South Wales 'Metro' updates

[WesternBiker]

A zebra or pelican crossing might be a quicker and cheaper solution?

I agree: it seems to me the primary problem is the road has no provision at all for pedestrians crossing it, despite the proximity of the station. You find crossings on roads with much heavier volumes of traffic. I personally prefer crossing on the level to negotiating bridges or underpasses - what's wrong giving pedestrians priority?

 

[edwin_m]

A subway or footbridge usually lengthens the walking route for people on foot, and can feel threatening to more vulnerable people in particular. The default should be to provide a safe crossing at grade, even if this delays some drivers by a few seconds.

 

[Dai Corner]

A subway or footbridge usually lengthens the walking route for people on foot, and can feel threatening to more vulnerable people in particular. The default should be to provide a safe crossing at grade, even if this delays some drivers by a few seconds.

Even if a longer, safer route is provided people are lazy and will tend to take the shortest one, as you say. The anti-car brigade will also have the satisfaction of holding up the traffic for a few seconds!

 

[Envoy]

A Pelican crossing right by a busy roundabout is not a good idea - hence my idea of making a walkway direct from the platform at Cogan and utilising the underpass that already exists. I should also add that a road did pass under the main road at the southern end of the parking area at Cogan. This was bricked up and infilled.

I note that since I mentioned it some time ago, that it appears that the idea to build flats for social housing on land at the southern end of Cogan station car park appears to have been dropped. (It was a terrible place to put people with all the noise and fumes from the traffic). The last thing we need is for the loss of land that can be used for parking at Cogan station. Yes, I am all for people cycling and walking to stations but the plain fact is that by having free parking, it induces people to drive a relatively short distance from their homes to park and then use the trains. Failure to do this will likely lead to most people to staying in their cars and say driving from home in Penarth into central Cardiff or wherever. (The extension of the Penarth line to Sully would encourage people in the Cosmeston & Sully areas to walk directly to the Metro).

I am also pleased to see that the proposals to build a business park on land between the Vale of Glamorgan Coast railway and Cardiff Airport also appears to have been dropped. Again, I highlighted that by building on that land, it would blow the chance of building a rail link from the Coast Line direct into the Cardiff Airport at some point in the future. Having such a direct link would be a huge selling point for the Airport but it would need a considerable increase in business before that could be considered. Goodness knows why they can't build the business park on all that derelict land SE of the former Dock Office at Barry - which also has a ready made ‘Metro’ station at Barry Dock?

 

[Paul Dancey]

I've often wondered if you could squeeze in a new station adjacent to River View (Rd) on the Penarth line, immediately after it diverges from the Barry line and before it goes under the road bridge. That would give you direct street access to Pont Y Werin bridge and Penarth Marina. But it might be a bit tight.

 

[Envoy]

I've often wondered if you could squeeze in a new station adjacent to River View (Rd) on the Penarth line, immediately after it diverges from the Barry line and before it goes under the road bridge. That would give you direct street access to Pont Y Werin bridge and Penarth Marina. But it might be a bit tight.

I thought that as well and then you would not have to mess around with the Tesco site - which has the petrol station in the way. My aforementioned ramped ‘walkway with bridge’ could also connect the two stations to enable people to switch train routes without going all the way to Grangetown.

The map of this location is here (live traffic is enabled which shows how busy the roads are at this location - hence a Pelican crossing is not a good idea in my opinion).

 

[Cardiff123]

I thought that as well and then you would not have to mess around with the Tesco site - which has the petrol station in the way. My aforementioned ramped ‘walkway with bridge’ could also connect the two stations to enable people to switch train routes without going all the way to Grangetown.

The map of this location is here (live traffic is enabled which shows how busy the roads are at this location - hence a Pelican crossing is not a good idea in my opinion).

A pelican crossing would be impossible, the traffic is often bumper to bumper all the way from Penarth to the Barons Court junction from mid-afternoon until early evening.
A separate pedestrian underpass/bridge/walking route is the only safe way for pedestrians to get across from Cogan station to Pont-Y-Werin bridge.

 

[TravelDream]

A separate pedestrian underpass/bridge/walking route is the only safe way for pedestrians to get across from Cogan station to Pont-Y-Werin bridge.

I have to agree with the poster above. Segregating pedestrians/ bicycle riders from road traffic in under/overpasses was a failed experiment in urban planning from the 50s and 60s and should be avoided at all costs.
A traffic light controlled T-junction is one possibility of avoiding a crossing on a roundabout.
There are other solutions, but they are likely all far too expensive to be viable.

 

[edwin_m]

A pelican crossing would be impossible, the traffic is often bumper to bumper all the way from Penarth to the Barons Court junction from mid-afternoon until early evening.
A separate pedestrian underpass/bridge/walking route is the only safe way for pedestrians to get across from Cogan station to Pont-Y-Werin bridge.

If it's bumper to bumper then a Pelican crossing doesn't actually reduce capacity. While the lights were red for traffic the vehicles just beyond might move on a bit, but as soon as they went green the ones waiting at the lights would move forward and fill the gap.

 

[Envoy]

The trouble with having a Pelican crossing to get people across the busy main road from Cogan station to the west Bay area is that a continuous flow of pedestrians from train arrivals would cause traffic to tail back to the junction just to the north. Thus, grid lock would ensue. By having a clearly defined safe pedestrian route from Cogan station to Pont-Y-Werin bridge, signage could be placed on Cogan station clearly stating that this was the stop for walking to the White Water Centre, Ice Rink and Swimming Pool as well as Penarth Marina. Just think that if you lived in say Llantwit Major and wished to visit the aforementioned by public transport; the alternative to using Cogan station would surely involve all the hassle of going into Cardiff and then back out again by bus. Even people from the valleys would probably find it more convenient to travel to Cogan and then use the safe walkway that I propose rather than go by bus from Cardiff Central. A station on the Penarth line at this location would be an added bonus.

 

[WesternBiker]

If it's bumper to bumper then a Pelican crossing doesn't actually reduce capacity. While the lights were red for traffic the vehicles just beyond might move on a bit, but as soon as they went green the ones waiting at the lights would move forward and fill the gap.

I agree. There are a lot of major junctions in London - roundabouts included - where there are zebra crossings or (more commonly) pelican crossings. It makes little difference to traffic flow when it is very congested, and makes it safer for pedestrians when traffic is moving faster.

(And just in case anyone says that London is different, I do know the Cogan junction and station very well! )

 

[edwin_m]

The trouble with have a Pelican crossing to get people across the busy main road from Cogan station to the west Bay area is that a continuous flow of pedestrians from train arrivals would cause traffic to tail back to the junction just to the north. Thus, grid lock would ensue. By having a clearly defined safe pedestrian route from Cogan station to Pont-Y-Werin bridge, signage could be placed on Cogan station clearly stating that this was the stop for walking to the White Water Centre, Ice Rink and Swimming Pool as well as Penarth Marina. Just think that if you lived in say Llantwit Major and wished to visit the aforementioned by public transport; the alternative to using Cogan station would surely involve all the hassle of going into Cardiff and then back out again by bus. Even people from the valleys would probably find it more convenient to travel to Cogan and then use the safe walkway that I propose rather than go by bus from Cardiff Central. A station on the Penarth line at this location would be an added bonus.

(1) Train arrivals are not continuous.
(2) If the traffic really is bumper to bumper then the pelican makes very little difference, see my previous post
(3) Pelicans have a timer that won't allow them to change for a certain period after they have changed once, so if traffic is heavy but moving at a speed when the pelican makes a difference, there is time for any problem to clear before it next changes
(4) The definition of gridlock is when a tailback from a blocked junction blocks other junctions and eventually works round in a loop to prevent the original junction being unblocked. I'm not familiar with this junction but looking at the aerial map the only way that might happen is if people ignore priority on the roundabout - and if they do that it'll happen anyway regardless of any pelican. .

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Slightly off topic but recently I was reading a new book on the development of Barry Island as a resort and was surprised to discover that Cogan station was originally operated as a terminus by the Barry Railway. Passengers travelling from Cardiff to Barry had to alight at Penarth Docks station and then cross the road to catch the train to Barry. Similarly, in the early years the BR didn't run any passenger trains on its mainline to Pontypridd.

Apparently Lord Windsor, who was chair of the Barry company, didn't want Barry Island to become a resort which would compete with his own developments at Penarth. For some years the public were actually banned from Barry Island to facilitate the development of Penarth and trains wre deliberately timetabled to make travel between Cardiff and Barry difficult.

 

[WesternBiker]

Slightly off topic but recently I was reading a new book on the development of Barry Island as a resort and was surprised to discover that Cogan station was originally operated as a terminus by the Barry Railway. Passengers travelling from Cardiff to Barry had to alight at Penarth Docks station and then cross the road to catch the train to Barry. Similarly, in the early years the BR didn't run any passenger trains on its mainline to Pontypridd.

Apparently Lord Windsor, who was chair of the Barry company, didn't want Barry Island to become a resort which would compete with his own developments at Penarth. For some years the public were actually banned from Barry Island to facilitate the development of Penarth and trains were deliberately timetabled to make travel between Cardiff and Barry difficult.

Ooh! Which book is that? (I have the Oakwood Press book on the Vale of Glamorgan Railway, but not the Barry Railway.) I believe the Taff Vale opened the coastal line as far as Cadoxton on the same day as the Barry Railway line from Cogan to Barry Dock opened.

My paternal great grandfather was an engine driver on the Barry Railway and they moved from Cardiff to Barry (and he from the Taff Vale to the BR) just after its opening. I have a wonderful picture of him in front of a Barry Railway 0-6-2T. My maternal family stuck with the TVR!

 

[Cardiff123]

Slightly off topic but recently I was reading a new book on the development of Barry Island as a resort and was surprised to discover that Cogan station was originally operated as a terminus by the Barry Railway. Passengers travelling from Cardiff to Barry had to alight at Penarth Docks station and then cross the road to catch the train to Barry. Similarly, in the early years the BR didn't run any passenger trains on its mainline to Pontypridd.

Apparently Lord Windsor, who was chair of the Barry company, didn't want Barry Island to become a resort which would compete with his own developments at Penarth. For some years the public were actually banned from Barry Island to facilitate the development of Penarth and trains wre deliberately timetabled to make travel between Cardiff and Barry difficult.

The long defunct 3rd platform at Cogan, that Envoy photographed above, could well have been used for this service.

As with British Rail deliberately splitting in two the Cardiff - Penarth - Cadoxton line in the 1960s, with no purpose other than to deliberately discourage travel between Penarth - Cadoxton to justify closing the line, the way the railway seemingly deliberately shot itself in the foot during the early to mid-20th century never ceases to amaze, and these tactics would never be entertained now.

The Penarth - Cadoxton via Sully line would be a massive public transport asset to the east of the Vale of Glamorgan if it still existed today, traffic between Cadoxton and Penarth through Dinas Powys and through Sully is getting worse every year, with more housing developments planned for Sully in coming years. But re-opening is firmly in the 'too difficult' box because the line has been built on in too many places, even though large parts of the trackbed and bridges still exist.

 

[WesternBiker]

The Penarth - Cadoxton via Sully line would be a massive public transport asset to the east of the Vale of Glamorgan if it still existed today....

Yes, it would be a huge asset - operationally too. Getting from Barry to Penarth by bus is slow and tedious and by train involves a detour via Grangetown.

 

[John R]

I believe when a short extension south of the existing station was mooted some years ago the predominately well heeled residents adjacent to the trackbed objected, presumably because of the noise. Maybe they might be more amenable to it if the trains were to run on battery (not the current plan to Penarth as I understand it, but the units will be equipped to allow it).

 

[Paul Dancey]

I believe when a short extension south of the existing station was mooted some years ago the predominately well heeled residents adjacent to the trackbed objected, presumably because of the noise. Maybe they might be more amenable to it if the trains were to run on battery (not the current plan to Penarth as I understand it, but the units will be equipped to allow it).

Personally I'd love to see this extension happen. But aside from overcoming previous objections, there is the issue of a pinch point just beyond the current buffers due to a "rear extension" on a property, before the line of the original track bed can be regained. It may be possible to "steal" a bit of the width of the Trading estate access road, but that road isn't that wide and is pretty busy and it's often not possible to get past parked delivery vehicles as it is. I seem to recall that there was also talks of reinstating the second platform at Penarth, presumably to allow a single line extension to lower Penarth, so hopefully the pinch point has been taken into account.

 

[John R]

Yes, I can see that on Google Maps. I presume it has been built with all the required permissions. There appears to be around 6m width remaining. Ultimately, if it's a problem then it could be CPA'd, the extension demolished and the house resold for a lower price to minimise the cost. You can't let one extension get in the way of a transport project.

 

[Cardiff123]

Personally I'd love to see this extension happen. But aside from overcoming previous objections, there is the issue of a pinch point just beyond the current buffers due to a "rear extension" on a property, before the line of the original track bed can be regained. It may be possible to "steal" a bit of the width of the Trading estate access road, but that road isn't that wide and is pretty busy and it's often not possible to get past parked delivery vehicles as it is. I seem to recall that there was also talks of reinstating the second platform at Penarth, presumably to allow a single line extension to lower Penarth, so hopefully the pinch point has been taken into account.

Reinstating a second platform at Penarth was proposed for operational reasons so it will be easier to recover the service in times of disruption.
Originally, the proposal was for a second platform reinstated at Dingle Rd with a loop up to the second platform at Penarth, but the platform at Penarth wouldn't be opposite the curent platfiom, there's simply no room. It would have to be the other side of the road bridge in the cutting, so not ideal.

These proposals have since been scaled back and one or both of the extra platform proposals at Dingle Rd & Penarth have been dropped.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Ooh! Which book is that? (I have the Oakwood Press book on the Vale of Glamorgan Railway, but not the Barry Railway.) I believe the Taff Vale opened the coastal line as far as Cadoxton on the same day as the Barry Railway line from Cogan to Barry Dock opened.

My paternal great grandfather was an engine driver on the Barry Railway and they moved from Cardiff to Barry (and he from the Taff Vale to the BR) just after its opening. I have a wonderful picture of him in front of a Barry Railway 0-6-2T. My maternal family stuck with the TVR!

Here you go - it's a fascinating book!

https://www.uwp.co.uk/book/barry-island/

 

[CardiffKid]

Reinstating a second platform at Penarth was proposed for operational reasons so it will be easier to recover the service in times of disruption.
Originally, the proposal was for a second platform reinstated at Dingle Rd with a loop up to the second platform at Penarth, but the platform at Penarth wouldn't be opposite the curent platfiom, there's simply no room. It would have to be the other side of the road bridge in the cutting, so not ideal.

These proposals have since been scaled back and one or both of the extra platform proposals at Dingle Rd & Penarth have been dropped.

Any idea when it was proposed and by whom? I’ve not seen or heard of that.

 

[Paul Dancey]

Any idea when it was proposed and by whom? I’ve not seen or heard of that.

I believe these proposals first appeared in the original CVL Electrification plans and were modified again in Jan 2020. See https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/south-wales-metro-updates.117763/post-4436008

 

[Envoy]

I believe these proposals first appeared in the original CVL Electrification plans and were modified again in Jan 2020. See https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/south-wales-metro-updates.117763/post-4436008

No mention on the map of a station at Ely Mill/Victoria Park - on the City Line. Since Cardiff Council widened the pavement under the railway bridges to create a safer route for pedestrians at the western end of Broad Street, the traffic jams have been horrendous. So, we have a huge number of new homes built at Ely Mill that can’t get direct access east to west due to a bus gate allied with what I assume to be no intention to build the suggestion station on the City Line near the footbridge over the main line from the Victoria Park area.

 

[Yindee8191]

I’ve just done a short trip up the Aberdare line (as far as Mountain Ash) and it looks like the pilings are all in place from about a mile north of Abercynon to Mountain Ash (and presumably further). I saw about 10-15 masts, mostly around Penrhiwceiber. At Mountain Ash the RRAP (Rail Road Access Point) was in place and there was clearly some activity going on in the works compound there, as well as several pilings lying on the ground waiting to be used.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

I’ve just done a short trip up the Aberdare line (as far as Mountain Ash) and it looks like the pilings are all in place from about a mile north of Abercynon to Mountain Ash (and presumably further). I saw about 10-15 masts, mostly around Penrhiwceiber. At Mountain Ash the RRAP (Rail Road Access Point) was in place and there was clearly some activity going on in the works compound there, as well as several pilings lying on the ground waiting to be used. View attachment 103899View attachment 103900View attachment 103901

Nice to see!

Does anyone know if the wires on single-track sections are being done in such a way as to allow future dualling of the lines?

 

[Cardiff123]

I’ve just done a short trip up the Aberdare line (as far as Mountain Ash) and it looks like the pilings are all in place from about a mile north of Abercynon to Mountain Ash (and presumably further). I saw about 10-15 masts, mostly around Penrhiwceiber. At Mountain Ash the RRAP (Rail Road Access Point) was in place and there was clearly some activity going on in the works compound there, as well as several pilings lying on the ground waiting to be used. View attachment 103899View attachment 103900View attachment 103901

It's good to see this, and works will really need to step up over the next year if TfW are to meet the target of introducing the first tram-trains in December 2022 (so next year then!)
I can see the priority being to get the Stadler class 398s introduced first, before any significant timetable changes, like 4tph to the heads of each valley.

 

[Yindee8191]

It's good to see this, and works will really need to step up over the next year if TfW are to meet the target of introducing the first tram-trains in December 2022 (so next year then!)
I can see the priority being to get the Stadler class 398s introduced first, before any significant timetable changes, like 4tph to the heads of each valley.

I imagine the tram-trains will be introduced on very specific routes by December 2022 - for example, if only Abercynon - Aberdare was wired, the batteries would probably hold enough juice for Pontypridd - Aberdare and back, so TfW would be able to say they’ve introduced them even when realistically not much has been wired.

 

[TravelDream]

It's good to see this, and works will really need to step up over the next year if TfW are to meet the target of introducing the first tram-trains in December 2022 (so next year then!)
I can see the priority being to get the Stadler class 398s introduced first, before any significant timetable changes, like 4tph to the heads of each valley.

The dates for everything are rather 'fuzzy' and are definitely subject to change. This was my understanding from earlier in the year though though.
The new Taff's Well control centre and depot to start operation from November 2022, but this will be a transition and won't happen all at once.
From soon after this, the new Class 398s will gradually be introduced. The current plan is they'll operate on all lines from the get-go along with the Sprinters.
Then all infrastructure to be ready by May 2023 which is the earliest date for any increase in schedules. Four per-hour can't happen until all Sprinters are off the CVL due to timings of course.

Things do seem to have slipped a bit so I am guessing this is a bit unlikely.

 

[Cardiff123]

The dates for everything are rather 'fuzzy' and are definitely subject to change. This was my understanding from earlier in the year though though.
The new Taff's Well control centre and depot to start operation from November 2022, but this will be a transition and won't happen all at once.
From soon after this, the new Class 398s will gradually be introduced. The current plan is they'll operate on all lines from the get-go along with the Sprinters.
Then all infrastructure to be ready by May 2023 which is the earliest date for any increase in schedules. Four per-hour can't happen until all Sprinters are off the CVL due to timings of course.

Things do seem to have slipped a bit so I am guessing this is a bit unlikely.

The new TfW website is vague about when specific timetable changes will be implemented on the Core Valley Lines, and I noticed that the CVL was left out of the recent announcement of revised TT changes over the next few years.

South Wales Metro | Transport for Wales

Transport for Wales | Buy Cheap Train Tickets and Check Train Times

tfw.wales

What improvements can you expect from the South Wales Metro?​

We’ll be running more weekday and Sunday services than ever before:

Weekdays​

• four services per hour between Cardiff and the Heads of each Valley
• two of the four services from Treherbert, Aberdare and Merthyr Tydfil will extend from Cardiff to Cardiff Bay
• an extra service per hour between Cardiff and Bridgend via the Vale of Glamorgan Line from December 2023
• two services per hour between Cardiff and Shrewsbury via Abergavenny from December 2022
• an hourly service between Cardiff and Cheltenham via Chepstow from December 2022

Sundays​

• two services per hour on Sundays between Cardiff and the Heads of each Valley
• the first ever Sunday service on the Coryton and City Lines, with an hourly service from December 2023
• the first ever Sunday service on the Maesteg Line, with one service every two hours from December 2019, increasing to an hourly service from December 2023
• an extra service per hour between Cardiff and Bridgend via the Vale of Glamorgan Line from December 2024
• an hourly service between Cardiff and Cheltenham via Chepstow from December 2023

While you can expect more frequent rail services across much of our network from 2022, we’ll be introducing a number of improvements in the Cardiff Capital Region before 2022.