Which is what he wrote on transportxtra.com.
Which points to hybrid trams. Are battery-electric trams a proven concept? If it's diesel-electric trams then seriously, why bother at all?
-
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
Which points to hybrid trams. Are battery-electric trams a proven concept? If it's diesel-electric trams then seriously, why bother at all?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
oglord
Member
Steady on!
Actually it would, as per the "list of urban areas" link already posted.
Del1977
Member
CAF factory opening in Newport, and... http://www.caf.net/en/ecocaf/nuevas-soluciones/tranvia-greentech.php
And seems to be already being introduced / tested on the Midland Metro? https://www.pressreader.com/uk/rail-uk/20171011/282449939243829
Gareth Marston
Established Member
The technology seems to be there for short distance add ons to units that run 90% of time under wires.
WelshBluebird
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 5,599
And yet is larger than some other important cities nearby (Exeter, Bath, Gloucester).
Del1977
Member
That list of urban areas appear to be have been put together with the geographer's equivalent of crayons.
Ystrad Mynach, for example, is listed in Newport's urban area, which is plainly nonsense. Look on a map. Far too far away. Too many mountains / fields. Perhaps you could argue it's in Cardiff's urban area, as at least the river Rhymney's estuary is in East Cardiff, but even that is pushing it. Telling anyone in Ystrad that they live in Newport's urban area would be met with ridicule.
Depends on your definition of 'important city'. Exeter, Bath and Gloucester are essentially provincial cathedral cities.
Gareth Marston
Established Member
Draw a circle c 30-40 miles radius of Cardiff, Bristol and to a lesser extent Swansea and everything between is in the influence of these 3 major centers along the "north" shore of the Bristol channel.
Newport is between Cardiff (12 miles) and Bristol's (26 miles) sphere. Linking up the Ebbw Valley to Newport makes sense in terms of linking it to Bristol not just into Newport.
Del1977
Member
Bombardier with a battery tram that ran 41.6km (under test conditions).
https://www.bombardier.com/en/media...Tram-Sets-Range-Record-01.bombardiercom.html?
I can see a situation where say Cardiff-> Pontypridd / Abercynon is electrified, Cardiff-Ystrad Mynach is electrified and the remainder of the route to / from being operated on batteries. I don't think it's the best option, but perhaps it's a more viable option than might be thought.
You could also then skip putting up gantries anywhere that might be slightly more difficult, e.g. Cefn-On / Caerphilly tunnel.
Last edited:
Del1977
Member
Yes, which I've said earlier, that there should have been an all stops EMU (if the SWML had been electrified) between the centres of Swansea, Cardiff, Newport & Bristol.
On Ebbw Valey's railway connections, while I can appreciate the desire for an additional service to Newport, I am sceptical - if a choice were offered - as to whether people would prefer 2tph to Cardiff (direct) or 1tph to Cardiff, 1tph to Newport.
Obviously, if they were to offer 4tph, then 2tph to each would be a good option.
Or alternatively 2tph into Newport with reverse to Cardiff. The current service is a bit like GWR North Downs line services from Guildford and Wokingham making a sharp right at Reading spur junction and heading fast for Paddington without serving the insignificant little hamlet of Reading
That would suit Welsh politicians better, as anything that carried on to Bristol would be seen by them as a threat.Or alternatively 2tph into Newport with reverse to Cardiff. The current service is a bit like GWR North Downs line services from Guildford and Wokingham making a sharp right at Reading spur junction and heading fast for Paddington without serving the insignificant little hamlet of Reading
Del1977
Member
Incidentally, if interested in travel to work areas, then this website looks interesting: http://commute.datashine.org.uk/
You can see, for example, looking at Ebbw Vale, that the influence of Bristol as a work destination is incredibly small.
Similarly, you can see that the major flows from Ystrad Mynach are to Cardiff, not to Newport, so it's position in Newport's urban area, rather than say Cardiff's defies logic.
You can see, for example, looking at Ebbw Vale, that the influence of Bristol as a work destination is incredibly small.
Similarly, you can see that the major flows from Ystrad Mynach are to Cardiff, not to Newport, so it's position in Newport's urban area, rather than say Cardiff's defies logic.
Ebbw Vale services going into Newport for reverse to Cardiff would not be dismissing Cardiff as the primary travel to work destination at all. The trains would still be going to Cardiff! They'd just be going via another significant urban centre and major junction with worthwhile interchange potential en route. The poor public transport options could be instrumental in few people seeking employment towards Bristol. If you're starting from Ebbw Vale, going to Bristol by train via Cardiff is ludicrous, and expensive. It adds about 30 miles to the journey. Obviously, one could leap off at Pye Corner and get the bus to Newport station for the connection, but that would add nearly as much time as going via Cardiff, and an additional bus fare would be payable as well. All deeply unattractive.
Del1977
Member
Those flows are all modes of transport, so they're not driving either. From that data, more people are going from Ebbw Vale to Cardiff than to Newport. Agree, direct train potentially a factor. I wouldn't be very happy if my direct train to Cardiff was rerouted to serve Newport and turn around adding to my daily commute.
It's a weird scenario because I recall that the original reason these trains avoided Newport was because of infrastructure constrain in the station. I'm not claiming these have been solved entirely now with the extra platform (for 2tph in each direction at least anyway) but now people have become used to these established faster journey times it becomes politically impossible to reroute them, no matter how useful the additional stop would be. Perhaps the solution is to run one extra train an hour to Cardiff via Newport. It would mean alternate trains would have different journey times to Cardiff but it it would still be quicker to get the next Newport stopper than waiting for the next direct fast one. In the future, if there was an hourly passenger service on the Machen line that could have a platform at Pye Corner too and a coordinated quick interchange arranged with the fast Cardiff trains from Ebbw Vale. This would give an effective half hourly frequency to Newport, with the Machen trains perhaps extended to Bristol.
Gareth Marston
Established Member
The obvious answer is 1 the from Abertillery to Cardiff, 1 tph from Ebbw Vale to Cardiff and 1 tph from Ebbw Vale to Newport.
Envoy
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 3,142
You can’t have a quick interchange at Pye Corner with trains coming from Machen because Pye Corner is north of the point where the line from Machen (Quarry) joins the Ebbw Vale line. Ideally, you re-build the Machine line all the way to Caerphilly - where perhaps the bay platform could find a use? If that were done, people from Caerphilly and the Rhymney Valley wishing to travel to England would take the *train via Machen to Newport. An interchange station could be built where passengers from the Ebbw Valley on trains to Cardiff could be 'picked up’ shortly afterwards by trains from Caerphilly to Newport. * You can’t have light rail tram/tram-trains because you enter Newport via the tunnel on the main line.
Click this link for a map of the junction that I am on about. If you click and drag towards the west, you may be able to follow the former rail route all the way to Caerphilly.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5792946,-3.0400951,604m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
Even if this Machen - Caerphilly link is not done, can’t the Ebbw Vale trains split/join just outside Newport with 1 portion going to Newport and the other to Cardiff?
Click this link for a map of the junction that I am on about. If you click and drag towards the west, you may be able to follow the former rail route all the way to Caerphilly.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5792946,-3.0400951,604m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
Even if this Machen - Caerphilly link is not done, can’t the Ebbw Vale trains split/join just outside Newport with 1 portion going to Newport and the other to Cardiff?
oglord
Member
The urban areas are not defined by travel-to-work flows, but by physical urban fabric.
oglord
Member
Why should Abertillery passengers be denied a connection to Newport and all points east?
Gareth Marston
Established Member
Future frequency enhancements but intially change at Newbridge.
From what I hear all bidders were interested in bi-mode trains (or train/trams); one wanted tri-mode (electric/battery/diesel). My guess would be that the latter wants to run services beyond the valley lines, where batteries could be insufficient on their own.
Which makes sense as everyone apart from Ken Skates, Carwyn Jones and the civil servants at TfW understand that it's completely insane to try and terminate all services from the west from Barry, the Vale, Penarth and Radyr via City line in the platforms at Cardiff Central (10 - 12 tph), along with terminating all the Valleys services from the north on-street in the city centre.
Last edited:
Chris125
Established Member
I'd presume batteries, like those currently being fitted to the CAF trams in Birmingham for the new extensions - they should make street-running easier and cheaper and avoid any costly clearance issues.
daodao
Established Member
Short street tramway sections are a cheap way of bypassing an obstruction when creating a new light rail route. Longer sections create slow routes that have little advantage over buses, as can be seen in Manchester and Sheffield. Neither are needed for existing rail routes in South Wales, where urban development came after rail routes were established, unlike in Manchester. The existing lines therefore have good penetration of the central areas of towns and cities and don't have inappropriate termini (with the possible exception of Swansea, outside the area of the proposed SE Wales Metro).
Tumbleweed
Member
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 189
Just come across this planning application (apologies if already known)
"Hybrid Planning Application to deliver a rolling stock depot on the existing Garth Works Industrial Estate site comprising of the following: Part A: Full planning application for the demolition of existing warehouses on the existing Garth Works Industrial Estate site. Part B: Outline planning application to provide a rolling stock depot comprising of a warehousing building, stabling area accommodating rolling stock, substation, wash down point, sanding facility and delivery tracks, ancillary workshop and offices, decked car parking providing a maximum of 214 car parking spaces, demolition and relocation of existing railway footbridge and platforms, and associated landscaping, highways and access infrastructure works."
https://planning.rctcbc.gov.uk/onli...o?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_RHOND_DCAPR_52606
"Hybrid Planning Application to deliver a rolling stock depot on the existing Garth Works Industrial Estate site comprising of the following: Part A: Full planning application for the demolition of existing warehouses on the existing Garth Works Industrial Estate site. Part B: Outline planning application to provide a rolling stock depot comprising of a warehousing building, stabling area accommodating rolling stock, substation, wash down point, sanding facility and delivery tracks, ancillary workshop and offices, decked car parking providing a maximum of 214 car parking spaces, demolition and relocation of existing railway footbridge and platforms, and associated landscaping, highways and access infrastructure works."
https://planning.rctcbc.gov.uk/onli...o?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_RHOND_DCAPR_52606
CardiffKid
Member
It does suggest somesort of tram doesn't it?
Tumbleweed
Member
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 189
The whole area will have to be completely redesigned...probably the station will move northwards?
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,304
If the LR vehicles are capable of running away from wires, why wouldn't they be used to replace DMUs across the Valley Lines network? They have to have full tram-train safety kit if any freight will continue to run. Again, it's either that or they have to fund DMUs in perpetuity, which has a non-zero cost.
You should know by now from following this thread that common sense is not being used in the procurement of the new franchise and Metro. Enough articles from reliable sources have been quoted / posted on this thread that have stated that it's LR conversion north of Queen St with DMU's everywhere else painted with Metro bunny logos for the foreseeable future.
If agreement isn't reached on the Core Valley lines with DfT imminently the whole thing falls apart anyway. Why do we think we are still waiting for the franchise winner to be announced? There are only 2 bidders left! It's not how many services to run on the Marches that is holding up announcing the winner.