South Wales 'Metro' updates

[Caaardiff]

If there's any life left in some of them then it might make more sense for TFW to extend the leases short term and sublease to other TOCs until they are no longer needed. ROSCO gets extra life out of them, no need to draw up new long term leases and capacity boosts where it's needed.
That being said its all dependant on the 398s getting into service.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

I don't see where else on the CVL they could have put a depot. Especially close to Cardiff.

Agreed. I guess they could have developed the former Rhys Davies Haulage site slightly north of the curent depot but that's roughly the same size as the South Wales Forgemasters site that they ended up going for.

It's worth remembering none on the 398s are 'out and about' at the moment. When they are, things will be more flexible.

It would nave be a lot easier if the VoG line was electrified by NR to bring the sidings at Barry and/or Aberthaw into use. Politicaly though, there's no way NR could wire the relief line from Cardiff to Bridgend before the mainline.

 

[edwin_m]

I guess they could have developed the former Rhys Davies Haulage site slightly north of the curent depot but that's roughly the same size as the South Wales Forgemasters site that they ended up going for.

Is this still vacant, and would it be suitable to add extra stabling if needed?

 

[chargesmith]

Is this still vacant, and would it be suitable to add extra stabling if needed?

Would technically be easier as it directly borders the railway, but if the network expands as planned they'll probably look to build another depot as part of the project. My thoughts were that the sidings for the steelworks would be good if the Newport Road extension goes ahead but unsure how well used that is at present.

 

[MikePJ]

The majority of that being in Midlands and North West, which would mean some major changes to the TFW fleet and timetable plans. 197's have their purpose in the North/Midlands as well as their home Depot at Chester. Introducing a new bi-mode fleet would mean a new Depot needed to serve those routes. Holyhead - Birmingham interacts with Birmingham - Cambrian so needs to be 197's.

One other reason for choosing the 197s is that a bi-mode train is necessarily diesel-electric, which adds extra weight to the units. Regional multiple units have typically not been diesel-electric for this reason - route availability (i.e. axle weight) is important. A Class 158 has RA1; a 231 has RA4. (I can't find a figure for the 197s or 756s but I expect the 197s were chosen to be like-for-like replacements for the 158s).

 

[Lurcheroo]

One other reason for choosing the 197s is that a bi-mode train is necessarily diesel-electric, which adds extra weight to the units. Regional multiple units have typically not been diesel-electric for this reason - route availability (i.e. axle weight) is important. A Class 158 has RA1; a 231 has RA4. (I can't find a figure for the 197s or 756s but I expect the 197s were chosen to be like-for-like replacements for the 158s).

197’s are RA1, not sure on 756’s.
RA is a good point for sure and could certainly cause issues in places.

 

[Wolfie]

If there's any life left in some of them then it might make more sense for TFW to extend the leases short term and sublease to other TOCs until they are no longer needed. ROSCO gets extra life out of them, no need to draw up new long term leases and capacity boosts where it's needed.
That being said its all dependant on the 398s getting into service.

That rather assumes that they are identical to other members of the same class which a TOC already has in service. I really can't see any TOC investing significantly in training for stock which will only be with them for a short period.

 

[edwin_m]

One other reason for choosing the 197s is that a bi-mode train is necessarily diesel-electric, which adds extra weight to the units. Regional multiple units have typically not been diesel-electric for this reason - route availability (i.e. axle weight) is important. A Class 158 has RA1; a 231 has RA4. (I can't find a figure for the 197s or 756s but I expect the 197s were chosen to be like-for-like replacements for the 158s).

That may not be a fair comparison, because the articulated bogies of a 231 each support two body sections.

 

[Bob Price]

I have just found a You Tube Video by ‘Bob’s Rail Relics’ about the development of railways in Cardiff to the present day. It really is excellent and the research / putting the video together must of taken many hours. The Cardiff Riverside station was immediately south of Cardiff Central - roughly where it is planned to have the new tram-train platforms for services across Callaghan Square to the Bay. See >

Thank you, it did take some work. Riverside was, as you say, where the tram stop will be built.

 

[Caaardiff]

That rather assumes that they are identical to other members of the same class which a TOC already has in service. I really can't see any TOC investing significantly in training for stock which will only be with them for a short period.

TFW leased Northern 150's previously, which despite differences in internal layouts and some differences in door controls, worked fine alongside the current TFW 150's. So there's no reason why they couldn't operate under Northern and I can't imagine GWR's 150's are much different.

 

[MikePJ]

That may not be a fair comparison, because the articulated bogies of a 231 each support two body sections.

That’s very true, but equally there aren’t any small bi-mode multiple units on the UK market (yet) that don’t have Jacobs bogies - the existing ones are all Stadler FLIRTS. I think (but can’t currently confirm) that Class 800s are RA3, but they’re not really suited to rural lines in Wales!

 

[AdamWW]

Does anyone know if there is a plan to improve performance or whether routine cancellations due to "congestion" are just considered an inevitable aspect of running the Valley Lines now that they have made things more complex (in particular by having Bay trains crossing over services between Queen Street and Central).

I find it hard to see how they will manage with more frequent services, though I suppose having trains with better acceleration will help.

 

[MikePJ]

Does anyone know if there is a plan to improve performance or whether routine cancellations due to "congestion" are just considered an inevitable aspect of running the Valley Lines now that they have made things more complex (in particular by having Bay trains crossing over services between Queen Street and Central).

I find it hard to see how they will manage with more frequent services, though I suppose having trains with better acceleration will help.

There's a track layout change at Queen Street which is due to be implemented in the coming months - that should improve the flow through Queen Street South Junction, which is where the line to the Bay diverges.

EDIT: link to the change in post #6502 https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/south-wales-metro-updates.117763/post-7005059

 

[AdamWW]

There's a track layout change at Queen Street which is due to be implemented in the coming months - that should improve the flow through Queen Street South Junction, which is where the line to the Bay diverges.

That sounds encouraging.

Suspect it won't be as robust as when the Bay shuttle was totally independent of the other services though.

Not being able to signal anything into platform 4 while a train is signalled out of 5 doesn't really help either.

 

[LlanishenBull]

It does seem odd to the layperson that many trains travelling up towards Ponty now use platform 4 at Queen Street while trains going towards Caerphilly use 5. Confusing for passengers (though when did their needs ever come first?) too.

Perhaps an expert could explain the rationale please.

 

[EveningStarr]

Not being able to signal anything into platform 4 while a train is signalled out of 5 doesn't really help either.

Yes, it appears the Automatic Routing System sees both Up platforms at Queen Street as one section unless told otherwise. Same with the Down platforms 2 and 3. One would think this could just be a programming issue, which could in theory be set differently, unless there's more to it than we know. It would certainly reduce the impact of delays. Ideally, of course, Newport Road bridge would be widened to 4 tracks as it was (with the Down Rhymney having a direct line into plt2, allowing Down Llandaff trains into plt3 simultaneously; mirrored for Up trains), but that's not going to happen, at least in the current scope of Metro plans.

The track alterations to Queen St South Jn as posted by MikePJ in post #6502 should make things a lot better, allowing Up Bay trains to enter plt4 at the same time as Up trains from Central enter plt5.

As it sands, it's not great when trains (particularly Corytons and Up Merthyrs) are skipping out stops when they're only 4 minutes late, but such is the fragility of this current timetable on the current infrastructure. I agree that things are looking up though, with the planned improvements at Queen St South Jn and the introduction of the 756s.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, it appears the Automatic Routing System sees both Up platforms at Queen Street as one section unless told otherwise. Same with the Down platforms 2 and 3. One would think this could just be a programming issue, which could in theory be set differently, unless there's more to it than we know. It would certainly reduce the impact of delays. Ideally, of course, Newport Road bridge would be widened to 4 tracks as it was (with the Down Rhymney having a direct line into plt2, allowing Down Llandaff trains into plt3 simultaneously; mirrored for Up trains), but that's not going to happen, at least in the current scope of Metro plans.

The track alterations to Queen St South Jn as posted by MikePJ in post #6502 should make things a lot better, allowing Up Bay trains to enter plt4 at the same time as Up trains from Central enter plt5.

As it sands, it's not great when trains (particularly Corytons and Up Merthyrs) are skipping out stops when they're only 4 minutes late, but such is the fragility of this current timetable on the current infrastructure. I agree that things are looking up though, with the planned improvements at Queen St South Jn and the introduction of the 756s.

This may be a signalling overlap issue. Typically if two platform tracks converge immediately after the platforms, a trains can't be signalled into one while one is signalled out of the other, in case the arriving train fails to stop. This would be a safety feature in the interlocking, not programming of the ARS.

 

[EveningStarr]

It does seem odd to the layperson that many trains travelling up towards Ponty now use platform 4 at Queen Street while trains going towards Caerphilly use 5. Confusing for passengers (though when did their needs ever come first?) too.

Perhaps an expert could explain the rationale please.

I'm no expert, but I'm told it's because the tiny gap between Up Merthyr and Up Treherbert trains is so close that the speed limit on plt4 and 5 plays a factor. It's only 5mph higher through 4 than it is through 5, but it's significant enough to require the change. At least it's consistent, ALL Caerphilly-bound trains scheduled through plt5 and ALL Ponty-bound trains scheduled through plt4 (barring the Aberdare via City Line through p2). If anyone remembers, the original proposed platforming for Up trains through Queen Street was all over the shop - Bargoeds on 4, but Rhymneys on 5, Merthyrs and Treherberts on 4, but Pontys on 5, or whatever it was.

This may be a signalling overlap issue. Typically if two platform tracks converge immediately after the platforms, a trains can't be signalled into one while one is signalled out of the other, in case the arriving train fails to stop. This would be a safety feature in the interlocking, not programming of the ARS.

Ah that would make sense. Fairly sure it is often overridden by the signallers though. There are also plans to replace the points converging plt5 and 4 and to move the signals further back down the platforms to have enough of an overrun for the emergency brakes kick in and not foul the points.
EDIT: Spelling, rewording

 

[62484GlenLyon]

That rather assumes that they are identical to other members of the same class which a TOC already has in service. I really can't see any TOC investing significantly in training for stock which will only be with them for a short period.

There is a good example of this happening. Scotrail leased 10 redundant GN 365s between June 2018 and March 2019 while the problems with the 385s were rectified. Scotrail had nothing similar to the 365s whatsoever. They also fitted their very user friendly wifi to the units even though they were only ever intended to be a short term stopgap.

 

[LlanishenBull]

Thanks for the explanation. I tend to go to Heath, Coryton trains tend to go from 4 still, perhaps why I'm confused (not difficult!)

 

[AdamWW]

Thanks for the explanation. I tend to go to Heath, Coryton trains tend to go from 4 still, perhaps why I'm confused (not difficult!)

Yes that's the anomaly - different platforms now for trains to Heath High and Low Level.
(Well, according to TfW they are so different that you aren't allowed to use a ticket for one of them to travel to the other, though I don't think that's actually true).

This may be a signalling overlap issue. Typically if two platform tracks converge immediately after the platforms, a trains can't be signalled into one while one is signalled out of the other, in case the arriving train fails to stop. This would be a safety feature in the interlocking, not programming of the ARS.

There's an asymmetry here. The tracks do converge, but platform 5 has a short bit of overrun track (I don't know what it's officially called) leading to stop blocks.
So it makes perfect sense that a train can come into 5 while a train is signalled out of 4, because if it overruns it just ends up on Newport Road rather than hitting the adjacent train. But a train overrunning platform 4 has nowhere to go other than (potentially) into the path of the adjacent train.

I'm no expert, but I'm told it's because the tiny gap between Up Merthyr and Up Treherbert trains is so close that the speed limit on plt4 and 5 plays a factor. It's only 5mph higher through 4 than it is through 5, but it's significant enough to require the change.

Does the speed limit really make any difference to trains that are stopping? I'd have thought that they'd be limited by braking and accelerating not the line limit.

The gap between up Merthyr and Treherbert trains seems to be 4 minutes anyway like most of the gaps between up trains.

The shortest one I can see is between Pontypridd trains and the subsequent Rhymney (3 minutes) so perhaps this is what's driving it, as the Rymney train can come in while the Pontypridd train is signalled out of the platform if (and only if) they do the platforms this way round.

Ah that would make sense. Fairly sure it is often overridden by the signallers though. There are also plans to replace the points converging plt5 and 4 and to move the signals further back down the platforms to have enough of an overrun for the emergency brakes kick in and not foul the points.

I've not noticed it being overridden. It was noticable recently that when a train got held in 5 due to a passenger dropping something on the track, the train coming into 4 was held outside the station until the signal on platform 5 was put back to red.

Moving the signals back would make sense though then it's a longer walk to/from the train and possibly it not stopping under the canopies.

 

[EveningStarr]

There's an asymmetry here. The tracks do converge, but platform 5 has a short bit of overrun track (I don't know what it's officially called) leading to stop blocks.
So it makes perfect sense that a train can come into 5 while a train is signalled out of 4, because if it overruns it just ends up on Newport Road rather than hitting the adjacent train. But a train overrunning platform 4 has nowhere to go other than (potentially) into the path of the adjacent train.


Does the speed limit really make any difference to trains that are stopping? I'd have thought that they'd be limited by braking and accelerating not the line limit.

The gap between up Merthyr and Treherbert trains seems to be 4 minutes anyway like most of the gaps between up trains.

The shortest one I can see is between Pontypridd trains and the subsequent Rhymney (3 minutes) so perhaps this is what's driving it, as the Rymney train can come in while the Pontypridd train is signalled out of the platform if (and only if) they do the platforms this way round.



I've not noticed it being overridden. It was noticable recently that when a train got held in 5 due to a passenger dropping something on the track, the train coming into 4 was held outside the station until the signal on platform 5 was put back to red.

Moving the signals back would make sense though then it's a longer walk to/from the train and possibly it not stopping under the canopies.

Not forgetting it's the gap between the departure of the Merthyr at xx00/xx30 and the arrival of the Treherbert at xx03/xx33. But yes, your point about the Pontypridds and Rhymneys makes sense with the use of the run away siding, maybe that's what I was thinking of, where one train arrives as another is departing, it might only happen for trains arriving at the outer platforms as the trains at the inner ones are departing, not the other way around. Note also that the May 2025 junction works look like it'll allow Up Bays to be routed into plt4 at the same time as trains from Central are routed into plt5. And as the plan is eventually for all Bays to go up the Taff Valleys, it makes sense in that respect.
With regards to keeping Coryton trains on 4, I'd imagine that would be to do with the larger gap between the Ponty (xx12/xx42) and the Merthyr (xx00/xx30), as opposed to the Rhymney (xx15/xx45) and the Bargoed (xx26/xx56), with the Corytons in between at xx22/52. Whatever train planning's reasons, the switch was made and I hope it stays consistent as the timetable expands further.

With the signals moving back down the platforms, it'll effectively make the north stairs to p3/4 redundant. For reference, the new stop marker is currently bagged over, but in place above the chargeman office door on platform 4, if anyone's interested.

 

[MikePJ]

Work has started on the Cardiff-bound platform at Butetown. Sheet piling (visible behind the signal) has gone in as a foundation for the new platform.




RAIL this week says that the electrification on the Coryton and Caerphiilly routes will go live in February. It also goes on to say that wires to Cardiff Bay will be energised in “the spring”, with the Rhymney route being completed in late 2025. The article is a little muddled between “wires live” and “electric trains in service”, as it’s mostly talking about the introduction of the 756s, and so it’s not totally clear whether February is the date for 756s to Coryton/Caerphilly, or whether that’s just when the wires go live (which was supposed to have happened during the recent blockade, but there’s been no confirmation that this happened). The article also states that once 756s are in service on the Rhymney line the 231s will move to both Maesteg- Ebbw Vale and Cardiff-Cheltenham services.

 

[AdamWW]

and so it’s not totally clear whether February is the date for 756s to Coryton/Caerphilly, or whether that’s just when the wires go live (which was supposed to have happened during the recent blockade, but there’s been no confirmation that this happened).

Something seems to have gone wrong.

The Coryton electrification date has slipped despite sticking in an extra 2 weeks closure recently.

Presumably 756s to Coryton will require the platform at Ty Glas to be extended first.

I don't find TfW's pronouncements all that illuminating. They don't seem to be very keen on mentioning when there have been problems though at least with the introduction of the 756s they have said that it's only temporary. If they said the same about the 231s on the Rhymney Line I missed it.

 

[CapitalStar378]

I was wondering what was going on with Ty Glas, looks like work briefly started and then was abandoned. Don't think even any vegetation has been pruned at Crwys Road.

 

[AdamWW]

I was wondering what was going on with Ty Glas, looks like work briefly started and then was abandoned. Don't think even any vegetation has been pruned at Crwys Road.

A lot of things that TfW does don't make sense to me.

If I saw the larger picture then perhaps I'd understand. But it's not one that they seem willing to communicate. I can see the motivation to just hand out good news and pretend the bad stuff isn't happening but it does mean they've lost the opportunity to explain the reasoning behind what looks like a series bad decisions and poor planning.

 

[MikePJ]

There are no programmed closures on the Coryton line for the next month, either, although the line is totally closed on Sundays anyway. There's a big closure tomorrow with the Rhymney line closed for most of the day and the Bay line closed all day.

 

[AdamWW]

There are no programmed closures on the Coryton line for the next month

That may not mean very much. They closed it for two weeks recently at less than a week's notice...

 

[Bob Price]

I don't think TfW are about to give a running commentary on the progress of works just to keep this forum happy. When you have such a major project as this one, things are bound to slip, it's the nature of these things. I am sure announcements will come when they are ready. Three car 756's on the Coryton, Caerphilly, Penarth diagrams will be very welcome

 

[AdamWW]

I don't think TfW are about to give a running commentary on the progress of works just to keep this forum happy. When you have such a major project as this one, things are bound to slip, it's the nature of these things. I am sure announcements will come when they are ready. Three car 756's on the Coryton, Caerphilly, Penarth diagrams will be very welcome

The thing is that they do give a commentary, but only when they have something good to say.

E.g. they made a big fuss when the 231s came in, but didn't mention that putting them on the services to Penarth was only temporary.

And in my experience regular passengers really do notice when you give them brand new trains with level boarding then take them away again.

Now I don't suggest they should be worrying about what people thnk on railforums. But it would be nice if they showed some consideration to their passengers sometimes.