TfW should not be getting tram trains

[tomuk]

Moderator note: Split from https://railforums.co.uk/threads/tfw-class-398-stadler-citylink-tram-trains.229459

I also don't see why you're so obsessed with the platform heights - yes it'll cost a bit more to build the platforms on any extensions, but surely that's cheaper than converting all of the existing stations to low platforms?

Buy trams for the on street and buy trains for the rail lines its that simple and straightforward as that.

We only have the 398s to fulfil the Welsh Governments narcissism that Cardiff deserves a 'world class metro'. I'd rather they built one that operated on as cost effective basis as possible so the future revenues\reduced subsidy can be spent improving transport elsewhere.

 

[Dai Corner]

Buy trams for the on street and buy trains for the rail lines its that simple and straightforward as that.

We only have the 398s to fulfil the Welsh Governments narcissism that Cardiff deserves a 'world class metro'. I'd rather they built one that operated on as cost effective basis as possible so the future revenues\reduced subsidy can be spent improving transport elsewhere.

They were going to run from the Taff Vale lines, down the Cardiff Bay branch and then onto the streets for s few hundred metres. Surely you're not advocating passengers changing at the end of the existing branch for a two or three minute tram journey?

 

[tomuk]

They were going to run from the Taff Vale lines, down the Cardiff Bay branch and then onto the streets for s few hundred metres. Surely you're not advocating passengers changing at the end of the existing branch for a two or three minute tram journey?

Of course not but that just illustrates the pointlessness of getting tram trains over normal EMUs their only planned 'on street use', now scrapped, was to run 250m towards Roald Dahl Plass crossing one road.

 

[D365]

Surely the motive for tram-trains is to enable the possibility of 'low cost' light rail extensions within the lifespan of the Stadler vehicles.

 

[MarkyT]

Surely the motive for tram-trains is to enable the possibility of 'low cost' light rail extensions within the lifespan of the Stadler vehicles.

Definitely the intention. Such extensions might not be conventionally 'on street' to any great extent, but could exploit the vehicles' abilities to negotiate tighter curves and steeper gradients, while allowing new level crossings and streetside running avoiding the fully fenced segregation legally required for new heavy rail. Clearly if the notion of tram trains is somehow fundementally wrong, then Tyne and Wear Metro made a huge mistake buying lightweight tram based vehicles for their original network all those years ago.

 

[Envoy]

The plan is to also build a new line coming off the City line between Fairwater & Danescourt and heading out via to Cregiau and maybe Beddau/Pontyclun. If that were built to heavy rail standards, you would need footbridges/lifts to cross the tracks. Having light rail means that people can walk over the tracks and therefore you avoid expense on infrastructure. If extended from Cardiff Bay station to link with Splott, the tracks would have to cross roads. Not sure how they would link Central with the Bay line at Callaghan Square.

So, doing things this way, you have the benefit of the present segregated system allied with being able to do extensions at reasonable cost. Much of this has already been debated in the South Wales Metro thread.

 

[the sniper]

They were going to run from the Taff Vale lines, down the Cardiff Bay branch and then onto the streets for s few hundred metres. Surely you're not advocating passengers changing at the end of the existing branch for a two or three minute tram journey?

I think the issue is that they shouldn't have compromised what could have been a perfect S-Bahn for the sake of a few hundred metres of street running, which seems almost entirely unnecessary.

A later tram/tram-train route maybe could have been Beddau to Splott, if that is desired. Any problems on the streets could have been contained to that route.

The Valley lines will not in the foreseeable future have a tram system's frequency on its long, largely single line branches with passing loops, which makes up the majority of the system. Combining that with the variables of fairly pointless street running seems like a system destined to be plagued with an inherent problems and unreliability.

Personally I think something like the 777s would have been the perfect solution.

 

[mrcheek]

Plus of course, on the long journeys up the valley, passengers will now be denied use of a toilet.
This has not been thought through very well

 

[Bletchleyite]

They aren't that much different to 777s. Indeed are they the METRO platform?

 

[XAM2175]

They aren't that much different to 777s. Indeed are they the METRO platform?

No, the Citylink platform inherited from Vossloh España. Same as Sheffield's 399s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, the Citylink platform inherited from Vossloh España. Same as Sheffield's 399s.

Either way there isn't much difference from a 777.

 

[MarkyT]

Plus of course, on the long journeys up the valley, passengers will now be denied use of a toilet.
This has not been thought through very well

The much-discussed toilet strategy is to keep open plentiful facilities at certain significant stations en route. With a frequent service, the idea is that you should always be within a few minutes of such provision so you should be able to get off, use the facilities then continue your journey within at most 15 minutes at all times of the operating day. It remains to be seen how effective this will be, but is it markedly worse than finding the one toilet aboard a short train out of use or occupied by a long stayer? My instinct is that it should at least be easier theoretically to maintain land-based facilities than those on board and the size and weight of the cubicle and its supply and waste tanks is avoided. There will be no tanking or waste discharge downtime for the units either, although it is possible there might be some unplanned extra cleaning activity required on occasions!

 

[Caaardiff]

In the grand scheme of things, not having a toilet on board shouldn't be that much of an issue. Using the 132 Stagecoach bus service Maerdy - Cardiff, this journey is 1hr50 long, with it being just over an hour from Pontypridd. They do not have toilets, neither do they have toilets at bus stops along the route. The comparable journey time from Treorchy - Cardiff is 1hr12 mins, with Pontypridd - Cardiff being 30 mins.

 

[takno]

it is possible there might be some unplanned extra cleaning activity required on occasions!

I suspect that after all the evening drinkers hop on the last train home, leaving them without the option of hopping off and back on the next one, that there will be quite a lot of mopping to do.

 

[MattRat]

If you don't want them in Wales, I know a lot of people in Liverpool who would be happy if our city took them instead

 

[MarkyT]

I suspect that after all the evening drinkers hop on the last train home, leaving them without the option of hopping off and back on the next one, that there will be quite a lot of mopping to do.

Wipe clean/hose down surfaces for those units then! But equally when 100 or more tanked-up punters all need to go at the same time, one toilet cubicle onboard is also of little use. Maybe better to make very clear announcements at embarking stations, and ensure large banks of urinals are available and working there right up until departure.

 

[tomuk]

The plan is to also build a new line coming off the City line between Fairwater & Danescourt and heading out via to Cregiau and maybe Beddau/Pontyclun. If that were built to heavy rail standards, you would need footbridges/lifts to cross the tracks. Having light rail means that people can walk over the tracks and therefore you avoid expense on infrastructure.

Is this not the reopening of a former line that lost its stations at or before Beeching and finally closed in the 80s after Cregiau quarry rand down? Looking at a map the route appears to be intact apart from some houses north of Fairwater station.

How mucj of this expensive infrastructure are you avoiding with a high floor tram train? You will need to build platforms and appropriate ramps\up down to them.

 

[MarkyT]

Is this not the reopening of a former line that lost its stations at or before Beeching and finally closed in the 80s after Cregiau quarry rand down? Looking at a map the route appears to be intact apart from some houses north of Fairwater station.

With a big dollop of hindsight, perhaps it was a poor decision to allow that development on the old trackbed, definitely pre-2000 according to Google Earth historic aerial imagery. It's always difficult to push through any significant residential demolition. As the area is already close to stations its challenging to identify any real benefits to people in that immediate community.

How mucj of this expensive infrastructure are you avoiding with a high floor tram train? You will need to build platforms and appropriate ramps\up down to them.

Accessible footbridges with long ramps or lifts can be particularly expensive, and visually obtrusive. The cost difference between new low and high platforms is fairly small by comparison, although fitting high platforms into tight urban streetscapes can sometimes be a challenge, although that isn't a concern for Cardiff at the moment.

 

[tomuk]

although fitting high platforms into tight urban streetscapes can sometimes be a challenge, although that isn't a concern for Cardiff at the moment.

Well it is and will be for the next thirty years as they have ordered the 398s

 

[MarkyT]

Well it is and will be for the next thirty years as they have ordered the 398s

And if they'd gone for a fully conventional heavy rail EMU, they may not have been able to afford ANY system extensions in the future. If they'd gone for full light rail conversion with a low-floor vehicle then they'd need to rebuild every existing platform on the Valleys network, and interunning with any heavy rail vehicles could have been problematic, including the Rhymney/VOG FLIRTs, but especially freights. Light rail doesn't always mean extensive street running if any at all, but the vehicle capabilties and different legal framework confer intriguing opportunities for cost-effective expansion. As these are not likely to be actually largely 'on street' in tight city centres, then the additional cost of new high platforms in less dense suburban areas is a sensible compromise. Conventionally bogied high-floor tram vehicles are also thought by some to be more dependable than the current crop of low-floor vehicles, with higher operating speeds and better riding characteristics to boot. With more space to house heavy equipment underfloor, they usually have a lower centre of gravity than the low floors, which often have to locate much equipment up on the roof.

 

[tomuk]

And if they'd gone for a fully conventional heavy rail EMU, they may not have been able to afford ANY system extensions in the future.

What evidence is there that they wouldn't be able to afford it? Were not talking the Borders Railway. Are these extension confined to the Treherbert, Aberdare and Merthyr Tydfil lines then as any on the Flirt or Civity served lines are unaffordable?

If they'd gone for full light rail conversion with a low-floor vehicle then they'd need to rebuild every existing platform on the Valleys network, and interunning with any heavy rail vehicles could have been problematic, including the Rhymney/VOG FLIRTs, but especially freights.

I and I'm sure nobody else would advocate conversion to light rail.

Light rail doesn't always mean extensive street running if any at all, but the vehicle capabilties and different legal framework confer intriguing opportunities for cost-effective expansion. As these are not likely to be actually largely 'on street' in tight city centres, then the additional cost of new high platforms in less dense suburban areas is a sensible compromise.

Short extensions using existing\closed heavy rail lines requires vehicles with 'intriguing opportunities' doesn't sound a very convincing argument.

Or are we actually looking at a scenario where the 398s are never used outside of a heavy rail environment and any actual 'Cardiff or Bay transit' is a real tram?

 

[MarkyT]

What evidence is there that they wouldn't be able to afford it? Were not talking the Borders Railway. Are these extension confined to the Treherbert, Aberdare and Merthyr Tydfil lines then as any on the Flirt or Civity served lines are unaffordable?

I and I'm sure nobody else would advocate conversion to light rail.

Short extensions using existing\closed heavy rail lines requires vehicles with 'intriguing opportunities' doesn't sound a very convincing argument.

Or are we actually looking at a scenario where the 398s are never used outside of a heavy rail environment and any actual 'Cardiff or Bay transit' is a real tram?

I really don't understand your beef with this rolling stock. I reckon that practically passengers will not be able to tell the difference riding them compared to a modern lightweight EMU, as was the case with original T&W metrocars. Obviously we haven't sampled them yet and there's an outside chance they might be awful so I will keep an open mind, but I've seen nothing yet that convinces me they must be bad, the manufacturer has a good reputation, and some conventional modern MU designs from other makers have been panned on here after great initial promise. If it's the toilet situation, then that's not an intrinsic issue with the stock, as Stadler could offer the same vehicles with a toilet cubicle if desired by a customer. If TfW had ordered a conventional EMU, then they could have adopted the same policy of no onboard provision, much as many other Metro systems do, with enhanced facilities at selected stations. As far as length is concerned, Citylinks are being supplied as 50m units here and can be multipled to form 100m consists where required, which is around the same length as a 5x20m conventional unit or a 4x25m, with similar capacity.

 

[the sniper]

As far as length is concerned, Citylinks are being supplied as 50m units here and can be multipled to form 100m consists where required, which is around the same length as a 5x20m conventional unit or a 4x25m, with similar capacity.

Not according to Stadler, as posted in the other thread, who say they're 40m: https://www.stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/cttwb0922e.pdf

Given that the Valley lines should come into their own around the peaks and big events in Cardiff, are there regularly going to be triple sets up to the likes of Rhymney? That's a lots of space wasted on empty cabs. And let's not forget they're narrower than heavy rail stock. And less 'walk through' than a gangwayed Class 150 in multiple. Have they even ordered enough for that though...?

 

[tomuk]

I really don't understand your beef with this rolling stock. I reckon that practically passengers will not be able to tell the difference riding them compared to a modern lightweight EMU, as was the case with original T&W metrocars. Obviously we haven't sampled them yet and there's an outside chance they might be awful so I will keep an open mind, but I've seen nothing yet that convinces me they must be bad, the manufacturer has a good reputation, and some conventional modern MU designs from other makers have been panned on here after great initial promise. If it's the toilet situation, then that's not an intrinsic issue with the stock, as Stadler could offer the same vehicles with a toilet cubicle if desired by a customer. If TfW had ordered a conventional EMU, then they could have adopted the same policy of no onboard provision, much as many other Metro systems do, with enhanced facilities at selected stations. As far as length is concerned, Citylinks are being supplied as 50m units here and can be multipled to form 100m consists where required, which is around the same length as a 5x20m conventional unit or a 4x25m, with similar capacity.

I don't have a beef with the 398s per se, I'm not worried about the toilets or the door positions. As regards quality they aren't 'native' Stadlers but an inherited Spanish one.

My concern is with the whole CVL procurement, what would have been simpler than some bog standard* EMUs, Desiros, Civities or Aventras. Hell even some of the myriad of EMU stock that's been scrapped at Newport, TfW don't seem to mind buying scrap stock for their premier Cardiff to Manchester route.

I just don't believe the reaoning for buying the mix of stock they stands up to scrutiny.

Where is the electrification to Ebbw Vale or the VOG or Maesteg?

* maybe with some batteries for some discontinuous electrification if absolutely necessary.

 

[MarkyT]

Not according to Stadler, as posted in the other thread, who say they're 40m: https://www.stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/cttwb0922e.pdf

OK fair enough, thanks for the update. I was basing my assumption on an early diagram of the new Taffs Well depot, which stated capacity for so many 50m units ISTR. I think that may have been before the rolling stock contract award was announced come to think of it.

Given that the Valley lines should come into their own around the peaks and big events in Cardiff, are there regularly going to be triple sets up to the likes of Rhymney? That's a lots of space wasted on empty cabs. And let's not forget they're narrower than heavy rail stock. And less 'walk through' than a gangwayed Class 150 in multiple. Have they even ordered enough for that though...?

Rhymney is supposed to be using FLIRTs isn't it, but I take your point regarding capacity for peaks and major events on all lines. Increased frequency should help of course, and I expect TfW will have options on additional sets at an agreed price if desired and if they can afford them. Exterior Width is 170mm narrower than a 150 Sprinter, just under 7 inches. Not sure what the interior saloon width difference will be but probably very similar. Walk-through attribute is mixed; the open full-width gangways between the three articulated sections will be more permeable and possibly more tolerably ride-inable than the intermediate corridor connection of the sprinter, but clearly the load won't be able to balance its density between coupled units in the same way. If comparing a 40m 398 with a 40m 150 then the number of cabs will be identical.

 

[the sniper]

Rhymney is supposed to be using FLIRTs isn't it, but I take your point regarding capacity for peaks and major events on all lines.

Apologies, I had that included as a route in my own Metro S-Bahn plan, the one in my head only...

 

[mrcheek]

The much-discussed toilet strategy is to keep open plentiful facilities at certain significant stations en route. With a frequent service, the idea is that you should always be within a few minutes of such provision so you should be able to get off, use the facilities then continue your journey within at most 15 minutes at all times of the operating day. It remains to be seen how effective this will be, but is it markedly worse than finding the one toilet aboard a short train out of use or occupied by a long stayer? My instinct is that it should at least be easier theoretically to maintain land-based facilities than those on board and the size and weight of the cubicle and its supply and waste tanks is avoided. There will be no tanking or waste discharge downtime for the units either, although it is possible there might be some unplanned extra cleaning activity required on occasions!

This is of course complete and utter nonsense. Outside of Cardiff, Pontypridd is the only valley line station with a toilet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is of course complete and utter nonsense. Outside of Cardiff, Pontypridd is the only valley line station with a toilet.

Most Merseyrail stations don't have them either, and it doesn't really cause issues any more than your local bus stop not having them. If they are there at the main stations you can go on arrival/before heading home.

 

[mrcheek]

Most Merseyrail stations don't have them either, and it doesn't really cause issues any more than your local bus stop not having them. If they are there at the main stations you can go on arrival/before heading home.

But thats always been the case. TfW are going from having toilets to not having them. At a time when many public toilets are closing too. Try finding a public toilet in Caerphilly

 

[Dai Corner]

But thats always been the case. TfW are going from having toilets to not having them. At a time when many public toilets are closing too. Try finding a public toilet in Caerphilly

There's one by the cafe and tourist information place opposite the castle and another near the rail and bus station. The latter was closed by the Council but reopened by the taxi drivers association, who did the same at Blackwood bus station.