Is there anything inherently wrong with gwml running through plat 1 and 2, plat 3 and 4 can also handle the gwml.
Using a loco with longer fuel range would have solved the issue. Currently the range only allows one trip to include Swansea.
From an outsiders perspective, I am not sure there is.
Correct. Network Rail don't want a 260m platform length either.
Seriously? I know it has been said that the 67s have poor fuel economy, but my understanding is that there is no fuel point in Carmarthen and yet the 175s (and presumably most if not all the other DMUs inheritted from ATW) could do two full day diagrams between visits to a fuelling point (eg. start Chester one morning, Carmarthen the next before finally finishing up at a fuel point at the end of the second day). If a 67 really cannot even manage one full day diagram then that sounds like seriously bad fuel economy.
Capacity for future services, there's a bit of discussion about it in Network Rail's Welsh Route Study (this is a draft version - anyone have a link to the final one?). The gist of it seems to be that the traditional approach of using platforms 3 & 4 for westbound services and 0-2 for eastbound requires terminating services off the current mains to cross the path of freight trains twice (once on arrival and then again after reversal to cross to the other side of the station).
I suppose platform 0 could be treated as a bay platform in theory - if I recall correctly it was made bi-directional when the area was resignalled. However that idea would be incompatible with your other suggestion of putting the stoppers on platforms 1 and 4 (unless there is a grand total of zero terminating stoppers). More importantly, as long as there are still services from Paddington which start/terminate at Cardiff then these services would not be able to use platform 0 unless it is lengthened to take them, which brings us back to demolition of much of the main booking hall building. The illustrations of the proposed redevelopment* included in the above linked document show the clock tower but I'm not sure how this would be supported since to extend platform 0 much of the rest of the booking hall building is in the way and would have to go.
How long do they want it then? Probably a fair bit longer than 260 metres? The wording used in the route study linked above is "extending Platform 0 into a full length facility for Intercity Express Programme (IEP) trains". A pair of 5-car IEP trains in multiple would be (nominally, at least) 10x26 metres long, so 260 metres is presumably the minimum they want. Moving InterCity services to what are currently the relief lines (and having them use platform 4 westbound and 3 eastbound) would avoid the need to get IETs onto platform 0, so avoiding the need to lengthen it for them. However, in that case platform 0 would presumably need to be used by 12-car class 387s on match day crowd buster shuttles to Newport; given the need to fill the entire train, use of Selective Door Openning might be an issue and a full-length platform could be required anyway.
Other than just having 10 full-length platforms (six for the GWML, four for the ValleyLines) and no through roads without platforms I can't think of a design that would really suit the infrustructure (the mix of passenger branches to the north and freight facilities to the south is a pickle in itself, as wherever you put slows, fasts and freights you end up with either fasts stuck behind freights, fasts stuck behind stoppers and/or conflicting moves at junctions - and even with six GWML platforms the drop from four tracks to two west of Cardiff would still cause issues due to the need to turnback some services in Cardiff).
There's no aspiration to demolish the station building, nor build over the River Taff. Platform 0 will not be supporting 9*26m or 10*26m.
Have you some evidence for this? As I posted above there certainly was a clear aspiration to commit extensive demolition and to accomodate IEP trains on platform 0 in the draft Welsh Route Study. For something more recent, see here (TfW Cardiff Central Enhancements FAQ) under "Will enhancements to the station mean any improvements to train performance and reliability of services stopping at Cardiff Central station?" This clearly states that the "project will improve capacity at platform 0 to enable new, longer trains to use it". While the latter doesn't mention IEP trains, in the absense of any evidence stating otherwise I assume they are talking about the same plan.
The impression I get from the route study (and the TfW link I posted above) is that it is a bit of everything - platform occupancy, passenger circulation/queuing space inside the station buildings, turnback sidings (both availability of and access to them) and maybe the throats. The existing passenger subway for access to/from platforms 1-8 is apparently congested at busy times for example, something at least one of the redevelopment proposals sought to address by demolishing all the platform buildings/canopies and replacing them with a footbridge to take some of the load off the subway. My own view on the passenger circulation issue (to avoid demolition of any heritage stuff) is either to widen the disabled-access subway (the one with the lifts)* and try to add stairs up from that in addition to the lifts or to add footbridges across both ends (from platform 0 to platform 8 at the west end and from the new bus station to platform 8 at the east end) beyond the heritage canopies. In addition I would suggest using the space currently occupied by the car park behind platform 0 to build a new retail unit and move the M&S store up from the ground floor into the new unit, allowing the space vacated by M&S to become a new queuing area for match days (and possibly a waiting room the rest of the time) and possibly some new toilet facilities to replace the crammped, seatless, toilet blocks in the platform buildings.
As you say, the bridge over the Taff is wider at its eastern end - wide enough to accomodate a platform extension for a short distance (or at least it appears so in Google Earth). Using this (plus the 20 or metres gained at the other end by moving the access to avoid the need for a ramp) is how I arrived at my suggested 200 metre maximum in post #27. The attached Google Earth screenshot will hopefully clarify this.
I have previously thought about extending platform 0 further back over the bridge as you suggest by widening the bridge. Having looked into it again now though I don't think the pointwork is just for access from the Vale Of Glamorgan but is also required for Canton Depot. If I'm right, this means TfW services which start from Cardiff would be unable to use platform 0 if coming off the depot. Not good, and together with the cost of widening the bridge (and possibly heritiage issues of its own - is the bridge over the Taff listed?) probably makes extending platform 0 any further west than the current bridge allows a non-starter. Which means no 12-car 387s or 9-car 800s, let alone 10-car, without SDO.
Another option is that, instead of having 'main/fast' and 'relief/stopping' lines you try to split the line between Cardiff and Newport into two (effectively) seperate double-track mixed-traffic railways running side by side, one for traffic to/from the Ebbw Vale and Marches lines and the other for Severn Tunnel Junction (and beyond). It looks like there is space for 6 tracks (possibly more) around the site of the proposed 'Cardiff East' / 'Newport Road' station so these seperate mixed traffic railways could each become three trakcs at this point to provide some overtaking opportunities. Similarly there is a wider section around the junctions to Ebbw Vale (a little to the east for the proposed 'Newport West' station though).
Would you get much of a performance boost from replacing a with a bi-mode FLIRT (the only likely alternative to a DMU in the medium term for most of the stoppers, since Swansea, Maesteg, Cheltenham and Hereford are all unelectrified and we are still waiting for the Filton bank to be wired into Bristol Temple Meads)? The stoppers can't escape the deadweight of diesel engines and/or traction batteries yet.
I was just looking into this on Google Earth, but (as with platform 0) a Nottingham-style step would come up against another of the sub-issues of this multi-dimensional puzzle - providing capacity for international events at the stadium next door. I very much suspect that there is zero chance of providing any additional platform capable of taking a 12-car class 387 (let alone a 10-car class 800/802 formation) without sacrificing at least one of the many historically valuable elements of the listed building. While a Nottingham-style step at Cardiff Central could provide an additional platform, none of the current platforms are long enough to be split into two platforms of useful length.
The wideway to the west of #3/4 is an interesting observation. I don't think the idea of swapping mains and reliefs wholesale throughout S. Wales is very likely, considering the freight facilities on the south side. The resignalling for electrification reconfigured and simplified the east junction significantly, further cementing the station split into distinct Main and Relief sides. The crossovers at Long Dyke and Moorland Rd Junctions are further out but much higher speed than the former Cardiff East pointwork. The setup still feels a little unfinished though. I expect like initially at Bristol East NR had to resignal the existing layout at Cardiff's West junction for the most part becasue there was not the programme time to accomplish a major remodelling, let alone a final spec all stakeholders had agreed on. The new signalling system should be easier to modify in the future, however, and I expect there to be a good case for layout simplifications in this very (overly) complex area.
But it is still listed in its entirety. While I personally think it would be very worth sacrificing certain elements of historic interest for the greater good, as long as the important facade is retained, classifying the complex as a whole as 'worthless' beyond the facade isn't going to win the industry any favours when it is specifically listed as "the most complete example of GWR major city railway station of the period following the regrouping of the railway system"
This image from the Architect's website shows the main facade retained with the extended platform 0 surface built back into the space occupied by the current hall. Note the little computer people visible through the screen glass wall 'on top' of current roof level. I think they must be on the transfer deck above the platforms as they're too high to be on platfrom 0 as track level is only three to four metres above street level in the station square. It's a good solution if they can swing it, albeit I'm not too keen on the styling of the new elements here which despite clearly being deliberately understated, still manage to overshadow the old facade due to their sheer scale. Would be nice to keep the front canopy and clocktower - you know time and railways, quite iconic!
This one I assume. The platform level seems to be at mezzanine height within the old building shell. People above that must be on the transfer deck (modern term for a wide footbridge).
In the current plans, the maximum supported formation would be 8-car 387 or 5+2 MK4 + loco. The only IEP would be a 5-car.
That thing is so very ugly.
This is not news - Network Rail have wanted this for many years, a massive redevelopment (including extension of platform 0 through the main booking hall building) has been on the cards since at least March 2015 (date of the draft Welsh Route Study I linked to above (and again here)).
If that's what Network Rail think, I'm disgusted and horrified (but not surprised, given the extent of demolition proposed in the earlier versions of the redevelopment proposals). The rest of the station is far from worthless - the whole booking hall building, main passenger subway and all the platform buildings on platforms 1 to 7 are all listed because of its completeness. It's all valuable because the whole is worth more than the sum of the parts - every little bit of historic fabric they demolish would be highly disrespectful to the listing in my opinion.
I think you have a typo there - I guess you meant to say "covered with ..., the existing platform" but I'm not sure what should go where I have put the three dots ...
Why do we have a system of listing buildings? I would suggest that, if we didn't 'need' 'quaint relics', then we wouldn't have listed buildings at all.
Take a look at the glass wall on the left and follow it till it intersects the station building. Not on the edge of the building but at the edge of the eaves - with people shown on the left of the glass wall, ie on an extended platform 0. Note also the level where this concourse (lets call it level 1 = platform level) intersects the station building - meaning that the existing ticket hall (on ground floor = level 0) will be no more. The main concourse level (level 2 - over platform) can be seen above, and I believe that the main access to level 2 will be at west end of existing station. You cant see this in this set of renders but you can see this clearly in the renders for the new south side building.This one I assume. The platform level seems to be at mezzanine height within the old building shell. People above that must be on the transfer deck (modern term for a wide footbridge).
i think i meant to say: '...the whole platform area will be covered, with the existing platform buildings and covers removed.'
Have found some more renders which show some of the early plans -
Why do they need that awful wavy roof?
I've asked about this before but cannot remember every getting any replies - does anyone here know?
It could just be sloppy drawing, but even the main facade doesn't seem to have survived intact in that version of the proposals. Yes the big letters 'GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY' are still there, but as well as the little canopy along the front (which also wraps round onto the east wall at the far end) having vanished ALL the archways appear to be open to ground level, allowing passengers to walk through any of them. There really was very little of the 'most complete big-4 era major city station' left in that version - maybe the subway would have survived but I think the platform buildings and canopies would have gone.This image from the Architect's website shows the main facade retained with the extended platform 0 surface built back into the space occupied by the current hall. Note the little computer people visible through the screen glass wall 'on top' of current roof level. I think they must be on the transfer deck above the platforms as they're too high to be on platfrom 0 as track level is only three to four metres above street level in the station square. It's a good solution if they can swing it, albeit I'm not too keen on the styling of the new elements here which despite clearly being deliberately understated, still manage to overshadow the old facade due to their sheer scale. Would be nice to keep the front canopy and clocktower - you know time and railways, quite iconic!
Maybe you have seen the new proposals; I haven't. In the case of the gold-roof version (as pictured above, with no clock tower) I would strongly disagree that the architects had given much (if any) consideration to the listing. I would agrue that was not a change, but a near-total demolish and replace project. If that is necessary (and it may be, but I would want to see some evidence that the potental alternatives have been throughly explored) then I would argue that there is no point retaining that tiny remnant of the facade and they should instead be looking to move as much as possible of the listed building to somewhere like St. Fagans.
Is not it functional currently?
One of my ideas to avoid touching the historic parts of the station would be to do something like that (which would also provide easier access between platform 0 and the other platforms) AND also build a footbridge at the east end linking one of the upper floors of the new bus station building to platforms 1-8 beyond the end of the canopies (I think one of the architects proposals for the new bus station had something like this). There's less room at the east end of the platforms though so that one would have to be a footbridge (possibly with lifts only) rather than a wide transfer deck.
Assuming congestion in the subways is (one of) the safety issue(s), then the first thing I would try is ticket barriers at both ends set either to 'exit only' or 'entry only' so that they become mainly one-way (plus people changing trains between platforms) with the new bridges at each end being available to all station users.
I'm not sure that makes sense since one subway has stairs to/from the platform while the other has lifts. I guess the lift one could simply have the lifts locked out-of-use if alternative PRM access is provided via a new footbridge and/or transfer deck but I can't see an easy way to prevent passengers using the stairs to move between one platform and another without messing up the listed tiles.
I think a 170 to 200 metre long platform 0 (the most that can be done without losing access from Canton or impacting the booking hall) would be more useful than two short (100ish metres) platforms (one being your proposed west-facing bay).
The indicative train service the NR route study assumed four trains per hour between Cardiff and Swansea for 2043 - two to Bristol Temple Meads (BRI) and two through the Severn Tunnel to Reading/London. The Maestegs (2tph) would run through too, 1tph to Ebbw Vale and 1tph to Abertillery. Nothing is shown to terminate at Cardiff Central from the west. 4tph from the Marches, 2tph from Gloucester, 2tph from BRI and 3tph through Bristol Parkway (2 Reading/London and 1 from Cheltenham) would terminate on the GWML side of Cardiff Central from the east. That's a total of 11tph coming in from the east and having to be turned round. Thus, there would seem to be a far-greater need for an east-facing bay (or several) than there is for a west-facing one. Other than political franchise silos, should capcity be found on the two-track railway west of Cardiff to increase the frequency, there is no obvious reason why any additional services from the west could not run through to one of the destinations further east.
The gold roof design is itself at least 8 years old (an article featuring it is dated 2015) and, in 2018, was apparently dropped as too expensive (BBC article). The 2018 article shows a very ugly proposal for what I think is the south side and some very sketchy interior shots of the northern concorse showing new direct stairs leading to platforms 1 & 2 in place of the current subway.
Sounds to me like rebuilding the northern bit of Canton into long straight stabling (maybe with servicing facilities) would be a big help.
