South Wales 'Metro' updates

[PHILIPE]

Sounds like they need to order more 769s as an interim solution, as we all know the electrification won't be ready by 2023 and if the Pacers are fully withdrawn they will be short of units to cover the routes.

It has already been worked out in detail by a poster on another thread how many units they will have and there will be enough when the 769s enter service. TFW have already received 5 x 153s from GWR and 12 x 170s from Anglia. It wouldn't be very prudent to order any more 769s until we have seen how they perform first in view of the problems getting them into traffic. Anyway, all this is pre-Metro we are discussing now.on this thread.

 

[John R]

Pure speculation on my part, but I wonder whether part of the thinking is to increase frequency on the Penarth line to 6tph, rather than maintain it at 4 as I believe was the original plan. This would mitigate the situation regarding capacity. Why do I think this? Well the plan to double part of the branch would appear unnecessary if only 4 tph are envisaged - at the moment trains are timed for 3.5 mins from Penarth to the junction, so even with an increased turnaround for reliability, there's still no need to double. And with very strict control on plans to ensure the overall project stays within budget, there must be something driving the requirement.

I do wonder whether the good citizens of Lower Penarth, who previously have discouraged a southward extension of the line, may change their view if battery operated (ie quiet) trains are able to run. I would have thought the attraction of a station on their doorstep once (if!) the service is perceived to be much improved might outweigh any negatives. A station just north of Forrest Road would bring many more people within walking distance of the terminus of the line, and presumably further increase the desirability of the area.

 

[Cardiff123]

Pure speculation on my part, but I wonder whether part of the thinking is to increase frequency on the Penarth line to 6tph, rather than maintain it at 4 as I believe was the original plan. This would mitigate the situation regarding capacity. Why do I think this? Well the plan to double part of the branch would appear unnecessary if only 4 tph are envisaged - at the moment trains are timed for 3.5 mins from Penarth to the junction, so even with an increased turnaround for reliability, there's still no need to double. And with very strict control on plans to ensure the overall project stays within budget, there must be something driving the requirement.

I do wonder whether the good citizens of Lower Penarth, who previously have discouraged a southward extension of the line, may change their view if battery operated (ie quiet) trains are able to run. I would have thought the attraction of a station on their doorstep once (if!) the service is perceived to be much improved might outweigh any negatives. A station just north of Forrest Road would bring many more people within walking distance of the terminus of the line, and presumably further increase the desirability of the area.

Surely more than just a passing loop between Dingle Rd and Penarth will be needed to increase frequency to 6tph? Like I said, original plans were to double the line all the way from the old Penarth dock station, with a new platform at Dingle Rd, all the way up to Penarth. That's now been shelved for just a passing loop between Dingle Rd and Penarth. So whilst I would've agreed with you if the original plans were still going ahead, I'm now more inclined to think the passing loop that's going in is just for improved reliability purposes.

There's no doubt that the line needs to be extended as far beyond Penarth station as possible, preferably all the way to Cosmeston if the houses at Birch Lane/Rowan Close can be dealt with.

 

[krus_aragon]

Surely more than just a passing loop between Dingle Rd and Penarth will be needed to increase frequency to 6tph? Like I said, original plans were to double the line all the way from the old Penarth dock station, with a new platform at Dingle Rd, all the way up to Penarth.

How far back were those original plans? The diagrams in the presentation slides (back at franchise award time) indicate it'd still be 4tph for Penarth come 2023; 2tph to Coryton and 2tph to Caerphilly, with the 4tph from Rhymney heading toward Barry.

 

[Cardiff123]

How far back were those original plans? The diagrams in the presentation slides (back at franchise award time) indicate it'd still be 4tph for Penarth come 2023; 2tph to Coryton and 2tph to Caerphilly, with the 4tph from Rhymney heading toward Barry.

There was a map released last year or in 2018 I think showing doubling of the line with a new platform at Dingle Rd

 

[Paul Dancey]

Has there actually been any official confirmation that the proposal is simply to build a passing loop between Dingle Rd and Penarth stations, or is just an interpretation of the map and details published last month.

if you look at that map, Dingle road is shown as stepped access from the road to one or more platforms. The current platform has flat access from the road. The only steps involved would be to use the footbridge to access the currently unused platform or to access the lane to the main road. As far as Penarth station goes, the map indicates a new platform and a new ramp access. The existing platform appears to be in good condition along with the booking office an waiting area and has flat access from the adjoining road and car park, and ramp access to the main road that runs across the bridge. Unless I'm missing something, my own interpretation would be that they propose bringing the second platform back into use at Dingle road, hence only stepped access to the second platform as I doubt there's room for a new ramp, and rebuilding a second platform at Penarth, as it already has ramp access. If it's only going to be a passing loop, I can't see the necessity of the proposed work at Penarth.

 

[krus_aragon]

Has there actually been any official confirmation that the proposal is simply to build a passing loop between Dingle Rd and Penarth stations, or is just an interpretation of the map and details published last month.

Your

My reaction to the map (regardless of which stations get new platforms) was surprise that the double-track would be between Dingle Rd and Penarth, as opposed to between Dingle Rd and Cogan Jn. As you point out, the annotations describing platform access etc. is entirely consistent with double-tracking Dingle Rd to Penarth inclusive. But in most applications a single platform at the terminus would be sufficient, as an up train would leave before the next down train arrived, passing somewhere outside the terminus. Given the land availability issues at Penarth, that got me (and others) wondering whether Penarth would no longer be the terminus.

On the decision not to double between Dingle Rd and Cogan Jn, that could be to save the expense of a double-junction at Cogan Jn. Using the existing junction, and then a single set of diverging points for the double track towards Dingle Rd. Perhaps the double track will extend a fair distance beyond Dingle Rd, and it's just a detail that's not represented well on that map. But that still leaves the question of what's going on at Penarth itself.

 

[Paul Dancey]

Absolutely agree, it's hard to see any logic to double tracking any of the line if it continues to be four trains per hour max, unless it's in preparation for extending the line beyond the present terminus presumably as a single track. A two platform terminus would be confusing for passengers unless one was up and the other down, but then that would require shuffling the train from one platform to the other. Transport for Wales must have something in mind, but it's hard to know what from the details available at present. However I do hope they improve the Sunday service, which is hopeless at present.

 

[Cardiff123]

Here's the original map of Keolis Amey's plans before they were changed, along with the plans as of January 2020. You can see from the original plans, KA were going to double the track from the road bridge that goes over the Penarth branch down to Penarth Marina, with an new platform at Dingle Rd. In the new plans, that's gone.

 

[59CosG95]

Here's the original map of Keolis Amey's plans before they were changed, along with the plans as of Jan 2020

So, the main changes are:

• Non-electrification of Merthyr Tydfil Viaduct, and replacement of OLE with shore supply at Merthyr Tydfil Station
• Non-electrification of the Pontypridd area, and replacement of OLE with shore supply at Pontypridd Station
• Extension of electrification from Ystrad Mynach to Bargoed, and retention of Gilfach Fargoed
• Non-electrification of Cathays/Crwys Road to Cardiff Bay (via Cardiff QS), and replacement of OLE with shore supply at Cardiff QS
• Non-electrification of Taff's Well Station area

 

[krus_aragon]

Here's the original map of Keolis Amey's plans before they were changed, along with the plans as of January 2020. You can see from the original plans, KA were going to double the track from the road bridge that goes over the Penarth branch down to Penarth Marina, with an new platform at Dingle Rd. In the new plans, that's gone.

So at Dingle Road, the "extra platform" icon has been removed, but the "no wheelchair access" icon remains. Perhaps the latter was an oversight.

So, the main changes are:

The passing loop at Rhiwbina seems to have disappeared, too.

 

[Cardiff123]

So at Dingle Road, the "extra platform" icon has been removed, but the "no wheelchair access" icon remains. Perhaps the latter was an oversight.


The passing loop at Rhiwbina seems to have disappeared, too.

If you're accessing the station via the partially stepped footbridge over the railway from Windsor Rd, there isn't any wheelchair access. If you're accessing the station from Dingle Rd, there is level access for wheelchairs. So I'd say the map is correct as there isn't full wheelchair access to the station.

It's the same at Cogan, there's full level access to the down Barry bound platform, but not to the up Cardiff bound platform, hence the no wheelchair access icon at Cogan, even though one platform is fully wheelchair accessible.

 

[Meerkat]

What exactly will ‘shore supply’ entail?
The driver having to plug a big extension lead into the front of his train?

 

[krus_aragon]

If you're accessing the station via the partially stepped footbridge over the railway from Windsor Rd, there isn't any wheelchair access. If you're accessing the station from Dingle Rd, there is level access for wheelchairs. So I'd say the map is correct as there isn't full wheelchair access to the station.

It's the same at Cogan, there's full level access to the down Barry bound platform, but not to the up Cardiff bound platform, hence the no wheelchair access icon at Cogan, even though one platform is fully wheelchair accessible.

I've only accessed the station from the Dingle Road/Arcott Street direction, and infrequently at that. (My normal stations were Cogan or Eastbrook when I lived in the area.) I'd completely forgotten about the existence of that footbridge, having never had the occasion to use it. Thanks for the reminder and explanation.

 

[MarkyT]

What exactly will ‘shore supply’ entail?
The driver having to plug a big extension lead into the front of his train?

Would have thought a short length of OHLE in the appropriate place (perhaps 750v rather than 25kV), or a ground level 3rd/4th rail/plate solution automatically engaged and energised only when the vehicle is in the correct position would be more appropriate. Vivarail have demonstrated the ground level version for their battery train.

 

[Meerkat]

Would have thought a short length of OHLE in the appropriate place (perhaps 750v rather than 25kV), or a ground level 3rd/4th rail/plate solution automatically engaged and energised only when the vehicle is in the correct position would be more appropriate. Vivarail have demonstrated the ground level version for their battery train.

I thought the link referred to the shore supply being a cost saving measure replacing short lengths of OLE?

 

[Envoy]

Plans for development on the Ely Mill site in Cardiff at the site of the proposed Metro station on the City Line recently appeared on the Cardiff Planning Portal. Unfortunately, no provision is made for car parking - and you can be sure that people will drive to this station - should it ever be built. (Presumably, they will park in the new residential streets). Neither has provision been made for buses traversing this site to be able to pull over and have an interchange with the City Line Metro station. All very disappointing and not future proofing. Obviously Cardiff’s planners are just letting the developer extract as much profit from the site and Network Rail/ Transport for Wales have just sat back and let this happen.

You see the plans by clicking the following link and putting 19/03206 in the search box. I then suggest you select ‘Proposed Site Layout’ if interested.
https://planning.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Plans for development on the Ely Mill site in Cardiff at the site of the proposed Metro station on the City Line recently appeared on the Cardiff Planning Portal. Unfortunately, no provision is made for car parking - and you can be sure that people will drive to this station - should it ever be built. (Presumably, they will park in the new residential streets). Neither has provision been made for buses traversing this site to be able to pull over and have an interchange with the City Line Metro station. All very disappointing and not future proofing. Obviously Cardiff’s planners are just letting the developer extract as much profit from the site and Network Rail/ Transport for Wales have just sat back and let this happen.

Good spot. Your point about the buses is well made. I'm not sure I agree with your point about car parking though.

Given the current levels of congestion on Broad Street and the likely impact of the new development on traffic levels the last thing the area needs is for people to use the station as a Park & Ride destination. With the exception of Sanatorium Rd, most of the surrounding area already has fairly strict parking restrictions so I doubt there'll be on-street parking available - and nor should there be, in my opinion.

A modern replacement footbridge from Cowbridge Rd East to Sanatorium Rd would make the station easily accessible on foot for most local residents. I'm not sure who else you'd expect to use it.

 

[Envoy]

Good spot. Your point about the buses is well made. I'm not sure I agree with your point about car parking though.

Given the current levels of congestion on Broad Street and the likely impact of the new development on traffic levels the last thing the area needs is for people to use the station as a Park & Ride destination. With the exception of Sanatorium Rd, most of the surrounding area already has fairly strict parking restrictions so I doubt there'll be on-street parking available - and nor should there be, in my opinion.

A modern replacement footbridge from Cowbridge Rd East to Sanatorium Rd would make the station easily accessible on foot for most local residents. I'm not sure who else you'd expect to use it.

The problem could be that many people from say Ely will drive down to a new station at Ely Mill & dump their cars in residential areas - which could be the new development at Ely Mill or in the Victoria Park area. They will then take the trains to wherever on the City Line or switch to main line at Central & hence avoid the congested city centre roads and expensive parking. Look at all the people who drive to Radyr station and use that car park. Whilst desirable that people would use buses and then transfer to/from trains, some will always drive - especially as they won’t want to hang around for a bus - which might not even exist to their place of residence. Being able to drive to a station and park for free is often the deal breaker that entices people to use the rail system.

 

[Meerkat]

I guess Network Rail must be gutted they haven’t done the transfer yet!
Bit of an eye opener for TfW - presumably they would be on the hook for all the flood damage repairs or is that a TOC risk after takeover?

 

[Tom125]

Any news on when the Aberdare, Ebbw Vale and Treherbert lines will be re-opening?

 

[Cardiff123]

www.tfwrail.wales is where you will find any news

 

[Cardiff123]

I guess Network Rail must be gutted they haven’t done the transfer yet!
Bit of an eye opener for TfW - presumably they would be on the hook for all the flood damage repairs or is that a TOC risk after takeover?

Amey Keolis Infrastructure Limited will be wholly responsible for maintenance, repairs and upgrades of the Valley Lines north of Queen St after the transfer is complete from NR

 

[Dai Corner]

Amey Keolis Infrastructure Limited will be wholly responsible for maintenance, repairs and upgrades of the Valley Lines north of Queen St after the transfer is complete from NR

If they're taking all the risk the Welsh Government must be paying them handsomely.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

The problem could be that many people from say Ely will drive down to a new station at Ely Mill & dump their cars in residential areas - which could be the new development at Ely Mill or in the Victoria Park area. They will then take the trains to wherever on the City Line or switch to main line at Central & hence avoid the congested city centre roads and expensive parking. Look at all the people who drive to Radyr station and use that car park. Whilst desirable that people would use buses and then transfer to/from trains, some will always drive - especially as they won’t want to hang around for a bus - which might not even exist to their place of residence. Being able to drive to a station and park for free is often the deal breaker that entices people to use the rail system.

I think you may be seeing a problem where none exists. I suspect that what drives the large numbers parking at Radyr is the availability of parking and the time factor rather than the cost of city centre parking.

There doesn't seem to be a problem with on-street parking at either Danescourt or Waungron so why there would be one at the new station escapes me. If one does emerge then it can be controlled with on-street parking restrictions. The council has already introduced ticketing to end the practise of commuters using the Cowbridge Rd East car parks and catching buses into town. Why should rail be treated any differently?

As a rule of thumb, surely park & ride facilities should be located at the edges of cities rather than in urban inner-city locations such as Canton.

 

[Envoy]

I think you may be seeing a problem where none exists. I suspect that what drives the large numbers parking at Radyr is the availability of parking and the time factor rather than the cost of city centre parking.

There doesn't seem to be a problem with on-street parking at either Danescourt or Waungron so why there would be one at the new station escapes me. If one does emerge then it can be controlled with on-street parking restrictions. The council has already introduced ticketing to end the practise of commuters using the Cowbridge Rd East car parks and catching buses into town. Why should rail be treated any differently?

As a rule of thumb, surely park & ride facilities should be located at the edges of cities rather than in urban inner-city locations such as Canton.

The fact that people appear to not be parking on the street near Waungron & Danescourt stations could be due to the fact that The City Line only has a train every 30 minutes. Of course, with The Metro this will increase significantly. Even allowing for the fact that it may be sometime before the 1 mile link between Coryton & Radyr is built to therefore make a City Circle Line, I would expect the Metro services from the central valleys to make stops at City Line stations & therefore boost frequency. Then we are likely to see people driving and leaving their cars near Danescourt, Fairwater, Waungron & Ely Mill stations. To now fill up vacant land near a future station and not allow for parking - or a bus interchange, is a big mistake.

My understanding is that ‘consultants’ have suggested that the former refuse centre at Waungron be used as western transport interchange. If buses to/from Ely are going to be diverted into this place, then will add about 8 minutes to the journey to the city centre & therefore make bus travel less attractive. Those who wish to change to the city circle bus can already do that at the bus stop nearest to Ely Mill. It is Ely Mill that is on the direct bus route between Ely and the city centre and therefore I contend that this should be an interchange for people who wish to change between bus and train. Waungron can be the interchange for people travelling to/from Fairwater.

I agree that P&R facilities should be on the edges of cities - though of course, ideally it would be desirable of people could use rail transport from the nearest station to home. Only last week I met someone who lives north of Caerphilly and has to travel to work in Cardiff city centre. So, I presumed that this person used the train? Well yes, they did BUT - they drove over Caerphilly Mountain and down to Heath Halt or Birchgrove to catch the train because the fares were too expensive from Hengoed. Another odd thing is that Llanishen & Lisvane stations are only about 1 mile apart yet the fares are higher from Lisvane. This induces some people to drive down to Llanishen because of this 1 mile price hike. Surely the price hike should be for the longer hop through Caerphilly Mountain but not so great that we have people actually driving into Cardiff’s suburbs to lower their commuting cost? Of course, this leads to free on-street parking where free station car parks are full or not available. Goodness knows what the situation will be like at Llanishen when all these new housing estates are built to the east as this station is the nearest railhead?

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

As I said, I think your point about a bus interchange is extremely well made. I just think that when it comes to car parking near urban stations, that is something to be discouraged rather than catered for.

There are always exceptions, of course.

In the case of Radyr, it's totally reasonable for residents of outlying villages such as Pentyrch and Creigiau with poor public transport conenctions to begin their commute by car and switch to rail. Suburbs like Ely and Canton though have very frequent, if not particularly fast, bus connections and the slow speed of those services in largely due to the number of cars on the city's main arteries. Residents of such communitites should be actively discouraged from using their cars for any part of their commute unless they have pressing reasons such as disabilities or early morning or late night shift-work.

When I was a kid, Cardiff's population was circa 250,000. In another decade or so it will be close to double that. It simply isn't sustainable for the majority of the city's residents to continue to use private cars as their method of getting to and from work.

I suspect we're not going to agree on this but I do understand and respect you viewpoint.

 

[WelshBluebird]

When I was a kid, Cardiff's population was circa 250,000. In another decade or so it will be close to double that. It simply isn't sustainable for the majority of the city's residents to continue to use private cars as their method of getting to and from work.

Whilst I agree with the general sentiment there, improvements to public transport have to come first before you can reasonably expect people to ditch their car.
So things like the city line actually getting a Sunday service (or getting better than 1 or 2 carriage trains - but I appreciate that needs a fair amount of infrastructure changes to), improvements in journey times and frequencies etc.
I accept that some of those improvements are coming for some areas, but they have been needed for years and I suspect people will have to actually see them before they believe what is being talked about in some regards.

 

[59CosG95]

If they're taking all the risk the Welsh Government must be paying them handsomely.

Well, KeolisAmey are already contracted to run the franchise...

 

[Dai Corner]

Well, KeolisAmey are already contracted to run the franchise...

Just to confuse us, Amey Keolis Infrastructure Ltd are (going to be) leasing the Core Valley Lines infrastructure and assets from Transport for Wales (not to be confused with Keolis/Amey Wales Cymru Ltd who run the TOC Transport for Wales Rail Services ( Gwasanaethau Rheilffyrdd Trafnidiaeth Cymru) .