South Wales 'Metro' updates

[Signal_Box]

Trouble is that even if motorists were inclined/incentivised to park up and take the train onward there probably aren't enough empty seats to make a significant difference to the road traffic. The Councils could have made the builders and house buyers pay for some more units, platform lengthening and station car park extensions via Section 106 agreements as the planners call them but didn't as far as I know.

As someone who has recently brought a new build house not to far from a railway station, there is no way I would knowingly pay for anything other than the bare requirements. Any addtional funding should, as does happen come from the developer directly. Obviously they’ll pass that onto us the customer, but if there was way a £5,000 surcharge for “local transport” on top of my house package cost then I’m off to the next development who doesn’t charge it.

Anyway, Severn Tunnel Junction is a classic example there are a few hundred new houses at Sudbrook but getting to Bristol is a nightmare by train or car. I’d love to jump in my car pop down to STJ park up into new unused car park walk across the bridge onto the station, and within minutes be on a train to Bristol or Cardiff. Door to train inside 20 minutes.

But, as we know there is no bridge and it’s impossible to do the door to train in 20 minutes. A direct link from the former toll gate access on the M4 to the new STJ car park should be a total no brainer, and easy win. But nope, no talk at all let alone any kind of plan to get the work done.

This is why I’m so negative about the development of OUR railway, we have a station, we have a car park all we need is a few hundred meters of road to connect to the M4 but it’s in the to hard tray, at best or can’t be bothered at worst.

 

[Tumbleweed]

The era of road building is over. I'm not a part of the Green cult but they are correct on this. Building roads is an idea from the 1950s.

I agree about the lack of money - but any small step to building up a Metro is more than welcome. I just wish it wasn't run by the WG.

 

[Signal_Box]

The era of road building is over. I'm not a part of the Green cult but they are correct on this. Building roads is an idea from the 1950s.

I agree about the lack of money - but any small step to building up a Metro is more than welcome. I just wish it wasn't run by the WG.

We simply can not stop building roads and rely solely on public transport. Public transport relies on roads for a start, how to those who operate public transport get to work before it starts ?

I can’t use public transport to get to work, simple as that even if I wanted to (I don’t), there isn’t any public transport that gets me from my home to work at the time required by my employer, nor back in a reasonable time.

Is it safe for a safety critical public transport operative to work a 12hr turn of duty then have a 90-120 minute public transport commute either side, so in total close to a 16hr day including travelling time?

That’s the reality, and will be for a huge proportion of the non WFH / office type, regular hours work force.

 

[The exile]

Obviously they’ll pass that onto us the customer, but if there was way a £5,000 surcharge for “local transport” on top of my house package cost then I’m off to the next development who doesn’t charge it.

There should be absolutely no developments that don’t charge it (with the possible exception of council/ housing association developments that are majority social housing).

 

[Tumbleweed]

Then with respect your a fool, we simply can not stop building roads and rely solely on public transport. Public transport relies on roads for a start, how to those who operate public transport get to work before it starts ?

I can’t use public transport to get to work, simple as that even if I wanted to (I don’t), there isn’t any public transport that gets me from my home to work at the time required by my employer, nor back in a reasonable time.

Is it safe for a safety critical public transport operative to work a 12hr turn of duty then have a 90-120 minute public transport commute either side, so in total close to a 16hr day including travelling time?

That’s the reality, and will be for a huge proportion of the non WFH / office type, regular hours work force.

I can imagine you're the type who won't travel on public transport because you don't want to sit with the great unwashed. I mean that with respect of course.

 

[Signal_Box]

There should be absolutely no developments that don’t charge it (with the possible exception of council/ housing association developments that are majority social housing).

Why should those who will use the public transport to travel to another city be forced to pay for something they already pay for in generally higher terms through income tax and other taxation ?

Why should I pay another tax on my house when I already pay enough, when others who maybe don’t pay as much or any don’t have to ?

I can imagine you're the type who won't travel on public transport because you don't want to sit with the great unwashed. I mean that with respect of course.

Of course…taken with a large dose of it as well.

I happily use the train to travel distance, as it’s quicker and easier than driving.

If you read my post about travelling to work you’ll see why I don’t use public transport - the one you’ve ignored in your rush to insult.

 

[Dai Corner]

There is a group in Magor who have been lobbying for years for a station to be built exclusively for their use - no car park and parking restrictions everywhere within walking distance.

Are they doing this because they're passionate about the negligible effect on the environment of them getting the train now and again instead of driving or because they think it will enhance the value of their houses?

 

[Signal_Box]

There is a group in Magor who have been lobbying for years for a station to be built exclusively for their use - no car park and parking restrictions everywhere within walking distance.

Are they doing this because they're passionate about the negligible effect on the environment of them getting the train now and again instead of driving or because they think it will enhance the value of their houses?

What’s wrong with wanting your house price to increase so your retirement is better than the basic ?

God forbid the normal people can afford a nice retirement after a lifetime of work.

Politics of envy is a very nasty.

 

[Dai Corner]

What’s wrong with wanting your house price to increase so your retirement is better than the basic ?

God forbid the normal people can afford a nice retirement after a lifetime of work.

Politics of envy is a very nasty.

Just like new build buyers the good people of Magor want somebody else to pay for 'their' station.

 

[Signal_Box]

Just like new build buyers the good people of Magor want somebody else to pay for 'their' station.

You mean the taxpayer of which they are, it’s not a private station exclusive to the residents!
Will Jeremy Hoskins of locomotive services run his private train down everyday to convey the Magor only residents from their new private station ?

Don’t be daft, taxpayers pay into the pot and new stations and trains among other things come out the other end.

 

[Dai Corner]

You mean the taxpayer of which they are, it’s not a private station exclusive to the residents!
Will Jeremy Hoskins of locomotive services run his private train down everyday to convey the Magor only residents from their new private station ?

Don’t be daft, taxpayers pay into the pot and new stations and trains among other things come out the other end.

It very much is in Magor's case, or at least that's what it seems like as as an outsider.

Similarly with a new build estate for which a new station is provided.The houses will be worth more so why shouldn't the owners contribute towards the cost of holding it?

Going back to Metroland, the increase in land values helped finance the railways.

 

[Signal_Box]

It very much is in Magor's case, or at least that's what it seems like as as an outsider.

Similarly with a new build estate for which a new station is provided.The houses will be worth more so why shouldn't the owners contribute towards the cost of holding it?

Going back to Metroland, the increase in land values helped finance the railways.

Metro land was the product of surplus railway land initially, then the Met cottoned on to the idea of selling the land for housing to boast their profits.

Do you object to people working hard and achieving in life ?

I’ve worked from 18 years old, I’ll work until I’m 65 if I’m lucky I might see 75, thanks to my hard work I’ve managed to afford a new build in a nice area. Granted the natural increase in house prices, allowed me to move to my new house but I paid handsomely for that as we all know house prices increased substantially after the bridge tolls where abolished.

I work on the railway, I have done since I was 18 I work shifts so public transport (the transport I provide) isn’t viable. I’m an ordinary person, who works hard, I also respect those who work harder than me or who were lucky in life so have a better life than me.

There seems to be a jealousy of those who have more than “you” if Magor want a station and WAG deem funding is appropriate good on them, it’s no use to me unfortunately.

When the Ebbw Vale line opened it opened up a huge increase in house prices and new housing in the area, is that a negative? Or is it only a negative if the benefit is for already “Wealthy” people benefit ?

 

[Krokodil]

Then with respect your a fool, we simply can not stop building roads and rely solely on public transport. Public transport relies on roads for a start, how to those who operate public transport get to work before it starts ?

I can’t use public transport to get to work, simple as that even if I wanted to (I don’t), there isn’t any public transport that gets me from my home to work at the time required by my employer, nor back in a reasonable time.

Is it safe for a safety critical public transport operative to work a 12hr turn of duty then have a 90-120 minute public transport commute either side, so in total close to a 16hr day including travelling time?

That’s the reality, and will be for a huge proportion of the non WFH / office type, regular hours work force.

As you'll be driving to work at funny times of day, it won't be at the peak times when the existing roads are overloaded. Therefore you won't be needing any new roads, the existing ones will do.

What’s wrong with wanting your house price to increase so your retirement is better than the basic ?

Because ever increasing house prices are unsustainable.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Section 106 agreements aren't a sustainable solution to fund public services, including public transport improvements. The reason they exist is primarily because local authorities have pretty much no other financial levers available. One of the few things that we have allowed local authorities to do is to control planning, and control planning they very much do. These agreements end up being part of that planning power. Unfortunately that means in practice that they block pretty much any development (including redevelopment) unless the developer (i.e. the future residents of the scheme) are willing to pay up for improvements that don't just benefit them.

Why should the owners of an existing property that benefits from the improvement (e.g. a new road, or a new station) be able to get away without paying for it at all? If the only people made to pay for them are the residents of new build properties, then the inevitable end result is that we won't build any new properties, as you then won't have to pay for them. And that obviously then means the revenue never appears and so the improvements never happen. On top of how it means fewer, and worse quality properties for people to live in, it's an absolute disaster for everyone involved. It's one of the main reasons that everything has gone so wrong in this country.

The only way to make transport public service provision (including road construction) work is for it to be managed and paid for by a body which has the power to tax the people who benefit from that improvement. That's really the hard problem here. The power to tax and spend as you wish is really all that political power really means, and it's no surprise that most MPs are loath to give that in any meaningful sense to a local authority. When people have tried, they've ended up coupling it to new things like a local congestion charge, which is pretty much designed to make it politically unpalatable outside of London.

Transport and other infrastructure needs to be planned alongside housing and other development (e.g. industrial employment zones). If you're building a new line or upgrading an existing one, the best way to make the sums all add up is to redevelop along the route to higher density. When trains can carry so many people so efficiently, it simply doesn't make sense to keep a low level of density around them. The denser you build, the more passengers you have who can and will use your public transport as their primary means of getting around. It's a virtuous circle. Public transport improvements make the land worth more; not the bricks and mortar.

Given how old and terrible most of our housing is, we should be embracing this opportunity to knock down bad housing and replace it with good housing at higher density. There's no reason flats can't be larger and better in pretty much every way than a Victorian working class terrace. Build them at sufficient scale and you can make them fit in with the local vernacular too, so they'd look like they were always meant to be there.

 

[stevieinselby]

Then with respect your a fool, we simply can not stop building roads and rely solely on public transport. Public transport relies on roads for a start, how to those who operate public transport get to work before it starts ?

I can’t use public transport to get to work, simple as that even if I wanted to (I don’t), there isn’t any public transport that gets me from my home to work at the time required by my employer, nor back in a reasonable time.

Is it safe for a safety critical public transport operative to work a 12hr turn of duty then have a 90-120 minute public transport commute either side, so in total close to a 16hr day including travelling time?

That’s the reality, and will be for a huge proportion of the non WFH / office type, regular hours work force.

No-one is suggesting we rip out roads that are already in place, so your existing drive to work will still be possible.
Public transport doesn't rely on roads if it relies on rails.
The whole point about improving public transport is that it would provide more services, longer periods of operation, better connections, which would enable more people to use it to for the journeys they need and want to make.
I would rather a safety critical worker – especially one who is driving for work – did not have a long drive to and from work and could switch off on the bus/train.

 

[Richard Scott]

Just like new build buyers the good people of Magor want somebody else to pay for 'their' station.

No, because a station in Magor would help reduce traffic problems. Currently people drive to Newport or Severn Tunnel. There are a reasonable number of people who would live within easy walking distance of the station so driving is unnecessary.

 

[Dai Corner]

No, because a station in Magor would help reduce traffic problems. Currently people drive to Newport or Severn Tunnel. There are a reasonable number of people who would live within easy walking distance of the station so driving is unnecessary.

But to nowhere near the extent that making the massive car park at Severn Tunnel Junction usable would?

Thread convergence. Probably best continued in the Severn Tunnel Junction car park thread.

 

[aleph_0]

Does anyone know - is there a technical reason that trains can't be cancelled days in advance and have to just be removed from the timetable?

From a passenger's (or at least my) point of view a train showing as cancelled is much better than having it mysteriously vanishing from the timetable - not least that cancelled trains will show up as a problem on journeycheck and trigger disruption alerts.

I believe this is a technical limitation.

From a data perspective, trains are still cancelled (CAN) or in this case changed (to run Queen Street to Bay only) (VAR), in the backend, rather than deleted. People with tickets on such trains usually get notifications from their booking site, but this isn't as helpful where the flow is more commuter/season ticket.

I don't believe there's a way for such changes that aren't done by control on the day/day before to feed through to journeycheck. It does make sense that it's not automatic since often changes will be minor, but the ability to flag major changes would make sense.

 

[AdamWW]

I believe this is a technical limitation.

From a data perspective, trains are still cancelled (CAN) or in this case changed (to run Queen Street to Bay only) (VAR), in the backend, rather than deleted. People with tickets on such trains usually get notifications from their booking site, but this isn't as helpful where the flow is more commuter/season ticket.

I don't believe there's a way for such changes that aren't done by control on the day/day before to feed through to journeycheck. It does make sense that it's not automatic since often changes will be minor, but the ability to flag major changes would make sense.

Thanks.

Presumably there is nothing preventing them from a manual warning of timetable changes, and if done as a "line update" it should appear on Journeycheck for all relevant journeys.

I realise that they run a railway and I don't and perhaps I'm being unreasonable, but it doesn't seem very good customer service to me to just "vanish" trains from the timetable with no explanation (let alone apology).

It has certainly caught me out in the past when I haven't realised they've culled alternate services, because there was no disruption shown and I didn't spot that half the trains just weren't there.

(And of course "that's how the system works" isn't a full excuse, because in principle somebody could make the system more useful for passengers, i.e. having a flag for whether a service should still show as cancelled or not).

 

[5021]

I was there last week, and nothing much apart from vegetation clearance.

The vegetation is growing back again and no sign of any access/egress being provided. Here's the view yesterday (22/06/2024) from the overbridge at the north end of Penarth station. It would not be easy to provide access as the sports facilities of a school (Westbourne) are immediately on the other side of the boundary fence.

 

[yorkie]

I see we are back on topic now, but just a gentle reminder, this is an infrastructure updates thread.

Anything else, such as housing, trip planning and also anything of a speculative nature belongs elsewhere please; the forum has plenty of spare capacity for threads on any other subjects!

 

[CapitalStar378]

I'm not sure what a screening decision is but there's a planning app for one for the Central to Bay tram link this week!

Link to the Cardiff Council planning site;

"Request for Screening Decision in connection with the Cardiff Crossrail Phase 1A Scheme to connect Cardiff Central with Cardiff Bay"

 

[gjscott33]

I'm not sure what a screening decision is but there's a planning app for one for the Central to Bay tram link this week!

Cardiff Council planning site

Looks like it is a process to ask if a planning application will need an environmental impact assessment

 

[59CosG95]

Balfour Beatty reporting that the OLE on the Treherbert line has now been energised.

Major milestone on South Wales Metro

www.balfourbeatty.com

Major milestone on South Wales Metro​

16 July 2024
UK
Together with the members of the Craidd Alliance, Balfour Beatty have successfully energised the overhead line equipment on the South Wales Metro and Core Valley Lines (CVL) project, securing clean and renewable energy across the Treherbert Line.
A major milestone in the Transport for Wales (TfW) Southeast Wales Metro scheme, the 25kV overhead line equipment will provide power to new trains across the 16km stretch between Pontypridd and Treherbert Station.
The project, led by the award-winning Craidd Alliance – the first rail Alliance in the world to secure an international accreditation for collaboration – will see the electrification and conversion of over 172km of tracks and 52 stations across the South Wales region.
Alasdair MacDonald, Regional Director in Rail and Balfour Beatty’s leader on the Craidd Alliance, said: “Working closely with my Craidd Partners, this marks one of the most significant upgrades to this line since it was built in the mid-1800s.”
“I am hugely proud of the positive behaviours that the Alliance have displayed throughout this journey, even in adversity, and how this work will positively impact over 1.5million people across communities in South Wales.”

 

[BillStampy]

Balfour Beatty reporting that the OLE on the Treherbert line has now been energised.

Excellent step, one step closer to the electric introduction.
I believe Treherbert is to temporarily use 756's for a short while before the 398s, please correct me if I am wrong.

Speaking of 756s, does anyone know how their testing and driver training is getting along? Potentially any predictions for their introduction too would be great.
EDIT: Forgot the 231/756 thread exists, I'll leave it here anyway, apologies.

 

[Signal_Box]

Two 756 sets, at least one a double set (8 cars) ran several test runs between Cardiff and Pontypridd last night on the juice as the limits allow.

 

[anthony263]

756106 I believe as one

 

[Signal_Box]

756106 I believe as one

Same last night as in a test run all the way up to Aberdare - I didn’t take any notice of the unit number though.

 

[MikePJ]

TfW have a new consultation document out (dated 6th August, closing 6th September). All three documents are attached below.

This shows the proposed "passenger train slots" on the Core Valley Lines once the infrastructure updates have been completed and based on the accelerations and top speeds of the new units. Quoting from the "Form P":

"TfWRL is required by TfW to deliver increased frequencies across the CVL, including 4 trains per hour (4tph) to the head of each Valley. This is referred to as the ‘end-state’ timetable, which is currently expected to
be introduced no earlier than May 2025. Because of the significant investment by Welsh Government in CVL Transformation and the new fleets, AIW and TfWRL propose to amend the track access contract to give TfWRL future dated ac-
cess rights to support the end-state timetable. These access rights will be included in TfWRL’s track access contract with AIW and will become active from May 2025 or when the Transformation works are complete (whichever is later)."

A key TfW commitment for CVL Transformation is the delivery of a 4 trains per hour (tph) service to the ‘Heads of the Valleys’. This commitment has become the defining factor of the
‘end-state’ timetable, although there are several other deliverables:
• An additional 2tph between Cardiff and Caerphilly
• 6tph to and from Cardiff Bay (with the chosen solution to operate these through to
Treherbert, Aberdare and Merthyr Tydfil at 2tph each)
• A total of 18tph in each direction through Queen Street

Other features of the end-state timetable include:
• Journey times: improved end-to-end journey times on all routes
• Extended turnaround times, building resiliency to minor network fluctuations
(minimum 5 minutes; maximum 20 minutes).
• Dwell times: These will be a minimum of 35 seconds.
• Traincrew changeovers at Taff’s Well: this will be a new location for traincrew
changes, located close to the new Taff’s Well Light Maintenance Depot.
• New SRTs to align with the acceleration and deceleration times of the new electric
fleets.
• No stopping required for transition between train/tram and tram/train modes to and
from the Cardiff Bay line (which will be designated as non-mainline).

TfWRL’s end-state timetable will be resourced with:
Resources required
33 out of 36 cl.398
21 out of 24 cl.756
350 Drivers
267 Conductors
These are all on target to be available by the end of 2025. (my emphasis)

The document also notes that the "4tph service" (i.e. 4tph to the head of each valley) will be all day on Mondays-Saturdays, from the very first train of the day (0530) to the last (2330 Mon-Thu; 0030 Fri-Sat). Sunday service reductions are variable, with Treherbert (for example) receiving 28 trains/day on a Sunday as against 35 trains/day, but some branches (e.g. Penarth) get a 50% reduction in service on a Sunday (i.e. 2 tph rather than 4).

 

[snowball]

No stopping required for transition between train/tram and tram/train modes to and
from the Cardiff Bay line (which will be designated as non-mainline).

What's the significance of the designation as non-mainline? What difference does it make?