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!
That may well be the case for long distance operators, (eg I believe Lumo has a lodging turn in London), but I would be interested in any TOCs doing it on routes where the distance between the depot and outpost is less than 20 miles.
I think East Midlands run/ran an empty stock from Derby to Liverpool at one point ?
Either way what I think matters not at the end of the day, I just pay for it align with every other welsh taxpayer, increased funding again by a few hundred million approved in the last few months by the WG.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think East Midlands run/ran an empty stock from Derby to Liverpool at one point ?
Either way what I think matters not at the end of the day, I just pay for it align with every other welsh taxpayer, increased funding again by a few hundred million approved in the last few months by the WG.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Generally speaking the units cycle through a set of diagrams to get then home for exams etc over a week.
...
It only takes one train to be delayed onto Canton for rhe snowball effect to really take hold, before you know it you’ve trains stacked back to Queen street and beyond.
Thanks for the detailed explanation, but I suppose the obvious question now is, can this situation be rectified or is it currently being addressed? From a passenger point of view the Cardiff Metro isn't going fly, if there is congestion at the hub station.
Thanks for the detailed explanation, but I suppose the obvious question now is, can this situation be rectified or is it currently being addressed? From a passenger point of view the Cardiff Metro isn't going fly, if there is congestion at the hub station.
That’s the problem, more trains (many more trains) on a junction which is essentially the same as the 1970s as per the depot all these trains are trying to get onto.
There is work underway to try and make the junction more efficient by obviously that takes time and money, both of which aren’t very forthcoming.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That’s the problem, more trains (many more trains) on a junction which is essentially the same as the 1970s as per the depot all these trains are trying to get onto.
There is work underway to try and make the junction more efficient by obviously that takes time and money, both of which aren’t very forthcoming.
I think Barry depot and it’s ecs moves will play a critical cog in the future Rhymney to Penarth / Barry & Bridgend axis as these services will be bread and butter of the 756 fleet.
Potentially there’ll be more ecs moves as Barry depot develops, there is some track enhancement work in development to allow to happen, as the current arrangements are somewhat cumbersome in operation.
To drag the thread back on course….the tram line connection orf street back onto Cardiff West (if approved and funded) will be a single lead junction of a twin track ramp behind Central station.
There will be NO flyover, dive under massive rebuild of Cardiff West Junc. Minor interventions will enable a wider and much better return on the outlay across South East Wales however.
I was under the impression that the ramp is considered a separate 'phase' to any grade separation of Cardiff West, so it not involving any grade separation is as expected and doesn't necessarily reflect on that side of the project. Has this now changed?
Out of interest, aside from adding the 'missing' piece of track, what other interventions are possible?
I was under the impression that the ramp is considered a separate 'phase' to any grade separation of Cardiff West, so it not involving any grade separation is as expected and doesn't necessarily reflect on that side of the project. Has this now changed?
Out of interest, aside from adding the 'missing' piece of track, what other interventions are possible?
Diagrams for trains and staff are more or less fully computerised, have been for years. Hence the “efficient” use of crew with minutes to shut down the cab, walk the length of a 10 car train, set up the cab and get wheels rolling with zero allowance for any delay or human needs like using the toilet.
This issue is discussed in great detail in the North West Corridor report prepared by Mott MacDonald for Cardiff Council back in 2021. To sumnarise:
Option 1 - do nothing - capacity on City Line limited to 2tph
Option 2 - at-grade interventions - would move City Line trains to platforms 4/6 and VoG line to platforms 7/8. This would increase capacity on City Line to 6tph - but would preclude direct connection of new Bay tram to City Line.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Option 3 - major interventions - including over/underpass at Cardiff West or a diversion off road and new bridge over Taff to connect to Bay link - various options considered with routes.
Option 1 is not acceptable so Option 2 preferred, but maybe only as an interim solution. Recognition that Option 3 in some form would inevitablly be required in longer term.
Looking at an aerial view of both Cardiff Central and Reading Station, they have many similarities. Through line with a depot to the west, storage rather than maintenance admittedly for Reading. But both have local and long distance trains.
Reading with it 15 platforms has much more exaggerated pitch points immediately to both the east and the west, more pronounced even than Cardiff. But yet it manages vastly more passengers than Cardiff.
Maybe the long term solution for Cardiff is relocate the maintenance depot, sell off the land and find a cheaper site further away from the station. Then rationalise the chaotic track network to the west of Cardiff, you could even hold a few 10 carriage class 700's on the land for large events!
Lots of work going on for the new entrance to Cardiff Bay station this week but Butetown looks like a long way off any sort of completion. Just 1/4 of the supporting wall steel rods in place for the up platform and no work happening on site. Is there just one small team for the bay branch works?
This issue is discussed in great detail in the North West Corridor report prepared by Mott MacDonald for Cardiff Council back in 2021. To sumnarise:
Option 1 - do nothing - capacity on City Line limited to 2tph
Option 2 - at-grade interventions - would move City Line trains to platforms 4/6 and VoG line to platforms 7/8. This would increase capacity on City Line to 6tph - but would preclude direct connection of new Bay tram to City Line.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Option 3 - major interventions - including over/underpass at Cardiff West or a diversion off road and new bridge over Taff to connect to Bay link - various options considered with routes.
Option 1 is not acceptable so Option 2 preferred, but maybe only as an interim solution. Recognition that Option 3 in some form would inevitablly be required in longer term.
Option 2 would impact mainline services, why effect the majority for a limited look of potential growth on the city line?
I don’t understand the obsession with grand projects when it comes to rail, multiple small interventions make a much greater difference to the wider network than one grade scheme.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Looking at an aerial view of both Cardiff Central and Reading Station, they have many similarities. Through line with a depot to the west, storage rather than maintenance admittedly for Reading. But both have local and long distance trains.
Reading with it 15 platforms has much more exaggerated pitch points immediately to both the east and the west, more pronounced even than Cardiff. But yet it manages vastly more passengers than Cardiff.
Maybe the long term solution for Cardiff is relocate the maintenance depot, sell off the land and find a cheaper site further away from the station. Then rationalise the chaotic track network to the west of Cardiff, you could even hold a few 10 carriage class 700's on the land for large events!
I think about every UK city and town has had developments built on old railway infrastructure.
If they can build houses on the Llanwern Steel Works site then they could build on here.
The land must be worth a small fortune and yes plenty of examples of housing surrounded by track.
I think about every UK city and town has had developments built on old railway infrastructure.
If they can build houses on the Llanwern Steel Works site then they could build on here.
The land must be worth a small fortune and yes plenty of examples of housing surrounded by track.
Option 2 would impact mainline services, why effect the majority for a limited look of potential growth on the city line?
I don’t understand the obsession with grand projects when it comes to rail, multiple small interventions make a much greater difference to the wider network than one grade scheme.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Relocate the depot where ?
Who on earth would want site throughly soaked with over 150 years of rail contamination?
Also who would want to live on such a site surrounded by railway lines ?
There is zero possibility of a Reading style intervention not now, not ever.
There is ZERO impact on normal mainline operations for Option 2. There is a potential impact when mainline operations are diverted onto Vale of Glamorgan line but this potential impact is identified and is manageable - so ZERO impact.
This is not about increasing City Line services for their own sake - this is about enabling new NW Corridor line - and also allowing more TAM services to be run as through 'circular' services rather than terminating at Central.
While I agree with you that relocating Canton depot is unlikely, this does not mean that it can not be improved/modernised/rationalised.
And if by a 'Reading Style' intervention you mean some grade separation - you are simply wrong. It is not in the immediate plan but is being looked at for the future.
10 years ago, on various rail enthusiast FB groups, and on this forum, the electrification and upgrade plans for the Core Valley Lines and the Metro were being derided as "pie in the sky", "it'll never happen" etc. Yet now we're in the final stages of the CVL upgrades being completed. Where there's political will and the funding, big infrastructure projects can happen in Wales.
There is ZERO impact on normal mainline operations for Option 2. There is a potential impact when mainline operations are diverted onto Vale of Glamorgan line but this potential impact is identified and is manageable - so ZERO impact.
Mainline services use platforms 3 and 4, they already cannot cope with the number of terminating services from the east, together with westbound trains. Put another 6 city line services through platform 4 every hour and it will be complete meltdown.
There is ZERO impact on normal mainline operations for Option 2. There is a potential impact when mainline operations are diverted onto Vale of Glamorgan line but this potential impact is identified and is manageable - so ZERO impact.
This is not about increasing City Line services for their own sake - this is about enabling new NW Corridor line - and also allowing more TAM services to be run as through 'circular' services rather than terminating at Central.
While I agree with you that relocating Canton depot is unlikely, this does not mean that it can not be improved/modernised/rationalised.
And if by a 'Reading Style' intervention you mean some grade separation - you are simply wrong. It is not in the immediate plan but is being looked at for the future.
Please provide some evidence that there will be ZERO impact on platform 4, based on what ?
Platform 8 is used by the mainline workstation to terminate and start trians a many time every hour.
Obviously your privy to more information than me so I’ll sign off and take my knowledge with me.
Beware of consultations paid for by an organisation with a vested interest in the answer. I wouldn’t trust a consultation paper commissioned by turkeys with an answer that Turkey for Xmas dinner should be banned.
Mainline services use platforms 3 and 4, they already cannot cope with the number of terminating services from the east, together with westbound trains. Put another 6 city line services through platform 4 every hour and it will be complete meltdown.
Ahhh....if only Cardiff Central was going to get a major upgrade. ..instead of the current half assed plans. At least they are increasing platform capacity on Platform 0.
Mainline services use platforms 3 and 4, they already cannot cope with the number of terminating services from the east, together with westbound trains. Put another 6 city line services through platform 4 every hour and it will be complete meltdown.
Platform is used by the mainline workstation to terminate and start trians a many time every hour.
Obviously your privy to more information than me so I’ll sign off and take my knowledge with me.
Beware of consultations paid for by an organisation with a vested interest in the answer. I wouldn’t trust a consultation paper commissioned by turkeys with an answer that Turkey for Xmas dinner should be banned.
You seem to have a problem with change. The services running through Central station are changing rapidly - the service patterns and platform allication needs to adapt.
The organisations paying for the consulation include Transport for Wales, Welsh Government & Cardiff Council.....of course they have a vested interest. Ditto Network Rail
Mainline services use platforms 3 and 4, they already cannot cope with the number of terminating services from the east, together with westbound trains. Put another 6 city line services through platform 4 every hour and it will be complete meltdown.
Yes, though they could reduce the number of terminating trains by pushing some further west and rejoining services that have been recently split in half.
If everything could run from 0 to 3 on the "mainline" then it would be ok, but I think that does not quite work from a pointwork perspective. You could have 3 for through East to West, 0 for through West to East and terminate everything in 1 and 2.
Yes, though they could reduce the number of terminating trains by pushing some further west and rejoining services that have been recently split in half.
If everything could run from 0 to 3 on the "mainline" then it would be ok, but I think that does not quite work from a pointwork perspective. You could have 3 for through East to West, 0 for through West to East and terminate everything in 1 and 2.
You seem to have a problem with change. The services running through Central station are changing rapidly - the service patterns and platform allication needs to adapt.
The organisations paying for the consulation include Transport for Wales, Welsh Government & Cardiff Council.....of course they have a vested interest. Ditto Network Rail
Manchester could go to West Wales - rather like it used to. That removes one train from each direction in the hours that the current service splits.
Swansea has a good range of platforms suitable for terminating. Indeed one is occupied by a GWR for the best part of an hour. IF all services went to Swansea then that is half hourly and you wouldnt need a further platform. However, Swansea is constrained by the lack of overtaking opportunities for the Swanline trains and the Maestegs between Bridgend and Cardiff.
As suggested, if 0 and 3 were through platforms, then 1 and 2 are even in the middle of the through trains so minimize conflicts. The pointwork is ok to the East side, but I am not 100% sure on the West. I know you can depart West from platform 2, so at least platform 2 can have its' West half used by trains from the West going back West. I think I have been on the 03:45 ex Swansea and gone via the VoG to reach platform 1, but that might be my memory playing tricks.
So with respect, maybe you can outline what is wrong rather than simply saying "with respect".
Manchester could go to West Wales - rather like it used to. That removes one train from each direction in the hours that the current service splits.
Swansea has a good range of platforms suitable for terminating. Indeed one is occupied by a GWR for the best part of an hour. IF all services went to Swansea then that is half hourly and you wouldnt need a further platform. However, Swansea is constrained by the lack of overtaking opportunities for the Swanline trains and the Maestegs between Bridgend and Cardiff.
As suggested, if 0 and 3 were through platforms, then 1 and 2 are even in the middle of the through trains so minimize conflicts. The pointwork is ok to the East side, but I am not 100% sure on the West. I know you can depart West from platform 2, so at least platform 2 can have its' West half used by trains from the West going back West. I think I have been on the 03:45 ex Swansea and gone via the VoG to reach platform 1, but that might be my memory playing tricks.
So with respect, maybe you can outline what is wrong rather than simply saying "with respect".
This issue is discussed in great detail in the North West Corridor report prepared by Mott MacDonald for Cardiff Council back in 2021. To sumnarise:
Option 1 - do nothing - capacity on City Line limited to 2tph
Option 2 - at-grade interventions - would move City Line trains to platforms 4/6 and VoG line to platforms 7/8. This would increase capacity on City Line to 6tph - but would preclude direct connection of new Bay tram to City Line.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Option 3 - major interventions - including over/underpass at Cardiff West or a diversion off road and new bridge over Taff to connect to Bay link - various options considered with routes.
Option 1 is not acceptable so Option 2 preferred, but maybe only as an interim solution. Recognition that Option 3 in some form would inevitablly be required in longer term.
So I’ve been looking at the City line services using platform 4 & 6.
The current layout allows this without conflict to the Alpha and Mike (Aberdare & Merthyr) services - if you disregard any mainline usage of platform 4.
The current pathing for the Aberdare is Platform 8 usually (with the odd platform 7) then across Cardiff West onto the Down Barry Relief / UP Treforest towards Ninian Park and Radyr. The Merthyr is held at Radyr Branch Junction to allow the Aberdare to pass, the Merthyr is then routed via the DN Barry Relief at Radyr Branch Junction into platform 6.
You could route the Merthyr:
DN Treforest (Ninian Park)
UP Barry Relief (Radyr Branch Junction)
Platform 4 Cardiff Central
UP Llandaff to QS.
You could then route the Aberdare:
DN Llandaff from QS
Crossover
UP Llandaff into Platform 6 at Cardiff Central
Platform 6 to DN Barry Relief to Radyr Branch Junction.
UP Treforest to Ninian Park.
That’ll give you UP Merthyr via Plat 4 and DN Aberdare via Plat 6.
But…..even without taking into consideration the mainline services effected, you move the conflict from Radyr Branch Junction to Cardiff East Valleys Junction where there is no faxing crossover to allow access from the DN Llandaff to platform 4.
You also add in the Barry line services at Cardiff East Valleys Junction whereas at Radyr Branch Junc you only have the city line conflict.
The addtional problem at Cardiff east valleys junction is its right on the boundary between Tfw and Network Rail.
Hence why the addition of the proposed point ends on Cardiff west will allow the current and uplifted city line services to use P6 in the up direction and P7 in rhe down direction without impacting mainline services on P4.
To add some flavour....
One of the options being explored for future Crossrail services re Station Link or "the ramp" is to route all the Penarth services (subject to a little more OLE and tram-train ops) onto the ramp (and so off Platforms 6/7/8 - freeing up platform capacity - and via the new Crossrail platforms at Central) and on toward the bay...and back up the bay line via Queen St to Coryton.
The option for City line to the bay is being explored as well....but may be difficult given additional crossing movements in the throat and may require the grade separation at Cardiff West to retain performance (see below)
Re Cardiff West...yes short term, that is an at-grade intervention to enable 4tph on City Line through current platforms.
Longer term option for more operational capacity and reliability is a grade separation (possibly using a dive-under as illustrated in the NW Corridor OBC) to tramway standards given it is only tram-trains that will use it (& so with more gradient/curvature flexibility to avoid excessive costs/disruption - which will be significant anyway).
A key consideration for future and more frequent Metro services (so min 4tph - inc. eventually in Cardiff on City and Coryton) is that every service does not have to go to the current platforms at Cardiff Central (Which is full to bursting now!)....With higher frequency and good interchange then we can deploy and design services more like a Metro network and less like a hub/spoke. Half the tram-trains from the TAM under the final planned timetable (currently) will go to the bay via Queen St anyway....with plenty of options to change at Queen St, Radyr, Pontypridd, Cathays, etc with minimal interchange penalties...and no -ve impact on overall generalised journey time
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
