South Wales 'Metro' updates

[Dai Corner]

Words fail me. Why on earth does this plan for Cardiff Central include a new multi-storey car park? Is that not going to encourage yet more traffic onto the roads, probably in rush-hour? Does the WAG not have any confidence in it's plan for the new tram (or train) system in getting people to Cardiff city centre?

You can't expect the business leaders, senior civil servants and politicians to slum it on the tram or DMU and walk from Queen Street before getting the train to London. I wouldn't be surprised to see the BBC and HMRC pre-let spaces for their staff either.

 

[MarkyT]

The Rotherham 399s are being delivered with 25kV AC capability despite the fact that there won't be any 25kV AC for them to experience. For an LR vehicle I think the power requirements are low enough that a modern 25kV AC transformer-rectifier setup doesn't add that much cost or mass.

But a cost nevertheless, although possibly easier to bear in the economies of scale of a relatively large fleet acquisition compared to the tiny number required for Rotherham.

The problem with wiring up 6-8 as DC is that there'll have to be some 25kV AC wiring around Canton depot, and keeping the two separated might be more trouble than it's worth. IIRC NR are planning to wire the triangle so that electric trains are able to turn around. Therefore, if LR trains are going to go anywhere west of Central they would need 25kV AC capability. My assumption is that it'll be easier to engineer Central with pure 25kV AC and then have the switchover somewhere on the ramp up to Queen Street.

That's all detail to be thrashed out clearly, but if all AC capable trains in the Cardiff area are going to be bi-mode of some flavour then wiring to the west appears unneccessary, apart from possibly a simple access to the depot sidings which I believe on its own could be kept separate from the routes between #6-8 and the VoG. Once you force a voltage transition in the Central area it might then be better to continue with 25kV along the VoG as well. Requiring every service to switch traction systems twice within a mile or so is introducing operational risk. In fact, that was my initial thoughts on the notion of switching traction at all, hence my suggestion of #6-8 being DC only. The Central - Queen Street stretch is one of the busiest parts of the local network so any technical problems encountered while switching will inevitably cause maximum disruption. The steep falling gradient from Queen St helps a switch-over in the down direction from Queen Street to Central, as vehicles could just roll under gravity through the neutral section into the 25kV zone, even after having been brought to a stand in the middle of it, but in the up direction more thought is required as to the precise positioning of the changeover and how it could be managed. Traction battereries are a possibility clearly, but again these add weight. It may be batteries are desirable anyway for reliability and maintenance flexibility throughout the network (i.e. so short sections could be isolated for engineering work without disruption).

In marginal cases, there are almost enough passengers for a tram line to be worthwhile in addition to HR. A totally separated line wouldn't be able to pay its way, since those too-few passengers would have to pay for the depots and control centres and, most importantly, the expensive city centre street running. If, however, you've already got other lines successfully running and providing that shared infrastructure, then the other line only needs to pay for its own costs. Ashton passengers only had to pay for the cost of extending the line from the eastern side of Piccadilly out to Ashton. That made it justified.

As in Sheffield it's also possible that a single depot could maintain two different types of related vehicles, possibly from the same manufacturer and maybe even sharing some components. One type could be suitable for street tramway operation alone, while another beefier variety could also be also capable of track sharing with heavy rail, or indeed only suitable for such operation. That could allow a much smaller 'starter' street tramway network to be set up than would be viable otherwise if it had to cover all its own overheads, initially as a 'side show' to the core valley lines.

 

[NotATrainspott]

That's all detail to be thrashed out clearly, but if all AC capable trains in the Cardiff area are going to be bi-mode of some flavour then wiring to the west appears unneccessary, apart from possibly a simple access to the depot sidings which I believe on its own could be kept separate from the routes between #6-8 and the VoG. Once you force a voltage transition in the Central area it might then be better to continue with 25kV along the VoG as well. Requiring every service to switch traction systems twice within a mile or so is introducing operational risk. In fact, that was my initial thoughts on the notion of switching traction at all, hence my suggestion of #6-8 being DC only. The Central - Queen Street stretch is one of the busiest parts of the local network so any technical problems encountered while switching will inevitably cause maximum disruption. The steep falling gradient from Queen St helps a switch-over in the down direction from Queen Street to Central, as vehicles could just roll under gravity through the neutral section into the 25kV zone, even after having been brought to a stand in the middle of it, but in the up direction more thought is required as to the precise positioning of the changeover and how it could be managed. Traction battereries are a possibility clearly, but again these add weight. It may be batteries are desirable anyway for reliability and maintenance flexibility throughout the network (i.e. so short sections could be isolated for engineering work without disruption)

The problem with that is that you make the wiring to Cardiff utterly useless for anything but bi-modes, which then makes the whole thing that bit less useful in the first place. With the plans in place it will be possible for GWR to run 12-car 387 rakes on match days. While bi-modes make it possible to get away without totally wiring up a depot, not providing a 25kV AC line into the reception sidings at least means any failure of the self-powered systems stops trains even being able to reach the depot to be fixed.

The Merseyrail 777s will be fitted with batteries for depot shunting and backup power, so it wouldn't be out of the question for the South Wales Metro. The West Midlands Metro is going to depend on batteries soon enough because some of the new city centre street running extensions will be without tram wires. I think it's almost more likely than not that new tram systems will have batteries to save the cost of wiring the most complicated parts of city streets.

The Penarth branch should only ever see tramway 750V DC, since there's no case for HR running. If the line to Barry Island is done as 750V DC, the switchover would be just wherever is most convenient. The further south, the more expensive civils work will be required to provide electrification clearance. That is, unless they take advantage of batteries on board to do long neutral sections.

As in Sheffield it's also possible that a single depot could maintain two different types of related vehicles, possibly from the same manufacturer and maybe even sharing some components. One type could be suitable for street tramway operation alone, while another beefier variety could also be also capable of track sharing with heavy rail, or indeed only suitable for such operation. That could allow a much smaller 'starter' street tramway network to be set up than would be viable otherwise if it had to cover all its own overheads, initially as a 'side show' to the core valley lines.

I doubt we'll see a split fleet. The only really justifiable reason for a split fleet is if you want both low-floor and high-floor vehicles, as they require very different stations.

 

[B&I]

The Rotherham 399s are being delivered with 25kV AC capability despite the fact that there won't be any 25kV AC for them to experience. For an LR vehicle I think the power requirements are low enough that a modern 25kV AC transformer-rectifier setup doesn't add that much cost or mass.

The problem with wiring up 6-8 as DC is that there'll have to be some 25kV AC wiring around Canton depot, and keeping the two separated might be more trouble than it's worth. IIRC NR are planning to wire the triangle so that electric trains are able to turn around. Therefore, if LR trains are going to go anywhere west of Central they would need 25kV AC capability. My assumption is that it'll be easier to engineer Central with pure 25kV AC and then have the switchover somewhere on the ramp up to Queen Street.



No it doesn't.

You're obsessed with perceived problems of Metrolink, which don't seem to negatively affect the travelling public in Manchester whatsoever. Sending Chester services via Sale isn't magically going to solve their capacity requirements. Running them via Stockport makes it easier for them to end up in the terminus platforms at Piccadilly rather than adding to the traffic on the Deansgate corridor. Sure, they could have used the street running capability to avoid the Navigation Road bottleneck but for what benefit? That single-line section limits the Metrolink capacity to a mere 10tph, the frequency the system was designed to deliver in the first place. The Chester services are so infrequent that they'll never be restricted by this short section. Building a street running bypass would have added significant cost and complexity for no obvious gain whatsoever. If Altrincham needs to go up to 15tph, it'll be done with tram-train technology, since the sum of Metrolink and NR services through Navigation Road will never, ever be high enough to justify extra tracks.

We have seen from the depot plans that the LR vehicles will be 50m long. With no other information, that indicates this LR system will be somewhat different from the others we've seen in the UK. If we look at the Taffs Well platform alterations, it also suggests there's a very high likelihood that some of these LR trains will run doubled up in service. 100m trams cannot drive down urban streets. They're far, far too long to ever manage road junctions. Unless there's 100m clear track in front, they can't be allowed to drive over a junction as they would block it. The only way they could run across a street is if the other side were a segregated track kept consistently clear, and that makes them more of a train-tram.

You're looking at the idea of LR conversion and criticising it for flaws which the little concrete information we have suggests it cannot have, because it'll be a very different type of LR. The Taffs Well depot plans are far more concrete than any of the other squiggles on maps are, because the depot design has to be entirely arranged around the sort of rolling stock that will be in use. If 40m or 60m vehicles were used instead, the whole depot plan would need to be ripped up and started again. No such problem exists if the choice of whether to go for street running or tram-train+electrification is changed.



Why would it need to be NR doing the work? The infrastructure part of the SWM bidders are all used by NR to get stuff done on its network. NR have nothing to fear from 750V DC being installed on their tracks if they have no plans for competing electrification.



Once a franchise award is announced, there's a legally-mandated standstill period for other bidders and interested parties to dispute the process. If Labour have totally bunged the whole process up from a legal perspective, then absolutely nothing will happen at all. Upon announcement, the bidder(s) will complain and it'll go to the courts, while no other works will be allowed to go ahead.



Street running LR networks are not viable if there are not enough passengers to justify the significant cost of ripping up roads to install rails. Because of poor urbanisation in most city suburbs, there isn't a slam-dunk case for anything more than bus lanes. If there's already a heavy rail route along a corridor, then many of the possible tram passengers will just be abstracted away from HR rather than being removed from cars, taxis and buses. If the total number of passengers along the corridor is low enough that you can't have viable HR and tram services running alongside one another, then you can't justify street running.

In marginal cases, there are almost enough passengers for a tram line to be worthwhile in addition to HR. A totally separated line wouldn't be able to pay its way, since those too-few passengers would have to pay for the depots and control centres and, most importantly, the expensive city centre street running. If, however, you've already got other lines successfully running and providing that shared infrastructure, then the other line only needs to pay for its own costs. Ashton passengers only had to pay for the cost of extending the line from the eastern side of Piccadilly out to Ashton. That made it justified.

I'm obsessed? Taking part in a debate with you makes me feel like I've been sent to a North Korean re-education camp about the benefits of light rail and why every city in Britain outside 'megacity' London must adopt it immediately.

Your position would be more convincing if there was any balance to it. Instead, you pretend that LR is superior in every conceivable respect and, when people point out that it isn't, you either change your defintion of LR to make it nothing actually like LR in any form in which it has ever been implemented, or resort to what seems to be your underlying position in all of this, that provincial British cities have to put up with low quality, limited capacity systems because they are cheap.

When it is pointed out to you that your comments about the future system in Cardiff bear no resemblance to the actual plans, your response is to denigrate everyone else, ignore what you are told about what seems to be on the plans, and change your own arguments. Your latest tack seems to be that there is no need to worry about street running in Cardiff, despite what little has leaked out suggesting that numerous on-street sections are planned. Several days ago you were arguing in favour of street running in Cardiff, until it was pointed out to you that the routes you were proposing were unviable because they hadn't enough space for tram lines on top of their existing functions.

I really see no point to co ringing this as your fundamentalist view on transport systems does not actually permit any interesting discussions with you. I'll get back to my 'perceived' problems with Metrolink, such as not actually being able to board at peak hours because it is a low capcity system which can't handle passenger demand.

 

[Envoy]

If indeed Network Rail do wish to put 25Kv into the Canton depot and the triangle to the south, then surely, they might just as well go all the way to Penarth & Barry Island with the same system?
I have just been checking on Google Maps the route and it looks to me like there are hardly any obstructing bridges on the Penarth line - apart maybe from the final one - Stanwell Road - by the station.

The western section of the City Line also looks like it has no impeding low bridges all the way to Radyr. (The Coryton branch is another matter).

With the Barry line, it does look like the main road over the railway just east of Cogan station might present a problem and maybe a bridge in Dinas Powys. Not sure about the Cogan Tunnel. (They seem to have done the Newport tunnels easily enough). Barry itself looks good as new bridges are at a high level.

I see that a farmer has recently been allowed to build a solar farm in ‘Barrybados’ - at a site that I would have thought would have been ideal for a large P&R car park and a new station to ‘capture’ all those commuters who clog up the roads through Dinas Powis & the route to Culverhouse Cross. (Why did Transport for Wales not spot this and block the solar farm)? The location can be seen here:https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4170039,-3.2333196,1140m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1

> Photo of road bridge at Cogan (on Barry line).

 

[MarkyT]

The problem with that is that you make the wiring to Cardiff utterly useless for anything but bi-modes, which then makes the whole thing that bit less useful in the first place. With the plans in place it will be possible for GWR to run 12-car 387 rakes on match days. While bi-modes make it possible to get away without totally wiring up a depot, not providing a 25kV AC line into the reception sidings at least means any failure of the self-powered systems stops trains even being able to reach the depot to be fixed.

I think an AC line to the depot from #0-4 would be feasible without incursion onto DC lines leading from #6-8 to the VoG. It's the triangle concept for turning on AC that would be problematic without further major layout changes to keep the systems separate.

The Merseyrail 777s will be fitted with batteries for depot shunting and backup power, so it wouldn't be out of the question for the South Wales Metro. The West Midlands Metro is going to depend on batteries soon enough because some of the new city centre street running extensions will be without tram wires. I think it's almost more likely than not that new tram systems will have batteries to save the cost of wiring the most complicated parts of city streets.

Proposed 'New Tubes for London' are supposed to have traction batteries too, but only for short distance running to get out of trouble and for low speed depot movements etc. I noted the West Midlands plans for using batteries to avoid overhead wires in architecturally sensitive streetscapes. There is a modern tram line in Zaragosa, Spain that also omits wiring in a short historical city centre section, using a system known as 'ACR' employing super-capacitors for fast charging at revenue stops from either overhead or switchable ground level supply conductors. The system is offered by CAF today.

The Penarth branch should only ever see tramway 750V DC, since there's no case for HR running. If the line to Barry Island is done as 750V DC, the switchover would be just wherever is most convenient. The further south, the more expensive civils work will be required to provide electrification clearance. That is, unless they take advantage of batteries on board to do long neutral sections.

Makes sense. And then when/if ever 25kV HR traction takes over on the VoG, then the state of the art as far as its own battery or other independent power provision might also allow it to coast or use alternate power through such sections (HR is likely to be providing the faster services so would be unlikely to be affected so much by neutral sections around station).

I doubt we'll see a split fleet. The only really justifiable reason for a split fleet is if you want both low-floor and high-floor vehicles, as they require very different stations.

That's pretty much what I had in mind with two versions of the same or a very similar unit, one a shorter low floor model for street tramways and another high floor variation in longer formation for light metro. There could be some common route sections where both vehicles could run but clearly the alignment would have to be designed for the longer formation and separate split level platforms zones would be required like Rotherham Central, or completely separate platforms entirely. That could work going south from Queen Street / Central to Cardiff Bay for instance, with some core valleys metro tram-trains sharing a largely segregated alignment with street trams. Clearly, such an alignment would be inaccessible to 'full HR' trains of any sort, unlike the lines from Queen Street / Central going north.

 

[gareth950]

If indeed Network Rail do wish to put 25Kv into the Canton depot and the triangle to the south, then surely, they might just as well go all the way to Penarth & Barry Island with the same system?
I have just been checking on Google Maps the route and it looks to me like there are hardly any obstructing bridges on the Penarth line - apart maybe from the final one - Stanwell Road - by the station.

The western section of the City Line also looks like it has no impeding low bridges all the way to Radyr. (The Coryton branch is another matter).

With the Barry line, it does look like the main road over the railway just east of Cogan station might present a problem and maybe a bridge in Dinas Powys. Not sure about the Cogan Tunnel. (They seem to have done the Newport tunnels easily enough). Barry itself looks good as new bridges are at a high level.

I see that a farmer has recently been allowed to build a solar farm in ‘Barrybados’ - at a site that I would have thought would have been ideal for a large P&R car park and a new station to ‘capture’ all those commuters who clog up the roads through Dinas Powis & the route to Culverhouse Cross. (Why did Transport for Wales not spot this and block the solar farm)? The location can be seen here:https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4170039,-3.2333196,1140m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1

For the same reason they did not block the housing development that will soon be going up on land at Cogan station, that should have been safeguarded for an expanded P&R at the station - incompetence, and the fact that they are obessively focused on the 'Core VL' at the expense of everywhere else.

 

[Envoy]

For the same reason they did not block the housing development that will soon be going up on land at Cogan station, that should have been safeguarded for an expanded P&R at the station - incompetence, and the fact that they are obessively focused on the 'Core VL' at the expense of everywhere else.

Yes, that land where they want to build flats at Cogan station could have been used as a bus turn-around for a shuttle service to Llandough Hospital. Failing that, as you suggest, it should be for an expanded parking area for the station. Total incompetence by Transport for Wales and the VoG planning department.

As I have said earlier, the underpass coming off the eastbound platform at Cogan should be used to built a pedestrian walkway to link with the Pont-Y-Werin footbridge over to the White Water Centre, swimming pool & Ice Rink. (Cogan Station has direct train services from the valleys - well, at least for the time being)!

> Look what people have to do to get from Cogan Station to the Point-Y-Werin footbridge. They have to come up from the station and then get across a very busy main road - with no zebra crossing and by a roundabout - to the far side. Presumably the VoG Council don’t give a damn as the border with Cardiff runs through the Ely River so they have no interest in connecting the two Counties?

 

[Llanigraham]

The Penarth branch should only ever see tramway 750V DC, since there's no case for HR running. If the line to Barry Island is done as 750V DC, the switchover would be just wherever is most convenient.

And just how do you intend these 750v "things" are going to get to the Barry Island branch?
Have you looked at a map of that area?

 

[gareth950]

And just how do you intend these 750v "things" are going to get to the Barry Island branch?
Have you looked at a map of that area?

Not to mention the fact that HR running to Penarth is the only way to get trains into Cardiff without lengthy on street running in heavily congested Grangetown, and HR is the only way to keep Penarth - Cardiff journey times down to 10 minutes.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Not to mention the fact that HR running to Penarth is the only way to get trains into Cardiff without lengthy on street running in heavily congested Grangetown, and HR is the only way to keep Penarth - Cardiff journey times down to 10 minutes.

Of course NotATrainspott will address the specific points displaying his detailed personal knowledge of the area without straying off on a tangent wittering on only addressing issues about general light rail theory

 

[CardiffKid]

Good News - Swansea is to get a metro too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-42993215

Although Ken Skates has warned people "to be realistic about [the] timescales"

 

[Gareth Marston]

Good News - Swansea is to get a metro too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-42993215

Although Ken Skates has warned people "to be realistic about [the] timescales"

Perhaps there is a new dictionary definition coming:

A Metro (as in South Wales, North Wales, Swansea) - the process whereby a Welsh Government Minister vaguely promises high quality integrated urban public transport over a defined region but in reality does very little to deliver it. Often these announcements are accompanied by colorful maps/diagrams that bear no relation to what is given funding.

 

[Envoy]

You will note that the map of possible rail improvements for the Swansea area shows a short cut main line coming in from the east (Port Talbot) directly to a new Swansea station - from which trains can then continue out to west Wales. This may have been possible prior to all the redevelopment around the docks (SA1) but to do that now, would require demolishing a good bit of the St.Thomas area. Wonder if anyone has informed the residents - or are they going to bore a tunnel through Kilvey Hill?
Here is the real map of the area concerned:>https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6228949,-3.9122392,3635m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1

Here is an article about the Swansea Metro which has the said map:>
https://www.railfuture.org.uk/article1762-New-Swansea-Bay-metro

If anybody wishes to continue discussing the Swansea Metro/rail infrastructure, may I suggest that they start a new post rather than mix it up with this one about the South Wales Metro based on Cardiff.

 

[gareth950]

Any details on where the funding will come from post Brexit? No, thought not.

But lots of talk of 'visions' and 'solutions'.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Do not forget to add in the Swansea 9 Lines proposal into all this - got to be worth doing ! - LRT 0600 to 1200 on a clutch of new lines including GCG to Pontardawe ....?

"rolls eyes" ...crayonista paradise.

Though maybe this is not far enough - there should be Swansea Crossrail , burrowed through what is left of the city centre after 30 years of planning errors , inertia and the encouragement of retail parks. All of which have weakened the city-region.

 

[Del1977]

Well with the good news that Swansea is to get a 'Metro', that at least means that once the South Wales Metro is implemented, everyone can move from this thread to a new 'Swansea Metro' thread to complain about the Welsh Assembly.

 

[Mister Ed]

If anybody wishes to continue discussing the Swansea Metro/rail infrastructure, may I suggest that they start a new post rather than mix it up with this one about the South Wales Metro based on Cardiff.

Yes, please. A new post for the Swansea area would ensure the current one concentrates on lines serving Cardiff.

 

[gareth950]

Yes, please. A new post for the Swansea area would ensure the current one concentrates on lines serving Cardiff.

What's the point though? There's nothing to discuss other than some vague but colourful lines on a piece of paper.

Anyone heard anything about the 'North Wales Metro' since the 2016 Assembly election?

 

[Del1977]

What's the point though? There's nothing to discuss other than some vague but colourful lines on a piece of paper.

Anyone heard anything about the 'North Wales Metro' since the 2016 Assembly election?

A North Wales metro would be a nonsense. There are no centres in North Wales which warrant a 'metro'. Wrexham is the largest town and is half the size of Newport even.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A North Wales metro would be a nonsense. There are no centres in North Wales which warrant a 'metro'. Wrexham is the largest town and is half the size of Newport even.

Depends what you mean by metro. A Swiss style rural S Bahn would fit it quite well.

 

[oglord]

A North Wales metro would be a nonsense. There are no centres in North Wales which warrant a 'metro'. Wrexham is the largest town and is half the size of Newport even.

A third you mean!

 

[CardiffKid]

Yes, that land where they want to build flats at Cogan station could have been used as a bus turn-around for a shuttle service to Llandough Hospital. Failing that, as you suggest, it should be for an expanded parking area for the station. Total incompetence by Transport for Wales and the VoG planning department.

I noticed that that land has been cleared. Had no idea anything was proposed there. Utterly ridiculous situation - here's the plans:
http://vogonline.planning-register.co.uk/PlaRecord.aspx?AppNo=2016/00115/OUT


In this document: https://tfw.gov.wales/sites/default/files/documents/SHRA South Wales Metro.pdf scheme 145 on page 79 proposes a park and ride at Cogan - that land would be perfect for it.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Well with the good news that Swansea is to get a 'Metro', that at least means that once the South Wales Metro is implemented, everyone can move from this thread to a new 'Swansea Metro' thread to complain about the Welsh Assembly.

This thread will be going a very long time don't worry.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

So basically we should all look forward to the line to Swansea High Street station being converted into a tram line with a new Swansea Parkway station being built at Landore

 

[Gareth Marston]

A North Wales metro would be a nonsense. There are no centres in North Wales which warrant a 'metro'. Wrexham is the largest town and is half the size of Newport even.

You'll have to ask the Welsh Government about it it was promised in the 2016 election campaign and hasn't been heard of since......

 

[PHILIPE]

This thread will be going a very long time don't worry.

Could be shortened if people don't post long threads on the West Midlands and Manchester Metrolink and others off topic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could be shortened if people don't post long threads on the West Midlands and Manchester Metrolink and others off topic.

They aren't off topic; they are relevant as comparable (as comparable as you will get) city metro systems using the various different technologies that may be used in Cardiff.

 

[Chester1]

They aren't off topic; they are relevant as comparable (as comparable as you will get) city metro systems using the various different technologies that may be used in Cardiff.

Manchester is particularly relevant in terms of positives and negatives of heavy rail conversion!

 

[Gareth Marston]

Interesting choice of topic for Christian Wolmar in latest edition of RAIL- basically he warns that if Welsh Government drops the ball on the replacement franchise/ South Wales Metro it could damage Welsh Labour electorally. Why would he choose this given what else is going on in UK rail at moment?

The piece itself is fairly benign and sticks to public domain stuff like the background to current franchise being got wrong, ATW super profits, Arriva dropping out, Abeilo/Carillion etc. however his conclusion is a stark warning to Welsh Labour that you wouldn't necessarily deduce from reading rest of piece. Given that hes London Labour party I suspect disquiet and rumblings about how Cardiff Bay are handling it have permeated through to Metropolis ... of course he wont directly criticize Labour but its clear his conclusion is coming from somewhere/something hes not written about in his piece.