• 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

Last Hurrah

Member
Joined
17 Jan 2023
Messages
124
Location
Canton
I know Class 398’s are not intended for Penarth, but . .

Surely doubling the track either side of Dingle Road station using the old track bed, with a 2nd platform at Dingle Road will be easier & less costly, as opposed to having a 2nd platform slightly further along, in a cutting on the opposite side of Penarth Station bridge
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

CardiffKid

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
1,081
Location
Cardiff
Here's the link to the article - not sure it really answers your question though. There are already 4tph to Penarth!

https://penarthnews.wpcomstaging.co...supN-FsxDnZqv5XcfPpyGcwOe5JTzaMZ-H1PKaSBptlEA

Quite OT now sorry!

Thanks. I think I now what’s planned.

With this new system there are likely to be two trains in Penarth at once. One at the ‘new arrivals platform’ and one at the current station.

When trains from the current platform leave, trains from the new will pull in and wait (presumably) up to but not always 10-12 minutes. This is about ensuring the Penarth branch sticks as close to a 15min departure as possible??

Sucks if you need level access to get off in Penarth as it would at a guess be five minutes between arrival at ‘Penarth Arrivals’ and the current Penarth station.
 

Last Hurrah

Member
Joined
17 Jan 2023
Messages
124
Location
Canton
Understand the need to allow 2 trains on single track section from Cogan Jct to Penarth station

Doubling the track either side of Dingle Road station seems a simpler & less costly as it’s reinstating old track bed & a dormant platform overgrown with vegetation

4 trains an hour already run to Penarth - just enough time to clear branch in 15 mins to avoid delaying next service
 
Last edited:

5021

Member
Joined
21 Apr 2023
Messages
81
Location
Oswestry
Anyone know how far advanced the OHLE is on the Merthyr and Aberdare lines please? TfW seem to be saying that it's complete and energised from Cardiff to Ponty and they've been using it to test tram trains (398s) between Taffs Well depot and Radyr. I take it that if the Merthyr and Aberdare resignalling is complete that the new loops must be? Thanks
 

Bob Price

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2019
Messages
1,243
The arrival platform concept is common on Metro systems across the world just not in the UK. This is not a new idea. The options would have been considered and assessed but there is a real space issue at Penarth so that was the optimum solution I guess.
 

Markdvdman

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2011
Messages
499
Location
Merthyr Tydfil / Gorslas
Well ther Merthyr line has a lot of poles NOT in a position to take cables - some are just literally the basic vertical pole. So I can see a lot of regular shutdowns on the Merthyr/Aberdare lines in the next few months - but again something like 18 months late is demoralising!
 

MikePJ

Member
Joined
10 Dec 2015
Messages
1,013
Anyone know how far advanced the OHLE is on the Merthyr and Aberdare lines please? TfW seem to be saying that it's complete and energised from Cardiff to Ponty and they've been using it to test tram trains (398s) between Taffs Well depot and Radyr. I take it that if the Merthyr and Aberdare resignalling is complete that the new loops must be? Thanks
This has prompted me to go and look at the Core Valley Lines Infrastructure Manager consultations page again, and lo and behold we have some proposed dates:

(documents attached because once the consultation closes they disappear off the web)

First document - "Consultation Document CVL G1 Network Change Proposal CVLNCCP01-G1-03-V1 for the Transformation Programme 19 06 2023"

Some key quotes (emphasis mine):
  • The energisation of the OLE system Commissioning from Pontypridd to Aberdare has now changed from 24 June 2023 to 07 October 2023
  • The energisation of the OLE system Commissioning from Abercynon to Merthyr Tydfil has now from 11 August 2023 to 07 October 2023
Second document - "Consultation Document CVL G1 Network Change Proposal CVLNCCP01-G1-05 for the Transformation Programme 19 06 2023"
  • this relates to the line from Treherbert to Pontypridd (Rhondda line)
  • the document says that the plan is for OLE commissioning to begin on 29th December 2023, with a view to being fully commissioned by February 2024
  • this document includes new signalling and electrical diagrams for the Rhondda line
Third document - "Transport for Wales Rail Ltd 7th SA Form P Draft for consultation"
  • this is a formal application to the Office of Rail and Road for a variation in the contract under which TfW Rail Ltd (the train operating company) accesses track managed by Aimey Infrastructure Wales (AIW), which is the infrastructure manager
  • the variation is required because AIW now need to contract to supply electricity to TfW Rail's trains
  • where TfW Rail's trains access the electric line, AIW agree that TfW Rail can buy the electricity directly from the electricity provider, but AIW get paid for operating the electrical supply equipment (i.e the OHLE, switchgear, etc)
  • where other operators trains use electricity, they purchase the electricity from AIW.

So, based on these documents, no 398s testing north of Pontypridd until mid-October at the earliest, and none to Treherbert before early 2024.
 

Attachments

  • Consultation Document CVL G1 Network Change Proposal CVLNCCP01-G1-03-V1 for the Transformation...pdf
    242.6 KB · Views: 19
  • Consultation Document CVL G1 Network Change Proposal CVLNCCP01-G1-05 for the Transformation Pr...pdf
    1.9 MB · Views: 11
  • Transport for Wales Rail Ltd 7th SA Form P Draft for consultation.pdf
    337.5 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
5,952
So, based on this document, no 398s testing north of Pontypridd until mid-October at the earliest, and none to Treherbert before early 2024.

Unless, presumably, they can do it on batteries.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,990
True, though the value of that kind of test is going to be limited when compared with a fully-energised test.
It would enable them to verify compliance with things like signal sightings, the structure guage and platform-train interface and make any required changes.
 

Signal_Box

Member
Joined
25 Dec 2021
Messages
739
Location
UK
756 units being tested then sent for storage at long Marston until some point in the future when the Rhymney line is electrified.

That decision to go eco and not have a South Wales wide fleet of 231s is looking rather good now.
 

Kyle2

Member
Joined
2 Sep 2020
Messages
25
Location
Barry
756 units being tested then sent for storage at long Marston until some point in the future when the Rhymney line is electrified.

That decision to go eco and not have a South Wales wide fleet of 231s is looking rather good now.
Especially as you could easily swap out the power pack on 231 the moment electrification is complete
 

Signal_Box

Member
Joined
25 Dec 2021
Messages
739
Location
UK
Especially as you could easily swap out the power pack on 231 the moment electrification is complete

Indeed, there is talk of a pantograph being fitted to the 231s to enable OLE usage between Cardiff and Severn Tunnel Junction.

The 500cm of tram track down the bay has been authorised so the investment in the tram 398s has been totally worth it.

You’d think a large common fleet of 231/756 the former with a temp diesel option and latter with a pantograph would have been more cost effective than a mixed fleet which require multiple depots.

But hey ho the good professor wanted his tram track down the bay so who cares what’s best for the vast majority of the valley’s population who want to travel to employment via Central station.
 

Signal_Box

Member
Joined
25 Dec 2021
Messages
739
Location
UK
If only! Nobody should be buying brand-new DMUs that they know will run under wires.
It’s mentioned in the latest modern railway magazine that there are some discussions about a modification program to the 231 fleet.
 

oglord

Member
Joined
13 Oct 2010
Messages
377
Location
Newport, Monmouthshire
It’s mentioned in the latest modern railway magazine that there are some discussions about a modification program to the 231 fleet.
I would be impressed if it actually happened. Of course, it doesn't change the fact that they bought brand-new DMUs that they knew would run under wires, and are now having to spend money retrofitting them, when we knew all along straight DMUs was a mistake.
 

Signal_Box

Member
Joined
25 Dec 2021
Messages
739
Location
UK
I would be impressed if it actually happened. Of course, it doesn't change the fact that they bought brand-new DMUs that they knew would run under wires, and are now having to spend money retrofitting them, when we knew all along straight DMUs was a mistake.
I do agree to a degree, however, with the electrification only extending over a circa 15 mile section of route, not including diesel power would be an even bigger mistake. If the full great Western and valleys electrification had happened to the original plan, announced way back in the early 2010s, which would’ve seen the main line to Swansea, the Vale of Glamorgan, the Apple Vale Valley, the Maesteg, branch, and the whole of the Cardiff Valley is fully electrified. I would agree that electric only or electric with a diesel engine would’ve been the best bet.
If the full great Western and valleys electrification had happened to the original plan, announced way back in the early 2010s, which would’ve seen the main line to Swansea, the Vale of Glamorgan, the Apple Vale Valley, the Maesteg branch, and the whole of the Cardiff Valley is fully electrified. I would agree that electric only or electric with a diesel engine would’ve been the best bet.

I am still not convinced that the 756 units will have enough power or battery life to complete full diagrams to Bridgend via the Vale of Glamorgan, especially if there is serious destruction. It is such a shame that the valleys electrification is being done on the cheap, as in permanently earth sections, and no wire sections through the difficult areas. Again with nationally critical infrastructure, we are allowing a university to dictate the limit of electrification in the Cathays area significantly reduce The resilience of the train service by introducing additional risks, such as relying on posting and battery power on a very hilly area of railway.
I would like nothing more than to see a proper South Wales Metro, with proper urban and into urban electric units running a high frequency on a fully electrified railway, which really serves the communities of the Welsh valleys. I would like nothing more than to see a proper South Wales Metro, with proper urban and into urban electric units running a high frequency on a fully electrified railway, which really serves the communities of the Welsh valleys. however, what we have is a Frankenstein electrification with unsuitable, toilet plus trams with the vague promise of toilets on most stations, Breaking up the majority of services at Queen Street, forcing passengers to change the stations into Cardiff, Central and towards Barry. war, forcing passengers to change at Cardiff Queen Street will do is force them into their cars, or is this what the Welsh government want when they inevitably introduce Road charging or congestion charging in central Cardiff.

The original budget of £760 million has been overrun by a significant margin, the timescale for the overall project again as overburden by a significant margin, we have millions and billions of pounds worth of high-tech electric trains in store in Worcestershire which cannot be used in any reasonable form for at least two years, in the meantime, passengers are having to endure reduced formations, reduced reliability and overcrowding. TFW, unfortunately, to their credit working incredibly hard to provide the service that they are with the resources that they have, unfortunately the alarm of the Welsh government they stand Strong by political desire and interference, namely the tram train concepts and fantasyland on Street rTFW, unfortunately, to the credit working incredibly hard to provide the service that they are with the resources that they have, unfortunately being a alarm of the Welsh government, they stand strong by political desire and interference, namely the tram train concepts and fantasyland on street running running.
 

oglord

Member
Joined
13 Oct 2010
Messages
377
Location
Newport, Monmouthshire
No-one is suggesting straight EMUs, but EDMUs have to be the default for any new order surely? How many miles do Cardiff -> Penzance 800/802s run under the wires compared to straight diesel running? 32 miles from Cardiff to Patchway, then 214 on diesel! That is just 13% of the route miles on electric power.

Compare Cheltenham -> Cardiff: 41 miles on diesel, then 22 on electric. That is 35% electric running.
 

Signal_Box

Member
Joined
25 Dec 2021
Messages
739
Location
UK
I’d prefer a straight EMU as part of a proper welsh electrification project, but obviously we’ll never ever see that happen.

I think we were lucky to see the wires extend from Bristol Parkway to be honest, was it really worth it?
 

louis97

Established Member
Joined
14 May 2008
Messages
2,150
Location
Derby
Doubling the track either side of Dingle Road station seems a simpler & less costly as it’s reinstating old track bed & a dormant platform overgrown with vegetation
But then you can only have a 10 minute turnaround at Penarth, compared to the 15-20 minutes if you have two platforms there (split between the two platforms). The longer turnaround is very important when you consider half the trains will be going to Coryton where they will have a much shorter turnaround, there won't be the capacity for any service recovery length dwells at anywhere else on the route.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
5,952
If only! Nobody should be buying brand-new DMUs that they know will run under wires.

But the wired section the 231s will run under is a fairly small part of the intended routes.

Surely you have to compare the impact of the extra diesel burnt carrying the extra weight that would added to the train by making it a bi-mode with what's saved by a small amount of running under the wires?

(I suppose transformers these days are probably a lot lighter than they used to be and perhaps the impact is small. But I don't think it's as simple as saying that any amount of running under the wires must be bad).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

No-one is suggesting straight EMUs, but EDMUs have to be the default for any new order surely? How many miles do Cardiff -> Penzance 800/802s run under the wires compared to straight diesel running? 32 miles from Cardiff to Patchway, then 214 on diesel! That is just 13% of the route miles on electric power.

Compare Cheltenham -> Cardiff: 41 miles on diesel, then 22 on electric. That is 35% electric running.

Surely the relevant figure is how much time a class spends under the wires, not just choosing individual routes?

I could offer you Paddington to Cardiff for 100% under the wires for an 800 and Cardiff to Maesteg for 0% for a 231.

I think Cardiff to Penzance is a particularly poor example to use because this wasn't an intended use for the 800s or 802s when they were procured.

The 500cm of tram track down the bay has been authorised so the investment in the tram 398s has been totally worth it.

That rather depends on whether any of the extensions under consideration go ahead or not, doesn't it?
 
Last edited:

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
5,952
But then you can only have a 10 minute turnaround at Penarth, compared to the 15-20 minutes if you have two platforms there (split between the two platforms). The longer turnaround is very important when you consider half the trains will be going to Coryton where they will have a much shorter turnaround, there won't be the capacity for any service recovery length dwells at anywhere else on the route.

And of course any late running train off the Coryton line delays the next one.
 

Signal_Box

Member
Joined
25 Dec 2021
Messages
739
Location
UK
But the wired section the 231s will run under is a fairly small part of the intended routes.

Surely you have to compare the impact of the extra diesel burnt carrying the extra weight that would added to the train by making it a bi-mode with what's saved by a small amount of running under the wires?

(I suppose transformers these days are probably a lot lighter than they used to be and perhaps the impact is small. But I don't think it's as simple as saying that any amount of running under the wires must be bad).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==



Surely the relevant figure is how much time a class spends under the wires, not just choosing individual routes?

I could offer you Paddington to Cardiff for 100% under the wires for an 800 and Cardiff to Maesteg for 0% for a 231.

I think Cardiff to Penzance is a particularly poor example to use because this wasn't an intended use for the 800s or 802s when they were procured.



That rather depends on whether any of the extensions under consideration go ahead or not, doesn't it?
Quite, but do you really think it’ll happen ? The country is broke financially and socially so new vanity projects in the capital won’t go down well.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
5,952
Quite, but do you really think it’ll happen ? The country is broke financially and socially so new vanity projects in the capital won’t go down well.

I don't know. It's a bit hard to predict what might happen in the lifetime of the units.

But in any case it seems unreasonable to judge decisions made many years ago based on the political landscape now.
 

John R

Established Member
Joined
1 Jul 2013
Messages
6,104
especially if there is serious destruction.
? Don't understand.

Breaking up the majority of services at Queen Street, forcing passengers to change the stations into Cardiff, Central and towards Barry.
Not quite true though, is it? Half the services coming down from the Llandaff direction will continue to Central, and all of those from the Rhymney and Coryton lines. So somewhat less than half, and on the Taff Vale branches the frequency of through trains to Central will be the same as now, ie 2ph.
The original budget of £760 million has been overrun by a significant margin, the timescale for the overall project again as overburden by a significant margin, we have millions and billions of pounds worth of high-tech electric trains in store in Worcestershire
Billions? Really, that's somewhat of an exaggeration when you say earlier in the same sentence that the whole project is less than 1Bn.

And in terms of the over-run, yes it's unfortunate, but earlier electrification projects (GWML, Edinburgh-Glasgow, etc) over-ran substantially on both time and budget, and didn't have the pandemic and spiralling construction inflation to deal with in the way that this one has.
 

Top