Why a 49-mile journey in Wales takes seven hours

[DelW]

Some back of an envelope calculations a few months ago (bear in mind I spent 20 years in train planning) suggested that for passengers from Llandudno Jn or west thereof journeys to Carmarthen would be quicker than via Salop, Swansea touch and go. Given that most of the population of N Wales live east of the Junction and most of the population of South Wales live in Swansea and to the east thereof the benefits of a North-South link via the west coast are very limited.

I tried assessing this a few days ago, working on the basis that travel time from (say) Caernarfon to Swansea would be comparable to the sum times of Pwllheli to Mach and Craven Arms to Swansea (similar distances and lines). Which gives about 6 hours. That's just about competitive with Bangor to Swansea via the Marches - but as you say, most people will want to go from or to places east of those. It certainly wouldn't provide a quicker journey for very many people.

And nobody seems able to tell me how you put a modern railway past a 13th Century castle at Caernarfon . . .

Close the road and return the tunnel to railway use? It would be tricky squeezing it past that posh new WHR station though. And getting into Bangor would be problematic with the amount of development that has happened since the line closed.

 

[6Gman]

I tried assessing this a few days ago, working on the basis that travel time from (say) Caernarfon to Swansea would be comparable to the sum times of Pwllheli to Mach and Craven Arms to Swansea (similar distances and lines). Which gives about 6 hours. That's just about competitive with Bangor to Swansea via the Marches - but as you say, most people will want to go from or to places east of those. It certainly wouldn't provide a quicker journey for very many people.

Close the road and return the tunnel to railway use? It would be tricky squeezing it past that posh new WHR station though. And getting into Bangor would be problematic with the amount of development that has happened since the line closed.

Problem is that the roads serve the new developments around Victoria Dock, including the Arts Centre. Second problem is that I fear a detailed look at the tunnel might bring some nasties to light (didn't the fountain on The Maes have to be removed because the tunnel was compromised?). Third problem, getting it through the slate quay area.

I'm sure all could be resolved with sufficient money spent, but complex and expensive for a link that will see relatively light use.

(I've not even mentioned the WHR, or the roads that now use the trackbed. Or the cycleway.)

But otherwise, pretty straightforward!

 

[DJ_K666]

To be fair, there does appear to be a material slice of members of these Forums that 'don't/can't drive/don't own a car/are "unable" to tolerate bus or coach travel/etc.'.

2 hours 15 is probably about the minit of tolerability. Its not far off our Rugby to Northampton services so no biggie for me.
Fare-wise its about average, bearing in mind I'm used to the current £2 capped fares now running through to December 2024. The fare on Stagecoach Midlands would be something like £6.50 for a journey like that so £3 to £4 actually looks like good value
It has, however, set me wondering if my Stagecoach staff pass is accepted on these services.

 

[eldomtom2]

What is certain is that at this moment in time, the TAG is the correct method of assessing a project.

No, it is the method used to assess projects. There is a difference. Calling them the "correct method" is a value judgment, and hence not objective.

 

[ThisGuy]

Highly doubt it would be. The £3.50 ticket is only ever issued as a "Bus Day Single", I believe.

National Rail Enquiries will happily provide a rail only 'via Cardiff' itinerary for £3.50 CMN to CMN Bus Day Single tickets

 

[Bald Rick]

No, it is the method used to assess projects. There is a difference. Calling them the "correct method" is a value judgment, and hence not objective.

Like i said before, try another way and you‘ll find out its not correct.

 

[stuu]

Like i said before, try another way and you‘ll find out its not correct.

But like everything else, the relative weightings are a political choice. Alternatively, Spain has made a political choice to make every provincial capital 4 hours by rail from Madrid, which would no doubt fail any rational financial analysis, but it's the choice they have made - national cohesion is a price worth paying for them. We could choose to do things that way if we wanted

 

[Bald Rick]

We could choose to do things that way if we wanted

We could. But we dont.

Alternatively, Spain has made a political choice to make every provincial capital 4 hours by rail from Madrid, which would no doubt fail any rational financial analysis, but it's the choice they have made - national cohesion is a price worth paying for them.

Indeed. And in Spain that is correct. Not in Wales.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Like i said before, try another way and you‘ll find out its not correct.

Correct isn't the right word here. Required by present legislation is probably the term.

 

[Bald Rick]

Correct isn't the right word here. Required by present legislation is probably the term.

Strictly speaking its not required by legislation.

I’ve evidently not explained myself very well at all here, so will leave it at this:

The Transport Assessment Guidelines are a process, like any other, in this case designed to deliver transport outcomes that benefit society. Yes there is lots of opinion about how they could be improved, and they are changed from time to time. But at any one point in time (and geography, for the pedants) there is the one process to follow, and it is therefore the correct process at that point in time. Looking at it the other way, if you dont follow the process, but follow some other process you are not going to get the right result at that point in time and that is therefore an incorrect process.

 

[Magdalia]

I was hoping not to need to come back on this.

BCR is an economic/management tool. As its name implies it is based on estimating future benefits and costs, sometimes a long way into the future. The recent "cost of living crisis" has demonstrated that top economists in the Bank of England and the Office of Budget responsibility were unable to make good forecasts of inflation and interest rates 2 years ahead, never mind 20 years. BCR depends hugely on assumptions about future inflation and interest rates. Recent experience should teach us that no BCR calculation is ever correct, it is just an estimate based on a particular set of assumptions about future benefits and costs.

At this point in time, use of BCR is included in HM Treasury guidance. It is the correct process to follow, in order to stay within the current guidance, but that doesn't make it the correct process on a broader perspective. There are different tools in the box, and different processes that could be followed. There are no laws, statute or economic, that say that BCR must be used. The current guidelines are the choice of the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, following (or not!) the advice of HM Treasury civil servants. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided, that guidance could be withdrawn tomorrow, and new guidance could replace it on Monday morning.

 

[laseandre]

The blue area on the map is significantly bigger than the others.

Land doesn't vote.

 

[MadCommuter]

I've tried to book a flight between Scotland's two largest cities but I have to go via London which is in another country.

 

[Starmill]

Correct isn't the right word here. Required by present legislation is probably the term.

It is a requirement if you would like public funds, yes.

 

[yoyothehobo]

I've tried to book a flight between Scotland's two largest cities but I have to go via London which is in another country.

You certainly are a Madcommuter

 

[Western Gaffer]

I've tried to book a flight between Scotland's two largest cities but I have to go via London which is in another country.

You don't have to, in that you could go via Stornoway or Sumburgh for example

 

[Delta558]

All urban routes are not 20mph. From my journeys round Wales in the past month most 30 & 40mph limits still persist and generally only side roads and the centres of some towns and villages have been reduced many of which were already 20mph due to the presence of schools.

Having driven the bottom part of the A485 (Carmarthen to Lampeter road) this morning for the first time since reading this thread, I thought I'd offer some context to your comment:

In the first 12 miles there are 29 speed limit changes.
EVERY village in that section is a 20mph limit now.
The A485 is a trunk road, not a side road or the centre of a town.
There is ONE school in a village over that 12 mile section (Peniel).

The politics of it aside, driving that road is not enjoyable and it is quite common on certain sections to be brought to a halt while you wait for either a couple of lorries or a lorry and a bus to pass each other. Collisions (with resultant lengthy diversions along often single-track lanes) are far too common and there have been too many lives lost. The road infrastructure is not anywhere near what is needed to support the traffic levels in the area but unfortunately there is little inclination to spend money on that, let alone the rail line.

 

[eldomtom2]

The Transport Assessment Guidelines are a process, like any other, in this case designed to deliver transport outcomes that benefit society. Yes there is lots of opinion about how they could be improved, and they are changed from time to time. But at any one point in time (and geography, for the pedants) there is the one process to follow, and it is therefore the correct process at that point in time. Looking at it the other way, if you dont follow the process, but follow some other process you are not going to get the right result at that point in time and that is therefore an incorrect process.

You are using an extremely bizarre definition of "correct".

 

[snowball]

The A485 is a trunk road

Not a trunk road in the legal or technical sense (though rural mid-Wales has more than its share of trunk roads).

 

[Krokodil]

Could you point to a government that determines which* transit projects to fund by a measure other than BCRs? (No, it's not a trick question).

Granted they're not actually funded, but the government recently produced a list of projects whose main benefit was that they were in marginal constituencies.

Google Maps is not reliable.

I've found it to be more trustworthy than Arriva's own app on Saturdays. No idea why Arriva's app is buggy on weekends, but it's an acknowledged issue.

Possibly west of Carmarthen or even Swansea too?

Presumably almost all of the Milford Haven line would have to remain open to serve the refinery because the impact of the equivalent number of lorries would be prohibitive (unless you know of any imminent plans to open a pipeline). Providing a passenger service on infrastructure you were keeping anyway doesn't cost that much.

What are you proposing, closing the Coast west of Llandudno Junction or something?

Bangor is too busy while Holyhead is too important as the main surface link with Dublin.

The original Beeching plan for North Wales was that the surviving stations would be Rhyl, Colwyn Bay, Llandudno Junction, Bangor and Holyhead only. I' m not sure how Flint or Abergele survived, Prestatyn was saved by the amount of seasonal traffic, Penmaenmawr/Llanfairfechan/Bodorgan/Ty Croes/Rhosneigr survived because the communities would effectively be cut off. BR later reopened Shotton Low Level, Conwy, Llanfairpwll and Valley - stations each busier than some of those who were kept open on social grounds. The Conwy Valley Line retained passenger services thanks to the winter of '63 (it was a well-timed winter for opponents of closure, see also the Esk Valley).

I seem to recall notably that passes are valid on the Conwy Valley trains, I don't know about others.

Wrexham Central - Hawarden Bridge, Machynlleth - Pwllheli, Heart of Wales. The latter two are seasonal only (because the lines are too busy in the summer). School trains on the Cambrian don't accept the passes either.

 

[Dai Corner]

Presumably almost all of the Milford Haven line would have to remain open to serve the refinery because the impact of the equivalent number of lorries would be prohibitive (unless you know of any imminent plans to open a pipeline). Providing a passenger service on infrastructure you were keeping anyway doesn't cost that much.

It costs several times what a bus service would, even without making any contribution to infrastructure costs. Arguably the passengers service should pay the additional costs of maintaining the route to passenger standards.

Or, to put it another way, you could have a better bus service for the same or less than the train service costs. That's the sort of decision that has to be made if we're to have the truly integrated public transport system Government ministers apparently want.

 

[robert thomas]

Presumably almost all of the Milford Haven line would have to remain open to serve the refinery because the impact of the equivalent number of lorries would be prohibitive (unless you know of any imminent plans to open a pipeline). Providing a passenger service on infrastructure you were keeping anyway doesn't cost that much.

Most oil from Milford already goes by pipelines laid in the 70's

 

[Krokodil]

Or, to put it another way, you could have a better bus service for the same or less than the train service costs.

There's more to a public service than whether it makes a profit.

How many people would switch to the bus and how many would head down to a car dealership? Some people won't use buses on principle, but others don't use them because they take longer. Buses can't avoid traffic jams except for the few places with dedicated bus lanes. The train forms part of a through service to Cardiff and Manchester, whereas an "integrated" bus would presumably see the passengers having to change for a train. What will be the effect on traffic congestion in towns? What about parking? Car parks are unproductive land, contributing little to the economy or the Exchequer.

I would like to see how BCRs take environmental considerations into account. Most roads run right outside housing in this country so air and noise pollution has an effect upon public health.

Most oil from Milford already goes by pipelines laid in the 70's

Yet there are still several rail flows. Presumably the pipelines don't go everywhere. Until that changes rail will continue to be the best way of getting bulk quantities of oil to those terminals.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Land doesn't vote.

No, but the many sheep farmers do, and they don't generally support Labour.

 

[Dai Corner]

There's more to a public service than whether it makes a profit.

Public Transport generally makes a loss, except buses within and between urban areas, so it's more about making the best use of taxpayers' money. That has to be looked at in the wider context of health. welfare, education and all the other calls on it.

How many people would switch to the bus and how many would head down to a car dealership? Some people won't use buses on principle, but others don't use them because they take longer. Buses can't avoid traffic jams except for the few places with dedicated bus lanes. The train forms part of a through service to Cardiff and Manchester, whereas an "integrated" bus would presumably see the passengers having to change for a train. What will be the effect on traffic congestion in towns? What about parking? Car parks are unproductive land, contributing little to the economy or the Exchequer.

SWWITCH (South West Wales Integrated Transport Consortium , run by the four Councils of Swansea, Neath Port Talbot, Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire) found that less than 1% of trips in their area were by train. Even if they all switched to car instead of joining the 8% made by bus the effect would negligible.

From Appendix E to the Regional Transport Plan prepared by SWWITCH.. Unfortunately the forum software seemingly won't let me upload the actual document and copying and pasting the table hasn't worked very well.

Modal Split - The majority of trips in the region (71% of the total) were made by car
(56 % as a driver; 15% as a passenger). The second most popular means of travel
was foot (16%). Ten percent of trips were made by public transport (1% by train; 9%
by bus). Table E4 below shows.
Table E4 - Modal Split
Journey Purpose Frequency % of Total
Car driver 12216 56.1
Car passenger 3347 15.4
Foot 3579 16.4
Bus 1881 8.6
Train 168 0.8
Taxi 195 0.9
Bicycle 123 0.6
Motorcycle 47 0.2
Other 207 1
Total: 21764 100

 

[A S Leib]

No, but the many sheep farmers do, and they don't generally support Labour.

Labour wasn't far behind in the 2021 Mid and West Wales regional list vote - Plaid Cymru 27.5%, Conservatives 26.8%, Labour 25.9% - and they won both Pembrokeshire seats in 1997 and 2001 and the southern one in 2005.

 

[Krokodil]

SWWITCH (South West Wales Integrated Transport Consortium , run by the four Councils of Swansea, Neath Port Talbot, Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire) found that less than 1% of trips in their area were by train.

A statistic that is meaningless because it covers the entirety of several counties, whether a given area is rail-served or not. It's the percentage of residents/workers/visitors to Haverfordwest that counts when considering the issue of traffic in Haverfordwest. The transport choices (not that there is much choice) of the residents of St David's or Glynneath are irrelevant.

Even if they all switched to car instead of joining the 8% made by bus the effect would negligible.

I've no idea how congested the streets of Haverfordwest are. Nor how full the car parks get. If things are near tipping point though, it doesn't take much to snarl everything up.

No, but the many sheep farmers do, and they don't generally support Labour.

There are less than 40,000 farmers in the whole of Wales.

 

[Dai Corner]

A statistic that is meaningless because it covers the entirety of several counties, whether a given area is rail-served or not. It's the percentage of residents/workers/visitors to Haverfordwest that counts when considering the issue of traffic in Haverfordwest. The transport choices (not that there is much choice) of the residents of St David's or Glynneath are irrelevant.

The population of Haverfordwest is about 12,000 and even pre-covid about 120,000 used the station. On average each inhabitant took less than one train trip a month. Now it's down to about seven times a year. It's hard for those who work on the railway or use it frequently to appreciate how insignificant it is outside the large urban areas.

 

[Krokodil]

It's hard for those who work on the railway or use it frequently to appreciate how insignificant it is outside the large urban areas.

It's also hard for those who don't meet hundreds or even thousands of passengers a day to appreciate that each one of them is a person, not a number. That's a nurse going to work or a student travelling to uni. Perhaps you should ride on said rural branch line and suggest that they'd manage with a replacement bus (a bit like when lines were closed in the sixties, with the buses disappearing soon after). See what response you get.

Up here there are frequent bus routes shadowing the railway lines. You can travel all day on any bus operator for £6. Yet many people still take the train, paying up to £30 for the privilege. Often having to stand in the process. Why do you think that they do this when the bus comes every 15 minutes, probably drops you off closer to your destination, and is considerably cheaper? They're not doing it because they need that particular 197 for haulage, I can assure you.

All of this underlines why a BCR is not "correct". It may be the government's chosen way of assessing spending but it's no more or less valid than any other method that a government might choose. If a government decides to give additional weight to social arguments over economic ones then it's perfectly free to do so.

 

[Dai Corner]

It's also hard for those who don't meet hundreds or even thousands of passengers a day to appreciate that each one of them is a person, not a number. That's a nurse going to work or a student travelling to uni. Perhaps you should ride on said rural branch line and suggest that they'd manage with a replacement bus (a bit like when lines were closed in the sixties, with the buses disappearing soon after). See what response you get.

But for every nurse going to work in Withybush Hospital by train there are probably eight going by bus and eighty eight driving. If the railway was closed we might lose the one who used it but if the money saved was given to the NHS another eight nurses could probably be employed instead of railway staff.

Up here there are frequent bus routes shadowing the railway lines. You can travel all day on any bus operator for £6. Yet many people still take the train, paying up to £30 for the privilege. Often having to stand in the process. Why do you think that they do this when the bus comes every 15 minutes, probably drops you off closer to your destination, and is considerably cheaper? They're not doing it because they need that particular 197 for haulage, I can assure you.

Down here they tried running hourly trains between Newport and Crosskeys. People stayed on the parallel bus, which runs at least every fifteen minutes. I had a coach to myself and the guard had the other coach last time I used it.

The Ebbw Vale to Cardiff trains on the same branch load pretty well.

They basically gave up after a few months, partly due to traincrew and stock shortages. They're trying again from December when they'll be able to run all the way to Ebbw Vale. It will be interesting to see what happens.

All of this underlines why a BCR is not "correct". It may be the government's chosen way of assessing spending but it's no more or less valid than any other method that a government might choose. If a government decides to give additional weight to social arguments over economic ones then it's perfectly free to do so.

Railways aren't the only things which bring social benefits. Pretty much all public expenditure does. Are you saying railways should be a special case?

It gives me no pleasure to see the railways decline over my 63 year lifetime but it's a fact that they have to compete for taxpayers' money and it's only fair that they do so on a level playing field.