Donations keep this site going. If you like what I’m doing here and think this work is important to the independence movement, consider a donation. One-off or monthly; as little or as much as you want. Click the links below, or full details are available here.
As a follow-on from a series of posts from 2024 looking at transport and independence, this post considers the more “out there” project shortlist. It’s the “money no object”, “Why do you think that would be a good idea?” “Are you high?” list.
So it’s a bit of fun. The only reason why is because they’re comparable to projects which have been delivered in some of our peer countries.
This list is also based on a presumption that airports wouldn’t be expanded, that the criteria of the Welsh Government’s Road Review would remain in place and an ongoing presumption in favour of active travel and public transport.
"High Speed 3/4/5/6/∞"
- Short Description: A high-speed rail line (165mph+ running speed) connecting London to Cardiff (or Swansea) as a future stage of a Great Britain high-speed rail network. This assumes the route would be a branch off HS2 near Aylesbury, heading past Oxford towards Bristol.
- Estimated Cost: At least £49.5billion (HS2-to-Cardiff Parkway) or £67.8billion (HS2–to-Swansea)1.
- Similar Schemes in Peer Nations: Korlam Railway, Graz-Klagenfurt (Austria, under construction); Gotthard Base Tunnel (Switzerland); Vogelfluglinie (Denmark-Germany; partially completed, partially under construction).
1. Based on the most recent estimated cost-per-km of HS2 Phase 1 given to the UK Parliament’s Transport Select Committee in January 2024. Phase 1 is 225km in length and the cost estimate was given at £66.6billion (£296million-per-km).
At full running speed, Cardiff-London journey times by rail would likely fall from around 2 hours to an hour or less, making London commutable from Cardiff and vice-versa.
It would replace or complement existing South Wales-London rail services, potentially freeing up more paths for local services and freight.
Politically, it would likely be welcomed and more than address complaints about HS2 funding consequentials (or lack of).
It would also be an opportunity to replace and decommission the Severn Tunnel (presumably with a bridge) which would benefit all cross-border rail traffic.
As part of a wider GB high-speed rail network, it would reduce reliance on domestic air travel. It could eventually lead to direct South Wales-mainland Europe high-speed rail or sleeper train services
Speed and signalling improvements along the length of the Great Western Railway would cut journey times by a certain amount for a fraction of the cost of building a completely new high-speed line.
Similar environmental concerns to those around HS2 – probably the fact a high-speed line would probably need to go through the Gwent Levels.
There’s no obvious route for a high-speed line between Cardiff-Swansea and if the line stopped at Cardiff (probably Cardiff Parkway to avoid a costly exercise getting a line into the city centre) then you can imagine the complaints.
Any westward branch of HS2 would probably end at Bristol “because it’s a major interchange for crosscountry routes”, with services to/from southern Wales travelling along the existing lines.
Given the cost inflation around HS2, the projected costs for this would be astronomical and not provide good value for money.
It wouldn’t displace air travel in the same way high-speed rail between Scotland, northern England and southern England would – making it a low priority.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
No.
Automated Cardiff-Area Mass Transit
- Short Description: Two “figure of eight” lines running along an eastern (completely new) and western (using the existing Coryton Line and City Line) loop, as well as a line along the proposed Cardiff Crossrail route. The system would use an automated light train similar to London’s Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and would be a mix of elevated, at grade and possibly some short underground sections.
- Estimated Cost2: Up to £2billion for a simple “circle line” of Cardiff (using the existing City & Coryton lines); ~£5.6billion for a full multi-branch network and conversion of existing and proposed tram-train routes totalling around 59km.
- Similar Schemes in Peer Nations or Cities: Copenhagen Metro (Denmark); Glasgow Subway (Scotland); Rennes Metro (Brittany); Lausanne Metro (Switzerland).
2. Based on the cost-per-km of the first three phases of the Copenhagen Metro between 2002-2007 (a mix of elevated and tunnelled sections) of $69.8million. This is uplifted to mid-2023 prices ($118.2million), converted from $ into £ at mid-2023 prices (£1 = $0.7929), resulting in £93.7million-per-km.
It would segregate local Cardiff suburban commuter rail traffic from that going to/from the Valleys, potentially freeing up room for additional services.
It would be an opportunity to fill in gaps that can’t currently be reached by traditional heavy rail – such as the north-east of Cardiff. It would also enable things like additional stations in and around Cardiff city centre and a station directly serving Heath Hospital.
A mainly elevated and at-grade system would likely be cheaper to build than a fully underground equivalent and would mean road space would be kept free once it’s operational (unlike an on-street tram).
It could be extended using a mix of new alignments and existing lines (i.e. towards Penarth, Treforest and Culverhouse Cross).
If designed correctly, it would almost certainly be well-used taking lots of local Cardiff-only traffic off the roads.
In principle, an automated system may be cheaper to run than heavy rail or light rail and would allow very frequent services because the trains would be controlled centrally.
All stations – particularly elevated ones – would need to be accessible by design.
DLR and Copenhagen Metro-style trains are often a bit narrower than standard trains or light rail, meaning they take up less room. They can also cope with sharper bends and steeper inclines.
The existing heavy rail (in the future, tram-train) network in and around Cardiff is extensive for a city of its size. While there’s room for improvement and gaps remain, there’s no strong argument to support creating a segregated metro system. It would render all of the present electrification and other work on the City Line, Cardiff Bay branch line and elsewhere null and void.
Construction work would be very disruptive for the best part of a decade. The routing and design would also be dependent on the underlying geology – which might not be best suited to either an elevated or underground section.
Apart from a few areas of inner-city Cardiff, the population density is too low to support medium-to-high frequency mass transit.
It would compete directly with bus services. A rapid bus network would likely provide a similar level of service for far lower costs.
An automated system with few/no staff on board might make it feel unsafe and may lead to persistent fare-dodging.
Elevated sections would cause shadowing and privacy issues around them and it wouldn’t be architecturally appealing – possibly ruining the street scene in some areas.
The DLR – a benchmark for this – makes heavy losses each year, reported to be more than £40million before the pandemic.
It would be a big capital investment focused almost entirely on Cardiff.
I’m picturing people having brain haemorrhages just for suggesting this.
South Wales Valleys Interconnector Tunnels
- Short Description: A series of single-carriageway road tunnels replacing some of the A and B-road mountain passes in The Valleys.
- Estimated Cost: Between £2-4billion for the tunnel works (9.91miles3) and possibly another £300-400million for associated works (i.e. new link roads, junctions).
- Similar Schemes in Peer Nations: Multiple Faroe Islands tunnels, multiple Swiss road tunnels and multiple Norwegian tunnels.
3. BBC, Future Planet (22nd June 2022). “What if all roads went underground?”. Based on the quoted estimated figure of between £202-404million-per-mile of tunnel.
It would slash journey times by road between some of the major valleys; even if only one or two of them were ever built.
To meet road guidelines, the tunnels could be restricted to buses, taxis and goods vehicles at certain times. In the case of the former, this might help in the creation of a bus rapid transit system across the valleys.
The distances (in a straight line) between some of the valleys are quite short, suiting a tunnel.
It would be a big job creator (like any big road project).
There’s a road safety argument. A direct tunnel between the valleys might be safer than using some of the mountain roads.
It would provide resilience during extreme weather.
It would be dependent on the underlying geology, which may not be suited to tunnelling. Plus there could be the issue of mine workings or underground water courses.
It would be like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Yes, the mountain passes aren’t the best roads in the world but they were never designed to be and they’re perfectly fine for what they are.
While some valleys are densely populated, the population is unlikely to support this kind of capital outlay.
There are all sorts of considerations like what to do with the spoil, as well as the environmental impact of any link roads needed to serve the tunnelled sections.
A “Crossrail for the Valleys”(Treherbert – Pontypool rail link) – which has been suggested in the past – would be more fitting with Welsh Government transport and environmental policies.
As realistic as Spurs winning a trophy Arsenal winning the Champions League.
North Wales Coast Light Rail
- Short Description: A light rail line running from Prestatyn to Llandudno, which would include a mix of on-street and segregated sections.
- Estimated Cost: At least £1.65billion for a 33km line4.
- Similar Schemes in Peer Nations or Cities: Kusttram (Flanders); Frauenfeld-Wil line (Switzerland); Blackpool Trams; in principle some sections of the South Wales Metro.
4. Quoted cost-per-km for light rail, Rail Engineer (26th August 2021). “Making light rail affordable”. Available at: https://www.railengineer.co.uk/making-light-rail-affordable/
It would be a proper “North Wales Metro” (or at least part of one) and go a long way to addressing criticism of over-spending on infrastructure in the south.
It would complement existing bus services and the North Wales coast mainline, providing another means to travel east-west.
There’s a mostly on-street corridor running along the coast; it would probably require very little new/exclusive corridor except possibly between Rhos on Sea and Llandudno (to avoid the hills).
The Conwy-Denbighshire coast is relatively densely populated (around 150,000 people live in the catchment area of the line – a similar population to Newport) and all of the settlements are located along a nearly straight line – perfect for light rail. It ought to be straightforward to extend it towards Flintshire and the Vale of Clwyd.
As a segregated/contained system, it would need to be operated and maintained locally, creating jobs in tram maintenance etc. This could be particularly important in aiding regeneration in towns like Rhyl.
It could be popular with tourists.
Increased frequencies/a limited stop rail service along the North Wales Coast Mainline would likely fit the same niche and probably cost far less to provide.
Being right next to the coast would put it at risk from extreme weather (i.e. strong winds bringing down power lines).
On-street running would cause significant disruption during construction and would mean trams would be caught in traffic (though that traffic might be reduced if a tram was well used). It also presents a road safety risk.
There are some difficult sections with potential engineering challenges, particularly around Colwyn Bay where there are steep hills.
In some sections, there isn’t enough room for a full light rail system due to constraints caused by the A55 and railway. It’s likely a tramway would have to be built on a pier along the coastline in places – adding to the construction costs.
It wouldn’t link any major employment areas together and (unless redirected) would avoid major trip generators like Ysbyty Glan Clwyd.
If this was mainland Europe, I’d say “possibly”. It would be very similar to the Kusttram along the coast of Flanders.
Now though, it would probably fail a cost-benefit analysis – a similar situation to reopening the Aberystwyth-Carmarthen line.
Swansea Bay Area Light Rail
- Short Description: A minimum of three tram lines, all originating from the Mumbles area. One line could travel to Morriston Hospital (following the previous FTR bendy bus route as closely as possible), one to Port Talbot and one using a converted Vale of Neath line to Resolven.
- Estimated Cost: £2.35billion for a 47km three-line network5.
- Similar Schemes in Peer Nations or Cities: Nantres tramway (Brittany); Ghent tramway (Flanders); Aarhus Letbahn (Denmark); Bergen light rail (Norway).
5. Quoted cost-per-km for light rail, Rail Engineer (26th August 2021). “Making light rail affordable”. Available at: https://www.railengineer.co.uk/making-light-rail-affordable/
It would be a genuine “metro” for the Swansea Bay area if properly connected with Neath Port Talbot.
The radial nature of some of the roads around Swansea is suited to light rail; there are also very clear corridors through the city centre.
Many of the main roads in and around Swansea are wide enough to accommodate at least a lane of traffic in each direction as well as on-street tram running.
There would be opportunities to extend the network/add additional lines towards Fforestfach and the Swansea Valley.
A direct link to Neath and Port Talbot might provide a more direct public transport service into Swansea city centre than existing rail services.
It would connect several major trip generators (Singleton, Morriston and NPT hospitals, Copr Bay development, Liberty Stadium, both Swansea University campuses, and some NPT College campuses).
A light rail link to Swansea might aid future regeneration attempts in Port Talbot.
A better/more frequent heavy rail service with additional stations – or a bus rapid transit system – might provide a similar level of service for a lower cost.
Fixed links between Morriston and Swansea city centre have been attempted in the past and failed (FTR bendy bus). While a tram is a different proposition, there’s no guarantee it would be successful either.
Being right next to the coast would put it at risk from extreme weather (i.e. strong winds bringing down power lines).
A crossing over the River Neath (to/from Port Talbot) would be a significant engineering challenge.
Some steep inclines between Morriston and Swansea city centre might not be suited to a tram.
A tramway would spoil the area around Swansea Beach and likely take up room that’s currently used as walking/cycling routes and open space.
Drivers would likely be angry about potentially losing road carriageways to light rail.
On-street running would cause significant disruption during construction and would mean trams would be caught in existing traffic (though that traffic might fall if a tram was well-used). It also presents a road safety risk.
Out of all of these, this is probably the most “realistic” one (in that you could present a strong business case for at least some of it) – especially if it was properly phased-in rather than built in one go.
The total population that could be served by such a network (around 300,000) would be more than big enough to justify a light rail system in most of Europe.
The risks include, as with any project of this scale: cost overruns, delays, planning hold-ups and the significant amount of money needed to deliver it – the equivalent of more than twice the Welsh Government’s annual capital budget.
You Might Also Like....
No AI tools were used to draft this post.
