South Wales electrification

[Markdvdman]

Interesting story linked from the BBC website that is relevant to this thread. Any proof on its veracity?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...de-than-wales-electrification-91466-31048014/

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Today's Western Mail has a lot to say the subject. It points out that the cost of electrifying of the whole of the route from Paddington to Swansea would cost no more than that being spent on the new Crossrail station at Tottenham Court Road. It also points out that the U.K. Government will only fund electrification on four of the Valley Lines: Aberdare; Merthyr Tydfil; Treherbert and Rhymney. Barry will also be wired.

So no to Ebbw Vale and Maesteg; no to the Vale of Glamorgan and no to Swansea. What a shambles. What happens to the through workings between Bridgend and Merthyr and Bridgend and Aberdare? Are we to be left with diesels running under the wires over a large part of the network?

The shortfall is, reportedly, £120 million. Compare that with the money that is being thrown at London and it's enough to make you weep.

 

[OxtedL]

I am not questioning the source (well, technically I am because other sources say contradictory things). But that isn't my point here.
What I am saying is that without looking at the numbers, the graphs appear to show quite dramatic changes. But when you then look at the scale they use, the changes are not so dramatic anymore.
Also don't forget that "being green" is something recent governments (and thus government bodies) love to do, and as part of that they have been trying to dissuade car use - so stats that would help them justify certain anti-car policies would be nice for them to have.

I think the data at issue here is this data from the DfT?

The trouble with deducing anything about current trends from that data is that the changes are relatively subtle and slow. When you factor in that there has been much economic woe, and then also the snow that brought the country to a halt a couple of times, you can more or less dismiss the decline as just a temporary thing. On the other hand, we don't know how long road use will take to recover from whatever effect the downturn has had on it.

I have to agree with you, therefore, that the stats aren't brilliantly useful in telling us anything meaningful at all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Before you all turn this into another "The South East gets all the transport funding" thread, I suggest you consider how vastly more frequent and substantially longer trains (National Rail, tube...) are much regularly sardine-d than anything in South Wales regularly gets.

This isn't a good reason to spend less in Wales of course, but it is a good reason to spend more in London. Any attempt to whine about Crossrail is an unhelpful comparison.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Which surely kind of disagrees with the point you are making?
Public transport between the heads of the valleys is atrocious, and is likely to always be the case because of the geography of the area.

No, that is exactly the point that I was making. Many years ago the railway was the only easy way to travel in the area. The road serves a similar purpose and, in doing so, covers most of the old railway formation.

 

[HSTEd]

Electrification between Barry and Bridgend unfortunately has a rather poor business case as it is cheaper to run one diesel train under the wires between Cardiff and Barry than to electrify all the way to Bridgend via that route.

Although there are the operational benefits in terms of a single homogenous EMU fleet for South Wales local trains. (How much do you get for that £120m shortfall? The remaining two Valley lines, Cardiff-Swansea and the Barry-Bridgend route?) Is £120m such a huge proportion of the Welsh Assembly Budget that its a non-proposal?

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Electrification between Barry and Bridgend unfortunately has a rather poor business case as it is cheaper to run one diesel train under the wires between Cardiff and Barry than to electrify all the way to Bridgend via that route.

If the wires continue to Swansea, it would be disastrous to leave the V of G out of the equation. It is frequently used as diversionary route, both for planned maintenance and out of course emergencies, as happened on Tuesday of this week. In any case, the plan is to increase the frequency of local trains to 2ph and just how are services for people using Cathays; Trefforest and Cardiff Queen Street to be catered for. Where is the capacity for more trains starting or terminating at Cardiff?

 

[Markdvdman]

If the wires continue to Swansea, it would be disastrous to leave the V of G out of the equation. It is frequently used as diversionary route, both for planned maintenance and out of course emergencies, as happened on Tuesday of this week. In any case, the plan is to increase the frequency of local trains to 2ph and just how are services for people using Cathays; Trefforest and Cardiff Queen Street to be catered for. Where is the capacity for more trains starting or terminating at Cardiff?

Indeed, I saw the HST trains on Tuesday morning and it happened to me about 6 weeks ago. It is utterly insane NOT to wire the VoG line if for this EXTRA reason!

 

[anthony263]

Considering one reason why the vale of glamorgan line is only currently an hourly service is that ATW dont simply have the stock available to divert 1 train from Barry island to Bridgend which I think would require at least 2 additional units.

Bridgend, Maesteg etc are going to suffer if they have to continue using diesel units instead of getting the lines serving them electrified and I certainly dont want to see the class 150's continue to be used when the other valley lines routes have got refurbsihed or brand new emu's

 

[Rhydgaled]

Three-lane roads are a dangerous situation and the alternative of going two-lane would cause major congestion.

I assume you are talking about three-lane roads where the middle lane may be used by traffic in both directions. If that is the case, I would have thought the solution is obvious, change the road markings to make it two lanes one way and one lane the other.

Also don't forget that "being green" is something recent governments (and thus government bodies) love to do, and as part of that they have been trying to dissuade car use - so stats that would help them justify certain anti-car policies would be nice for them to have.

I disagree. The current Government likes to pretend to love trying to be 'green'. You only have to look at IEP and the number of road schemes still being planned to realise they (or at least some of them) don't really care about 'being green'.

And what exactly do you mean by "proper nations"? Because as far as I can tell, hardly anywhere has a a decent integrated public transport system (certainly the UK does not).

Switzerland and Holand are generally considered to have much better public transport than the UK. I doubt even they are perfect over the whole country, but examples from certain parts of these countries are probably what was being refered to.

 

[tbtc]

Today's Western Mail has a lot to say the subject. It points out that the cost of electrifying of the whole of the route from Paddington to Swansea would cost no more than that being spent on the new Crossrail station at Tottenham Court Road

...and how many people are expected to use Tottenham Court Road each year? Is it more than use Maesteg?

It also points out that the U.K. Government will only fund electrification on four of the Valley Lines: Aberdare; Merthyr Tydfil; Treherbert and Rhymney. Barry will also be wired.

Only?

Surely electrification of these lines is A Good Thing?

It was built before the M4 and to perform the same function as the railway that it replaced.

At the moment the M4 between Wales's biggest conurbations is ridiculously busy. Diverting longer distance traffic via the Heads Of The Valleys will improve this (and therefore reduce congestion in the most important places in Wales).

Plus, since rail infrastructure improvements are mainly in rural/ quieter parts of Wales (the Cambrian redoubling, Llanelli, Wrexham) the road spending in the populous corner of Wales makes up for this.

Proper nations have integrated interlinking public transport

Proper countries?

Dos that make Northern Ireland more of a "proper country" than the United States?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Is £120m such a huge proportion of the Welsh Assembly Budget that its a non-proposal?

Unless they scrap the Heads Of Valleys Road dualing yes. However, £120m might be less than DaFT are going to throw at infrastructure clearance for IEP (which doesn't include a current IC125 destonation which has a population of under 5,000 but sees over 100,000 passengers a year), you might get Swindon - Cheltenham electrification out of that too (even if it doesn't the £52m saving on diesel engines for IEP would ensure that is covered).

The catch is, by scrapping bi-mode IEP you need more Pendolinos (VERY expensive) to release Voyagers for the Cotswolds line and Paddington - Westbury semi-fast, unless diesel locos can be found for the job that can cope with the frequent stops.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Interesting story linked from the BBC website that is relevant to this thread. Any proof on its veracity?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...de-than-wales-electrification-91466-31048014/

Nobody knows because cost-benefit analyses are never published.
They just talk about "value for money" and "affordability".

The whole GW electrification is an act of faith by HMG (both present and former), driven as much by green policy as transport.
Once Crossrail was approved it got the wires to Maidenhead and it was probably a no-brainer to extend to Oxford/Newbury for suburban trains.
Extending to Bristol/Cardiff is the big one, against other voices which said the Midland had a better business case (Bedford-Sheffield).

For the Valleys, how do you weigh up local electrification there against, say West Midlands or South Yorkshire?
Who gets the cascaded DMUs from an electrified Valleys scheme? Where do the EMUs come from?
Somebody has to draw a line for CP5 spend, or the Treasury will simply say no.

Given the DfT is set against Cardiff-Swansea (partly for IEP reasons), it is only logical to limit the Valleys scheme to the Queen Street lines.
Once you have wires up around Cardiff and an EMU train fleet it will be easier to extend later.
The GW franchise ITT may invite the bidders to offer infrastructure enhancements over and above the core DfT plan (eg Thames Valley branches and possibly more wires around Bristol and in South Wales).

And finally, Network Rail have yet to demonstrate their ability to deliver major electrification schemes on time and cost.
Every scheme involves a lot of engineering planning (resignalling, power supplies, structures etc). It just can't be rushed.
They are probably overwhelmed by all the the recent approvals. Come back in 5 years for a more accurate quote for CP6 (2019-24).
It will take that long for the wires to reach Merthyr/Rhymney etc in any case.

Just my 2p.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Electrification between Barry and Bridgend unfortunately has a rather poor business case as it is cheaper to run one diesel train under the wires between Cardiff and Barry than to electrify all the way to Bridgend via that route.

Although there are the operational benefits in terms of a single homogenous EMU fleet for South Wales local trains. (How much do you get for that £120m shortfall? The remaining two Valley lines, Cardiff-Swansea and the Barry-Bridgend route?) Is £120m such a huge proportion of the Welsh Assembly Budget that its a non-proposal?

The sums are simple £120 million buys you 90 odd miles of wired railway lines or a couple of miles of dual carriageway. (Gilwern to Brynmawr A465 Phase 3 is £148 million) or a bypass and a half of single lane carriageway (A483 Newtown is costed at £75-£80 million)

My argument is that Wales does not have the resources to build every bypass/dual carriageway/ M4 Relief Road that's described as "vital" by those proposing them. The £ isn't there at current rates all that will get completed per year is one bypass or a short section of dual carriageway. Diverting the money to the railways can deliver somewhere near the network that's aspired to.

We can have one mode that's near optimal or neither.

Happily sacrifice the bypass around my hometown to fund S Wales electrification.

 

[Markdvdman]

The sums are simple £120 million buys you 90 odd miles of wired railway lines or a couple of miles of dual carriageway. (Gilwern to Brynmawr A465 Phase 3 is £148 million) or a bypass and a half of single lane carriageway (A483 Newtown is costed at £75-£80 million)

My argument is that Wales does not have the resources to build every bypass/dual carriageway/ M4 Relief Road that's described as "vital" by those proposing them. The £ isn't there at current rates all that will get completed per year is one bypass or a short section of dual carriageway. Diverting the money to the railways can deliver somewhere near the network that's aspired to.

We can have one mode that's near optimal or neither.

Happily sacrifice the bypass around my hometown to fund S Wales electrification.

I do not drive but that is down to choice though these days I am thinking I should but that is another matter.

Road building costs are exorbitantly expensive in comparison to rail. People look at business cases of the number of users of stations for justification of upgrades, but do they EVER look at the WHAT IF scenario? It is a sad indictment that the lost lines would be MIRACULOUS in this day and age with broken down trains, road accidents etc. We live in a world (at least in the UK) of closure if there is no profit. Morality is something forgotten.

Bringing the rail network back into public ownership in theory is the answer but the governments are all for themselves and ripping us off on the gravy train.

If you drive, you are taxed to hell to pay for everything (allegedly). If you do not, you have to pay to make a profit.

In other words we are taxed to death and the root of it is greed.

The Valleys line stock is an utter disgrace, and needs electrification. Many I know have left the journey on the train to Cardiff to Merthyr as they are sick of 2 car pacers at peak times and the pathetic delays in the Cardiff belt.

Will we ever learn I wonder?

Rail is great in many ways but seriously bad in others.

Mind you I support Liverpool so maybe I am a sad git who complains too much as my club is that bad. Ah I need a can of Bow in this wonderful weather

 

[merlodlliw]

...and how many people are expected to use Tottenham Court Road each year? Is it more than use Maesteg?

Of course you have a valid point.









Plus, since rail infrastructure improvements are mainly in rural/ quieter parts of Wales (the Cambrian redoubling, Llanelli, Wrexham) the road spending in the populous corner of Wales makes up for this.

thats Politics for you tbtc, all the dosh spent on the Cambrians 22 miles of new track and the £millions spent on the dynamic loop, yet alas not one extra service, Ok Wrexham is small compared to the South, but its within the third largest conabation in Wales, well I had to say it

 

[Markdvdman]

...and how many people are expected to use Tottenham Court Road each year? Is it more than use Maesteg?

Of course you have a valid point.









Plus, since rail infrastructure improvements are mainly in rural/ quieter parts of Wales (the Cambrian redoubling, Llanelli, Wrexham) the road spending in the populous corner of Wales makes up for this.

thats Politics for you tbtc, all the dosh spent on the Cambrians 22 miles of new track and the £millions spent on the dynamic loop, yet alas not one extra service, Ok Wrexham is small compared to the South, but its within the third largest conabation in Wales, well I had to say it

Politics is half the problem! Or is it ALL the problem? Anyway ANY improvements have to be a good thing!

 

[Ivo]

Before reading any responses here, know that I strongly support wiring the Valleys, and also to Swansea. But other matters have to come first.

Interesting story linked from the BBC website that is relevant to this thread. Any proof on its veracity?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...de-than-wales-electrification-91466-31048014/

Tottenham Court Road is going to be a showpiece station. Yes, OK, the sum quoted is ridiculous. But it will need to be expanded massively in time for when Crossrail is up-and-running. By then it probably won't even cope with the loads on the Central and Northern lines alone!

Today's Western Mail has a lot to say the subject. It points out that the cost of electrifying of the whole of the route from Paddington to Swansea would cost no more than that being spent on the new Crossrail station at Tottenham Court Road. It also points out that the U.K. Government will only fund electrification on four of the Valley Lines: Aberdare; Merthyr Tydfil; Treherbert and Rhymney. Barry will also be wired.

Yes. The routes that can be justified. Do the Vale, Maesteg or Ebbw see enough patronage to justify the expense? Not even close. Would Ebbw should it gain a service to Newport? I still doubt it.

So no to Ebbw Vale and Maesteg; no to the Vale of Glamorgan and no to Swansea. What a shambles. What happens to the through workings between Bridgend and Merthyr and Bridgend and Aberdare? Are we to be left with diesels running under the wires over a large part of the network?

The map would surely be redrawn. If anything I would expect Vale services to run to Barry only and for Barry Island to get 4tph, as with Penarth. An extra platform or two between Central and Queen Street would cope with the remainder.

If the wires continue to Swansea, it would be disastrous to leave the V of G out of the equation. It is frequently used as diversionary route, both for planned maintenance and out of course emergencies, as happened on Tuesday of this week.

Dragging EMUs to Bridgend would give the WAG locos something to do when off-duty

I assume you are talking about three-lane roads where the middle lane may be used by traffic in both directions. If that is the case, I would have thought the solution is obvious, change the road markings to make it two lanes one way and one lane the other.

I was, yes. But how often do such schemes actually reduce congestion and improve safety? They usually manage the latter - but congestion problems still crop up. Not to mention that a lane closure would affect both directions and cause even more congestion, whereas the same on a dual-carriageway would usually only hinder one direction.

My argument is that Wales does not have the resources to build every bypass/dual carriageway/ M4 Relief Road that's described as "vital" by those proposing them.

Correct. So you go for the one that is needed most urgently. And the one that is needed most urgently isn't the one that involves electricity.

Happily sacrifice the bypass around my hometown to fund S Wales electrification.

Would the majority of Newtown? Not a chance.

 

[anthony263]

IVO I would say that the Ebbw Vale and Maesteg branches justify wiring especially with passenger numbers on weekends and peak times increasing.

 

[Greenback]

What criteria are being used as to whether eclectirification is justified? Is it the same as the government chooses to use? Is it based on current service p[atterns, current station usage figures, a mixture of both or something else such as the number of units that might be released?

Does it take into account such things as economies of scale, passenger growth, improved services and economic regeneration?

Just interested.

 

[tbtc]

What criteria are being used as to whether eclectirification is justified? Is it the same as the government chooses to use? Is it based on current service p[atterns, current station usage figures, a mixture of both or something else such as the number of units that might be released?

Does it take into account such things as economies of scale, passenger growth, improved services and economic regeneration?

Just interested.

From what I've seen the MML had a much better cost/benefit ratio than the GWML, but the GWML is the one going ahead, so I think that a lot of it is to do with politics (as Bob says)

 

[Rhydgaled]

IVO I would say that the Ebbw Vale and Maesteg branches justify wiring especially with passenger numbers on weekends and peak times increasing.

Certainly given the need to get rid of Pacers, and given that it has been agreed that both should have a half-hourly service, I agree. Swansea's more important than either though, because new Intercity DMUs are alot worse for the enviroment than Pacers and 150s.

 

[Ivo]

Maesteg has a better case than Ebbw Vale in my opinion, because at least it would mean an extra EMU between Bridgend and Cardiff. But that's more a matter of strengthening the case for Swansea, rather than Maesteg itself having a case.

Now, on the other hand, Maesteg is short enough for a 2tph to justify being wired, as is true of Merthyr etc because they all combine into a stronger case (as Maesteg would with Swansea). I daresay the same would be true of Ebbw if Abertillery and Newport happened - but that seems unlikely unless they are joint operation, i.e. Abertillery to Newport. I still don't think the Vale is worthwhile though.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

...and how many people are expected to use Tottenham Court Road each year? Is it more than use Maesteg?

The question should be: What use is Tottenham Court Road to someone living in Maesteg; Garth; Tondu or Sarn?

 

[Ivo]

The question should be: What use is Tottenham Court Road to someone living in Maesteg; Garth; Tondu or Sarn?

And what of the opposite? What use are these "minor" stations to someone changing trains at one of Central London's busiest?

 

[Gwenllian2001]

And what of the opposite? What use are these "minor" stations to someone changing trains at one of Central London's busiest?

Neither are of any use to the other but nobody is suggesting spending over a Billion for a new station in Maesteg.

 

[Greenback]

From what I've seen the MML had a much better cost/benefit ratio than the GWML, but the GWML is the one going ahead, so I think that a lot of it is to do with politics (as Bob says)

The fact that another route or line might have more justification in terms of a better cost benefit ratio under current calculations doesn't mean that a scheme is unjustified.

Or is it considered that electrifying a particular isn't justified at all because another one should be done first?

 

[swtandgw]

Have Westminster ever heard of the 'spark effect'? That would make poor business cases negligible, since reliability and usage would increase, and would turn around poor train frequencies. Diesels are still polluting, and running DMUs under the wires would defeat the object of 'green travel', of which the Government are supposed to be promoting.

 

[Markdvdman]

Saying that the London station has higher justification is incredibly devoid of sense. That is a typical Tory response.

London HAS massive usage due to it being the capital and the work involved in its proximity.

To say it deserves it above electrification in The Valleys is nonsensical.

I know people that despise London. It is too manic for them.

Point is, electrifying the Valleys and to Swansea is essential as it makes the link so much better. Pacers are so bad, and if London is so special, why don't they take the Pacers and see what we have to deal with?

It is an imbalance that needs addressing.

London makes the most but COSTS the most, where the root of the recession was based with those scum bankers!

Ultimately, you cannot devise schemes on potential patronage. Wales needs help, and we contribute heavily on tax to aid the UK on its agenda. We have as much right as ANYONE to schemes.

This is the UNITED KINGDOM not LONDON!

Improvements are wanted by all, and we all deserve a chance not just London!

 

[anthony263]

Saying that the London station has higher justification is incredibly devoid of sense. That is a typical Tory response.

London HAS massive usage due to it being the capital and the work involved in its proximity.

To say it deserves it above electrification in The Valleys is nonsensical.

I know people that despise London. It is too manic for them.

Point is, electrifying the Valleys and to Swansea is essential as it makes the link so much better. Pacers are so bad, and if London is so special, why don't they take the Pacers and see what we have to deal with?

It is an imbalance that needs addressing.

London makes the most but COSTS the most, where the root of the recession was based with those scum bankers!

Ultimately, you cannot devise schemes on potential patronage. Wales needs help, and we contribute heavily on tax to aid the UK on its agenda. We have as much right as ANYONE to schemes.

This is the UNITED KINGDOM not LONDON!

Improvements are wanted by all, and we all deserve a chance not just London!

Which is why some of us including myself wanted FGW to take a class 142 pacer to London Paddington as part of their farewell tour just to scare the locals in what they could have gotten instead of the class 165/166's

 

[tbtc]

The question should be: What use is Tottenham Court Road to someone living in Maesteg; Garth; Tondu or Sarn?

Bit of a strange question - are you saying that we should only spend money on things that improve the life of people in Maesteg? (though, realistically, people in Maesteg are probably more likely to visit London than Londoners are to visit Maesteg)

I'd rather spend the money based on the number of people benefitting from it, which is why I'd rather spend money electrifying the Valley lines rather than on rural routes in the middle of Wales, but also why I can see the justification for investing in busy stations in central London.

The fact that another route or line might have more justification in terms of a better cost benefit ratio under current calculations doesn't mean that a scheme is unjustified.

Or is it considered that electrifying a particular isn't justified at all because another one should be done first?

The point is that the MML has a better business case, but wasn't done - the line to Cardiff is getting wired (with a weaker business case). Yet some posters on this thread* seem to think there's an anti-Welsh agenda

It therefore looks like politics comes into things at least as much as economics does.

(* - not Greenback)