-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
South Wales 'Metro' updates
- Thread starter Envoy
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Merthyr Branch. From just north of Pentrebach (23 miles 11 chains) to just south of Merthyr (24.37),
together with a loop at Quakers Yard.
Aberdare Branch: Mountain Ash loop now extends to just south of Fernhill (20.71),
and doubled from just north of Cwmbach to Aberdare
Rhondda Branch: South of Ynyswen (22.40) as far as Treherbert.
Ystrad Rhondda loop extended north to just south of Ton Pentre (20.65)
North of Porth, double track now extended to just beyond Dinas Rhondda (17.47)
Rhymney Branch: Tir Phil loop extended northwards to 21.36
Cardiff Bay Doubled throughout (work ongoing)
All measurements are from TrackMaps 7th edition.
together with a loop at Quakers Yard.
Aberdare Branch: Mountain Ash loop now extends to just south of Fernhill (20.71),
and doubled from just north of Cwmbach to Aberdare
Rhondda Branch: South of Ynyswen (22.40) as far as Treherbert.
Ystrad Rhondda loop extended north to just south of Ton Pentre (20.65)
North of Porth, double track now extended to just beyond Dinas Rhondda (17.47)
Rhymney Branch: Tir Phil loop extended northwards to 21.36
Cardiff Bay Doubled throughout (work ongoing)
All measurements are from TrackMaps 7th edition.
Markdvdman
Member
The Merthyr branch has a loop between Troedyrhiw and Merthyr Vale too - that was the first reinstated one since the 70s.
Agree, but that didn't get mentioned, as the request was for changes since 2019.
As an aside, I can't help wondering how robust the timetable will be once 4tph is introduced up each branch with the remaining sections of single line.
Markdvdman
Member
To be honest I think they should look to dual track all north of Pontypridd to ensure a robust service or it could get very messy.....
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The only way this will work is if they turn back any train running away from Cardiff more than a few minutes late at the end of double track, unless the following one is also late in which case whichever one continues will end up working a later diagram. This allows it to return to central Cardiff on time and avoids a situation where each train delays the next one (and probably trains on other routes too) right up until the end of service.
This obviously isn't ideal for passengers but the next train should be there 15min after the original timings so the extra delay isn't huge, and in most cases more passengers will avoid delays because the return to Cardiff is on time and there are no knock-on delays.
Philip Roberts
Member
The Ebbw Valley Line re-doubling project was also completed in early 2024
James Price said in one of his interviews that with any extra funding one of the main priorities after getting 4tph on Coryton and City lines would be to add extra double tracking for more resilience. I think it's been incredibly value engineered using the simulations, assuming the 398s work as advertised I think in normal service it'll be fine but if there's any external disruption it'll probably result in a lot of turning back.
But a passenger might have to wait 29 minutes for a train on what has been heavily promoted as a "turn up and go" service.
Having the bare minimum number of passing loops required to run a 4tph service is asking for trouble.
Daniel Boone
Member
Perhaps a lower than promised frequency should be implemented initially - in favour of network resilience. 3tph to each TAM terminus perhaps, though it doesn't have to be symmetrical. Perhaps one terminus deserves/requires the promised 4tph immediately, while another could put up with 2tph in the short-term, though in the absence of analysis, I cannot determine which has a higher demand.
Does anyone know whether there is decent provision in the OLE design to accomadate further double tracking?
Does anyone know whether there is decent provision in the OLE design to accomadate further double tracking?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
More passing loops probably wouldn't help much, because as soon as things are out of pattern on a single line they no longer meet at the passing loops. On a network combining single lines with a very intensively worked central section, the priority to keep the service running is to ensure everything comes into the central area on time. Like I said above, I agree this isn't ideal but I'm trying to explain the consequences of what they now have.
Unless the number of turn shorts is really huge, I'd say something that turns up every 15min but sometimes doesn't is better than something that turns up every 30min but sometimes (less often) still doesn't.
I understand your point, but the more passing loops there are, the easier it is to get back on track after delays (which, on the TfW network, are inevitable). Ideally, of course, for a 4tph service, the entire line would be double-tracked, but I doubt that there is the will for that, never mind the money.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
If you double the passing loops then you can run trains at half the headway, so 7.5min. So a train going away from Cardiff, running more than a small amount late, will have to wait until it is 7.5min late assuming trains towards Cardiff get priority. Unless it has enough turnaround time to depart close to right time, it will still be late coming back, probably causing the next train away from Cardiff also to be 7.5min late on arrival. With the frequency needed through Queen Street a train even a couple of minutes behind will probably delay at least one other train there.
Adding more loops above that is probably going to cost as much as double tracking, unless there is some section where a second train would trigger some extremely costly work.
cloakanddagger
Member
From what I remember reading there are some sections of the TAM routes that simply can't be double tracked, like Tonypandy station
You might have to eat some of the existing platform to make room but I can't see why Tonypandy would be impossible.
That being said I think they'll obviously focus on easier sections, also remember platforms are expensive so doubling would probably focus on sections between stations.
Anyway this is rather off topic now.
Back on topic, I see mention of the Tirphill passing loop extension, did that ever actually happen I seem to remember that the work at the Northern end of the Rhymney line was planned to be the last bit of works done but obviously the timeline are fully out now.
Originally I think Rhymney was even meant to get a second platform kind of like Treherbert.
That being said I think they'll obviously focus on easier sections, also remember platforms are expensive so doubling would probably focus on sections between stations.
Anyway this is rather off topic now.
Back on topic, I see mention of the Tirphill passing loop extension, did that ever actually happen I seem to remember that the work at the Northern end of the Rhymney line was planned to be the last bit of works done but obviously the timeline are fully out now.
Originally I think Rhymney was even meant to get a second platform kind of like Treherbert.
Cardiff123
Established Member
Cost was a huge factor in the value engineered solutions that we see on the CVL, whether it's on the wiring or lack of extensive double tracking.
Also, it's pointless double tracking all the way up the Valleys if the bottleneck of Queen Street north bridge remains. Replacing that bridge is in the "too difficult / impossible" box, as it would involve presumably a compulsory purchase of ex-railway land at either end of the bridge that has now been built on, when BR flogged off the land in the 1970s.
UK Government were never prepared to fully fund the upgrades on the CVL, initially contributing just £125 million to an almost £1 billion upgrade project. So the majority of the funding for the project came from the last round of EU Structural funds that Welsh Government managed to secure for the Valleys before Brexit, and from Welsh Government's own devolved budget (that has no funding for rail infrastructure included). Both of these funding sources were finite, given that Welsh Government has less borrowing powers than a local authority. So compromises were needed, even before a global pandemic hit just as TfW got control of the CVL, and then inflation sky rocketed.
Professor Mark Barry has gone into much more detail of the cost of it all in his blogs, but if there's ever to be any further, meaningful improvements to the rail network in Wales, on the Valleys and elsewhere, the only way to achieve it is for funding and control of rail infrastructure to be devolved to Welsh Government, as Scotland benefits from.
This being said, it is astonishing that the transformation of the Valley Lines that we've seen since 2020 has even happened.
Also, it's pointless double tracking all the way up the Valleys if the bottleneck of Queen Street north bridge remains. Replacing that bridge is in the "too difficult / impossible" box, as it would involve presumably a compulsory purchase of ex-railway land at either end of the bridge that has now been built on, when BR flogged off the land in the 1970s.
UK Government were never prepared to fully fund the upgrades on the CVL, initially contributing just £125 million to an almost £1 billion upgrade project. So the majority of the funding for the project came from the last round of EU Structural funds that Welsh Government managed to secure for the Valleys before Brexit, and from Welsh Government's own devolved budget (that has no funding for rail infrastructure included). Both of these funding sources were finite, given that Welsh Government has less borrowing powers than a local authority. So compromises were needed, even before a global pandemic hit just as TfW got control of the CVL, and then inflation sky rocketed.
Professor Mark Barry has gone into much more detail of the cost of it all in his blogs, but if there's ever to be any further, meaningful improvements to the rail network in Wales, on the Valleys and elsewhere, the only way to achieve it is for funding and control of rail infrastructure to be devolved to Welsh Government, as Scotland benefits from.
This being said, it is astonishing that the transformation of the Valley Lines that we've seen since 2020 has even happened.
56xx
Member
The Tirphil passing loop extension hasn't happened. Likewise the additional platform at Rhymney so at the moment no chance of 4tph.
Thank you very much and thanks also to everyone else for the additional info/discussion.
Daniel Boone
Member
(Moved to correct thread)
Kite159
Veteran Member
Although does Bargoed - Rhymney warrant 4tph all day? The only useful change would be for those intermediate stations to get 2tph rather than 1tph with the other train speeding through without stopping
Yes?
A train every 15 minutes is still relatively infrequent. Also they've promised 4tph to the top of each of the core valleys for 8 years now so reneging on it would be incredibly bad form.