North Wales Metro - Update?

[Topological]

I am genuinely lost at the proposal here. Not that I can’t see the UK Government (Union Connectivity/previous government) perspective but from a Welsh Government view this is surely undoing all the North-South integration work so far?

To me it makes more sense to focus on the Wrexham-Shotton part of the line (terminating at Neston where Merseyrail can crack on with services to Liverpool) and massively improving Shotton to make sure
there are interchanges at Shotton and Wrexham General.

The extension of improvements to Liverpool will surely just drive people to work there and, similarly, people to move out to Wales - driving up house prices etc. Isn’t this one of those situations where the economic benefits flow to the larger agglomeration not the other way around?

So from a Welsh Government perspective doesn’t this just run counter to their general plans (future generations etc)?

It would be interesting to hear proposals for how sufficient jobs would be created in North Wales to remove the natural geographic focus on Liverpool and Manchester. This proposal focuses on the links to Liverpool, largely because the Manchester link is already there (except for Wrexham).

Providing people with a reason to live in an area is an important strategy for regeneration. Second best to the area becoming its own attractor, but much more achievable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jun 2025 ==

You could look at it the other way round: If people from North Wales commute into Liverpool, that means that wages paid in Liverpool are brought into Wales. Liverpool also benefits from having a higher commutable population, which could allow more specialised and higher paid industries to develop.

Looking around London - the obvious example - lots of places that are outside London but with easy train links to London and therefore a high number of people commuting to London to work appear to have benefitted and become prosperous.

It would be on a smaller scale with Liverpool though, the generation of wealth in Liverpool is not on the scale of London. There would definitely be an effect though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jun 2025 ==

Oh absolutely. That’s what I was trying to say in that I can see the argument from a UK perspective. It just seems to run counter to Welsh Government’s prior action which has been about joining up within Wales and encouraging the creation of jobs in Wales (vs commuting out).

This is the problem with Wales (see Cardiff Airport, Newport M4, 50 on the Heads of the Valley etc.), they do not seem very good at working with the neighbours.

 

[AllWork]

It would be interesting to hear proposals for how sufficient jobs would be created in North Wales to remove the natural geographic focus on Liverpool and Manchester. This proposal focuses on the links to Liverpool, largely because the Manchester link is already there (except for Wrexham).

Providing people with a reason to live in an area is an important strategy for regeneration. Second best to the area becoming its own attractor, but much more achievable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jun 2025 ==


It would be on a smaller scale with Liverpool though, the generation of wealth in Liverpool is not on the scale of London. There would definitely be an effect though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jun 2025 ==


This is the problem with Wales (see Cardiff Airport, Newport M4, 50 on the Heads of the Valley etc.), they do not seem very good at working with the neighbours.

Not sure the ‘working with the neighbours’ comment makes sense to me? Whilst I would agree entirely that underpinning Cardiff airport when Bristol/Birmingham/Liverpool/Manchester are more convenient and compete strongly, I’m not sure what the other comments relate to

The huge uplift in house prices by people moving from Bristol-area to Wales when the Severn tolls were lifted is a good example of when there’s been a negative effect on Wales I suppose.

 

[Topological]

Not sure the ‘working with the neighbours’ comment makes sense to me? Whilst I would agree entirely that underpinning Cardiff airport when Bristol/Birmingham/Liverpool/Manchester are more convenient and compete strongly, I’m not sure what the other comments relate to

The huge uplift in house prices by people moving from Bristol-area to Wales when the Severn tolls were lifted is a good example of when there’s been a negative effect on Wales I suppose.

Cardiff Airport is itself an example as there would have been much more sense promoting a joint airport with Bristol on the Filton site.

However, I was also thinking of Covid-19 where Wales decided to have a different approach.

Rising house prices help current owners, but penalise future owners. The ripple effect inland is also strong as those who may have lived in the border areas move inward and increase demand in those communities. When looking at the loss of jobs in South Wales, anything that brings people (and a requirement for services) up into the valleys (even if just displaced Welsh from Monmouthshire) will have benefits. There are always winners and losers when commuting increases. I would argue that the net effect of the Bristol commuters has been positive. A similar story in North Wales would help greatly.

The first best remains having people from Bristol wanting to commute to Newport, but that will also mean much higher prices in Newport and the same housing effect. The only difference then is that the businesses that generate the start of the trickle-down are also in Wales.

I would just like to see the border treated as a fluid line rather than some hard boundary over which arguments are fought.

 

[AllWork]

Cardiff Airport is itself an example as there would have been much more sense promoting a joint airport with Bristol on the Filton site.

However, I was also thinking of Covid-19 where Wales decided to have a different approach.

Rising house prices help current owners, but penalise future owners. The ripple effect inland is also strong as those who may have lived in the border areas move inward and increase demand in those communities. When looking at the loss of jobs in South Wales, anything that brings people (and a requirement for services) up into the valleys (even if just displaced Welsh from Monmouthshire) will have benefits. There are always winners and losers when commuting increases. I would argue that the net effect of the Bristol commuters has been positive. A similar story in North Wales would help greatly.

The first best remains having people from Bristol wanting to commute to Newport, but that will also mean much higher prices in Newport and the same housing effect. The only difference then is that the businesses that generate the start of the trickle-down are also in Wales.

I would just like to see the border treated as a fluid line rather than some hard boundary over which arguments are fought.

I’m not sure I personally agree because by that logic we should focus on maximising the reach of London whereas there is a strong social argument for ensuring viable and successful areas on a broader basis.

Although my original point was about the Welsh Government’s change in perspective from promoting inward investment/connectivity to enhancing flows with England. Which as you say has not been the priority in the past (m4 tolls being a UK Government decision I think)

 

[Topological]

I’m not sure I personally agree because by that logic we should focus on maximising the reach of London whereas there is a strong social argument for ensuring viable and successful areas on a broader basis.

Although my original point was about the Welsh Government’s change in perspective from promoting inward investment/connectivity to enhancing flows with England. Which as you say has not been the priority in the past (m4 tolls being a UK Government decision I think)

I tend to take a slightly more regionalistic approach. I believe the UK can support more than one central node. This has always been the logic of the collaboration around the Northern Powerhouse, but with the awkward point that Sheffield does not really fit easily into the set.

For the South West, there is little to stop a Bristol-Cardiff grouping working with Bath and Exeter being connected nodes. The connection of Swansea would need more investment though and I am not sure that would happen.

The Midlands is a little awkward too because Birmingham is already a mass of connected cities and I am not sure if Nottingham is too close to centre another grouping on the Nottingham-Leicester-Derby triangle. Discussion of the East Midlands is already taking place here: 2 Billion for East Midlands Transport

My logic would surround the reasonable commute, which was a much shorter distance when the present geography developed versus what it is today (and likely to be in the future).

From the perspective of North Wales, connecting into the emerging Liverpool-Manchester combination should be a priority.

(EDIT: Saw a thread on the East Midlands agglomeration and included the link)

 

[catfordbags]

Wonder what the business case for a station at Saltney is (?)

 

[positron]

Seems these plans are actually somewhat funded by today's spending review. At the very least the padeswood sidings work is funded.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Seems these plans are actually somewhat funded by today's spending review. At the very least the padeswood sidings work is funded.

Is there any info anywhere on what has actually been announced?

 

[positron]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6849171796e63bce58e4e705/E03349913_HMT_Spending_Review_June_2025_Elay.pdf

£300 million for rail investment in Wales, including for the Burns Review
stations, North Wales Level Crossing, Padeswood Sidings and Cardiff West
Junction. This SR and the upcoming 10-year Infrastructure Strategy will
recognise Wales’ long-term infrastructure needs and will deliver at least £445
million of rail enhancements to realise them;

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Thanks! So if I've understood the references correctly:

• Padeswood Sidings are needed to allow 2tph Wrexham-Bidston
• North Wales Level Crossing presumably should be plural, and I'm guessing maybe refers to replacing the foot crossings in Pensarn with foot/cycle bridges, important to allow 3tph on Chester-Llandudno Junction.

What's missing is any indication that the Government will actually pay to provide those service increases, although we can surmise that's the intention.

The other stuff appears to refer to South Wales, so not relevant to the North Wales metro.

 

[chiltern trev]

Thanks! So if I've understood the references correctly:

• North Wales Level Crossing presumably should be plural, and I'm guessing maybe refers to replacing the foot crossings in Pensarn with foot/cycle bridges, important to allow 3tph on Chester-Llandudno Junction.

If you need a footbridge to go to 3tph, how did the foot crossings manage in the 1950s and 1960s on summer Saturdays with trains every 5 minutes or so at times?

 

[Caaardiff]

If you need a footbridge to go to 3tph, how did the foot crossings manage in the 1950s and 1960s on summer Saturdays with trains every 5 minutes or so at times?

A distinct lack of Health and Safety policy?

 

[Cestrian21]

If you need a footbridge to go to 3tph, how did the foot crossings manage in the 1950s and 1960s on summer Saturdays with trains every 5 minutes or so at times?

A far greater acceptance of risk at both a societal and industry level.

 

[The exile]

A far greater acceptance of risk at both a societal and industry level.

And a far lower chance that someone injured when crossing would sue and the railway be found at fault.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Thanks! So if I've understood the references correctly:

• Padeswood Sidings are needed to allow 2tph Wrexham-Bidston
• North Wales Level Crossing presumably should be plural, and I'm guessing maybe refers to replacing the foot crossings in Pensarn with foot/cycle bridges, important to allow 3tph on Chester-Llandudno Junction.

What's missing is any indication that the Government will actually pay to provide those service increases, although we can surmise that's the intention.
The other stuff appears to refer to South Wales, so not relevant to the North Wales metro.

There's the recent issue of the level crossing at "Chirk" (actually at Weston Rhyn about a mile down the line in Shropshire), which is said to be a problem for higher frequency on the line (for the WSMR OA application).
I doubt that is covered by yesterday's announcement.
But it does focus the issue of borders and devolved budgets - linked upgrades in England (eg new platform at Chester, or new station on the Wirral) would not figure in the Welsh allocation, but would be in the NR DfT "England" figures, and maybe in the Liverpool City Region settlement.

 

[Bamford]

Unless I've missed it, I can't see anything about the Conwy Valley... Shame.

I've always thought there should be a relatively good scheme to get the Conwy Valley to a train every two hours. Would need you to cut back to the junior ideally interwork it with the Junction - Llandudno shuttle.

Currently the first train of the day takes 56 minutes Junction - Blaenau by missing out the smaller stops. If you could get this down to sub 50 mins you could operate with one unit. Upgrade at Tal-y-Cafyn crossing and removing the loop/closing North Llanwrst (or a dynamic loop) would save quite a few and the current average speed of the morning 'express' train is 29mph so some linespeed improvement should be possible. I know it'd have a capital cost, but a potentially massive increase in productivity and a way more useful service for passengers.

 

[Llandudno]

I've always thought there should be a relatively good scheme to get the Conwy Valley to a train every two hours. Would need you to cut back to the junior ideally interwork it with the Junction - Llandudno shuttle.

Currently the first train of the day takes 56 minutes Junction - Blaenau by missing out the smaller stops. If you could get this down to sub 50 mins you could operate with one unit. Upgrade at Tal-y-Cafyn crossing and removing the loop/closing North Llanwrst (or a dynamic loop) would save quite a few and the current average speed of the morning 'express' train is 29mph so some linespeed improvement should be possible. I know it'd have a capital cost, but a potentially massive increase in productivity and a way more useful service for passengers.

A way more useful service would be an electric bus service every hour 0500-2300 7 days a week, with an operating cost of probably a third of the train service and no future track maintenance and flood defences.

I am not advocating it but it is a cheaper and more useful option!

 

[nwales58]

A way more useful service would be an electric bus service every hour 0500-2300 7 days a week …

… running through to Porthmadog, as previously promised, doubling potential use (train-bus is currently a 45 minute wait so zero use).

Back on topic, North Wales Metro was more like felt tip lines drawn on a map. The bits where realistic investment would support modal shift policies are the north east-north coast-Caernarfon corridor. The spending review announcement shows just how limited capital investment will be on this.

Other than Borderlands rail I foresee NWM being a label largely applied to bus schemes needing revenue support, and that can vanish rapidly.

On revenue support DfT, and hence Wales’ Barnett share, appear supposed to *save* money year on year if I’ve understood correctly.

 

[Russel]

A way more useful service would be an electric bus service every hour 0500-2300 7 days a week, with an operating cost of probably a third of the train service and no future track maintenance and flood defences.

I am not advocating it but it is a cheaper and more useful option!

To be fair, the electric bus solution should happen anyway, in conjunction with the railway.

Combined with the enhanced Snowdon Sherpa bus network, the Snowdonia National Park could become a real public transport success story.

 

[Bamford]

A way more useful service would be an electric bus service every hour 0500-2300 7 days a week, with an operating cost of probably a third of the train service and no future track maintenance and flood defences.

I am not advocating it but it is a cheaper and more useful option!

Would you close the railway?

 

[positron]

Worth being aware that it only actually sets out the investment to about 2029 so 4 years. Most of the north Wales metro stuff will be on a longer timescale than that so just because it's not included doesn't mean it won't be funded.

Theres also seemingly an amount of money set aside for future stuff over a 10 year period for presumably helping towards business cases.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2025 ==

Padeswood sidings for example is planned in the next 3 years as part of the network north Wales stuff and that's part of the funding package.

Again the north Wales mainline increase in services by 50% is "in the next year", and a consistent timetable on the north Wales mainline is in the next 5 years. One of these at least presumably relies on closing or improving level crossings which is also funded.

 

[catfordbags]

What exactly is due to happen at Padeswood sidings ?

 

[Llandudno]

Would you close the railway?

Yes, I probably would but guarantee (very) long term provision of the bus service and have the bus service integrated into rail journey planners and run through from Llandudno to Porthmadog.

The cash saved by not running and maintaining the track to Blaenau could be used to reopen Bangor to Caernarfon. Which would carry 10x more passengers than the Blaenau branch and open up improved connectivity to/from Llyn Peninsula

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Yes, I probably would but guarantee (very) long term provision of the bus service and have the bus service integrated into rail journey planners and run through from Llandudno to Porthmadog.

The cash saved by not running and maintaining the track to Blaenau could be used to reopen Bangor to Caernarfon. Which would carry 10x more passengers than the Blaenau branch and open up improved connectivity to/from Llyn Peninsula

I often use the Conwy Valley line and would stop doing so if it was a bus service and I think a lot of the leisure market would which makes up most of the passengers.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What exactly is due to happen at Padeswood sidings ?

To provide direct access from/to the south.
Currently there is only a trailing connection at the north end, so trains from the south have to reverse into the cement terminal.
On leaving they have to run north to Dee Marsh Jn for the loco to run round and head south.
Both of these moves take capacity away from the passenger service.
The new connection means an upgrade to Penyffordd signal box, or maybe transfer of control to Cardiff/Chester.

The current cement traffic from Padeswood to Avonmouth is part of the supply chain for the construction of Hinckley Point C nuclear power station.
Maybe the new link assumes that the flow will also serve the future Sizewell C construction.

 

[Llandudno]

I often use the Conwy Valley line and would stop doing so if it was a bus service and I think a lot of the leisure market would which makes up most of the passengers.

Indeed, the leisure market does makes up most of the passengers because a three hourly frequency is hardly conducive for commuting, business travel or long distance travel to Liverpool/Manchester/London etc.



Very little patronage in the winter though, despite free travel offered to Welsh over 60s…

 

[positron]

What exactly is due to happen at Padeswood sidings ?

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...sted-Infrastructure-Enhancement-Plan-v1.0.pdf some variant of this I imagine.

Wrexham to Bidston
Congested Infrastructure
Capacity Enhancement Plan

. Provide direct access to sidings from mainline, eliminating shunt moves on the mainline;
• Incorporate 24 cement wagons (supporting 2,400 tonne operation);
• Optimise the turnout speed, to enable timely access and egress;
• Not fundamentally change how the sidings are operated.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The NR study indicates a cost of £45m for the Padeswood layout changes, £39m for resignalling at Penyffordd, and another £71m for signalling enhancement on the line to improve headways.
Line speed increases from 50mph to 60mph are possible, but the map only covers north of Hawarden Bridge (line speed south of there is only 40mph).
Level crossings are a problem but some mitigations are in progress.
The report is 2 years old, so some of the details may have changed (there's no mention of the current 45-minute TfW timetable and mixed use of 230/197 units).

 

[Brubulus]

The NR study indicates a cost of £45m for the Padeswood layout changes, £39m for resignalling at Penyffordd, and another £71m for signalling enhancement on the line to improve headways.
Line speed increases from 50mph to 60mph are possible, but the map only covers north of Hawarden Bridge (line speed south of there is only 40mph).
Level crossings are a problem but some mitigations are in progress.
The report is 2 years old, so some of the details may have changed (there's no mention of the current 45-minute TfW timetable and mixed use of 230/197 units).

This seems like a lot of expense for limited benefit. The line can have 2tph most of the day without this spending, and if there was investment into the line, it should be for enabling 777 through running to Liverpool at 2tph most of the day, given that none of this spending seems to be directly towards enabling through running.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Is there capacity on the Liverpool loop for Borderline trains ?

I think there should be, most of the time there's 4-6 minute gaps except when the Elesmere Port train comes through and there's a 2/3 minute gap