Car EMU's will not suffice in medium term

...but could all stations cope with a six car EMU? (a three car EMU will be the size of two Pacers, given the short 15m coaches)

The alternative is to run some "limited stop" services, which may not go down well on some stretches

 

[Gareth Marston]

...but could all stations cope with a six car EMU? (a three car EMU will be the size of two Pacers, given the short 15m coaches)

The alternative is to run some "limited stop" services, which may not go down well on some stretches

The 80's/90's re openings like Aberdare & Maesteg were done on the cheap with short platforms which some have had money spent on them, otherwise its OK. The City Lines platforms are short but these are relatively lightly loaded compared to the longer distance routes so not a priority. I understand the thinking on the turnbacks at Caerphilly, Barry and Pontypridd is to allow the inner stations to be served in the peak with the longer distance trains skipping the inner stops- though timetabling will be hard. The whole area is driven by the capacity between Queen St and Central as every thing runs through it. Its currently 12 tph. Both are as popular a destination as each other both from north and south of Cardiff due to office/shop locations

 

[The Planner]

Nothing on the Ebbw Vale branch could as they are all sub 100m platforms. Up to Rhymney is fine. Coryton branch no. Some of the stations up to Aberdare and Merthyr couldnt do it. Treherbert branch is ok. VoG couldnt as they are 100m. Nothing up the Maesteg could do it. Platform extensions arent the hardest thing in the world to sort.

Pontypridd is getting its bay platform. Queen St to Central gets sorted as part of Cardiff re-signalling. Hirwaun needs a passing loop to work, Maesteg half hourly has gone quiet and so has Energlyn.

 

[sprinterguy]

I think infrastructure improvements to increase capacity and allow a more frequent service to operate using three car EMUs singly would be the way to go, rather than a lot of platform lengthenings across the Valleys network. Increased frequency is more likely to attract a higher number of users to the service than just lengthened trains.

Maybe it would make sense to run doubled-up units (i.e. 6 carriage trains) on the core section nearest to Cardiff, where services from a number of the branches are running alongside, as this is the area where passenger numbers are going to be highest on each train service assuming that the main traffic flows are to/from the valleys to/from Cardiff. A single 3 carriage train could then go forward onto the respective Valley branch and the remaining 3 would be combined with the next Cardiff bound working. This would mean that only platforms on the core sections with highest passenger throughflow would need platform extensions to 120 metres.

Rough estimates on capacity show that a three car Desiro based EMU would have around 180 seats, whereas a pair of ATW 142s (which have less seats overall than Northern units) have 200, so one three carriage EMU offers only a slightly reduced seating capacity than a pair of 142s.

 

[ainsworth74]

Rough estimates on capacity show that a three car Desiro based EMU would have around 180 seats, whereas a pair of ATW 142s (which have less seats overall than Northern units) have 200, so one three carriage EMU offers only a slightly reduced seating capacity than a pair of 142s.

It might have less seats than a 142 but I would be willing to bet that is has more standing room and therefore will be far less overcrowded at peak times. And seeing as most of the journeys are not very long (as in not several hours) it shouldn't matter to much if there are fewer seats.

Edit: Actually thinking about it now, I'm not sure there would be all that much more standing capacity with a 3 car Desiro compared to a four car 142.

 

[sprinterguy]

I'm inclined to think that there is more standing space on a three carriage Desiro type EMU compared to a pair of Pacers, as the Desiros have wide vestibules around the doors for a start. The flow of passengers on and off the train would be improved at least, as the EMUs would have one third position doors as opposed to vehicle ends on the Pacers, and no need for a step up/down to and from the train. Although it's interesting that there is still exactly the same number of doors per side of the train on a 3 carriage DMU as a four carriage Pacer. I don't think there'd be much difference in passenger circulation space against a 150 though. A pair of 150s might actually have the upper hand there in standing space and loading and unloading times.

Need to bear in mind that not all Valley lines services are doubled up units though, so a three carriage DMU would offer greatly increased capacity over a two carriage 150 or 142.

 

[Greenback]

Very true. Dwell times can be quite long at Central and Queen Street, particularly in the peaks, whilst people get on and off the Pacers. I am sure it would be much quicker with Desiros.