Ex LNER (and Grand Central) Mark 4 sets for TfW

[craigybagel]

Last I heard its not planned as a back up, it's to get a 6th diagram although not sure what that would be.

If the politicians are involved, you would expect the old 3 daily Holyhead service to come back. And to be fair operationally it would be the simplest option.

 

[BillStampy]

When will the early Swansea to Manchester service ever return to full MK4 operation (since it's booked 197 on weekdays)? If anyone knows at all that is. Also a 6th diagram would likely be Holyhead or replacing another Cardiff to Manchester with a MK4.

 

[Jez]

If the politicians are involved, you would expect the old 3 daily Holyhead service to come back. And to be fair operationally it would be the simplest option.

Id rather more Swansea services.

When will the early Swansea to Manchester service ever return to full MK4 operation (since it's booked 197 on weekdays)? If anyone knows at all that is. Also a 6th diagram would likely be Holyhead or replacing another Cardiff to Manchester with a MK4.

June timetable change id heard. At least that's when its aimed to run the 5th diagram. Whether it actually happens by then is anyone's guess.

 

[sd0733]

If the politicians are involved, you would expect the old 3 daily Holyhead service to come back. And to be fair operationally it would be the simplest option.

It would seem the simplest and also puts a bit more capacity into some trains which struggle with 2 cars and also gives the Holyhead crews some extra work on Mk4s which they've been lacking since the Day time Coast work went.

June timetable change id heard. At least that's when its aimed to run the 5th diagram. Whether it actually happens by then is ananyone

As far as im aware its planned to start when the 7th set is available so effectively once the B exam rotation and 5 car finishes. That would put it in the same time roughly as the Timetable but may not align exactly.
No real reason why it wouldn't, basically running 4 diagrams from 5 or 6 sets at the Moment with fairly few substituting so having 5 diagrams from 7 shouldn't push it that hard with no other project to contend with which hasn't been the case at all so far.

 

[Krokodil]

If the politicians are involved, you would expect the old 3 daily Holyhead service to come back. And to be fair operationally it would be the simplest option.

Much as. I'd like to have that back, stripping the request stops from 1W93's schedule stopped the schoolkids getting home. The way that 1W91/1V96 were timetabled was disruptive, I've noticed far fewer delays since they were moved back to the standard pattern paths.

 

[victormildrew]

Seems to be a problem with 1V91 at Shrewsbury, stood at a signal on platform 7.

Seems to be a problem with 1V91 at Shrewsbury, stood at a signal on platform 7.

On the move at 08.30 from Shrewsbury.

 

[Envoy]

Are they going to have speeded up services from the June timetable change?

Many thanks sd0733 for your detailed answers.

 

[sd0733]

Are they going to have speeded up services from the June timetable change?

If the timings in Real Time Trains are the final ones, then some of the timings are actually a minute or two slower than at present.

 

[Envoy]

If the timings in Real Time Trains are the final ones, then some of the timings are actually a minute or two slower than at present.

That’s disappointing.

 

[robert thomas]

That’s disappointing.

If it helps them keep time that's a good thing

 

[Topological]

If the politicians are involved, you would expect the old 3 daily Holyhead service to come back. And to be fair operationally it would be the simplest option.

If I had my way the Mk4 would only do Holyhead, but that would need some more 197s ordering to allow an hourly 5 car 197. That is not happening.

Since Holyheads terminate at Cardiff anyway, the Manchesters could be back to direct to the west daily and there would be two less terminators in Cardiff. Operationally convenient and better connectivity.

 

[craigybagel]

Much as. I'd like to have that back, stripping the request stops from 1W93's schedule stopped the schoolkids getting home. The way that 1W91/1V96 were timetabled was disruptive, I've noticed far fewer delays since they were moved back to the standard pattern paths.

Fair point.

Seems to be a problem with 1V91 at Shrewsbury, stood at a signal on platform 7.


On the move at 08.30 from Shrewsbury.

The train was fine, the crew who work the service south from there were delayed on their previous working.

If I had my way the Mk4 would only do Holyhead, but that would need some more 197s ordering to allow an hourly 5 car 197. That is not happening.

Since Holyheads terminate at Cardiff anyway, the Manchesters could be back to direct to the west daily and there would be two less terminators in Cardiff. Operationally convenient and better connectivity.

As I've pointed out to you before, the market for through travel across Cardiff is really not that big. The MKIVs make much more sense on Manchester services than Holyhead because that's where the market for a premium 1st class service exists - and also because of the challenges of serving the North Wales request stops with loco hauled sets.

 

[Topological]

Fair point.

The train was fine, the crew who work the service south from there were delayed on their previous working.

As I've pointed out to you before, the market for through travel across Cardiff is really not that big. The MKIVs make much more sense on Manchester services than Holyhead because that's where the market for a premium 1st class service exists - and also because of the challenges of serving the North Wales request stops with loco hauled sets.

You have, but it is not true.

When there was an hourly service no train kicked everyone out at Cardiff. The more you cut connections the less demand there will be. All I will ever have is anecdotal though being a normal person using the train rather than someone in possession of actual data.

Even IF the demand argument is bought, the mess terminators make of trains in Cardiff cannot be denied. The moves associated with terminating trains in Cardiff cost a lot more than through trains.

On the market for first class, I do not know what the break down is between people upgrading to be certain of a seat and people genuinely buying first class tickets. Therefore, I leave that one with the experts.

 

[Anonymous10]

You have, but it is not true.

When there was an hourly service no train kicked everyone out at Cardiff. The more you cut connections the less demand there will be. All I will ever have is anecdotal though being a normal person using the train rather than someone in possession of actual data.

Even IF the demand argument is bought, the mess terminators make of trains in Cardiff cannot be denied. The moves associated with terminating trains in Cardiff cost a lot more than through trains.

On the market for first class, I do not know what the break down is between people upgrading to be certain of a seat and people genuinely buying first class tickets. Therefore, I leave that one with the experts.

Having done the journey myself and frequently travelling to Cardiff I rarely see anyone come from West Wales and go further than Swansea or Cardiff. It's nearly a complete new customer base.

 

[Krokodil]

I agree that as many services as possible should work through Cardiff rather than terminating there, trains coming off of Canton (with the crossing moves that entails) are a frequent source of delay. The answer isn't to put the 67s on the Holyheads, the answer is to solve the range issue (I wonder if an ETS generator in the DVT would work). The Holyheads themselves could do with extendibg westwards, resources permitting.

 

[Western 52]

Having done the journey myself and frequently travelling to Cardiff I rarely see anyone come from West Wales and go further than Swansea or Cardiff. It's nearly a complete new customer base.

I make the journey from west Wales to east of Cardiff every 2 weeks, and quite a few stay on the train at Cardiff. Sure a lot of people change trains there, but there's a through market too.

 

[craigybagel]

You have, but it is not true.

When there was an hourly service no train kicked everyone out at Cardiff. The more you cut connections the less demand there will be. All I will ever have is anecdotal though being a normal person using the train rather than someone in possession of actual data.

I never said there was no market for it - just that there isn't a terribly large one. And that market is still getting served with a 2 hourly direct service if they can't cope with the same platform change at Cardiff. Given the benefits the MKIVs bring to Manchester services, that again seems like a reasonable compromise.

Even IF the demand argument is bought, the mess terminators make of trains in Cardiff cannot be denied. The moves associated with terminating trains in Cardiff cost a lot more than through trains.

I agree that as many services as possible should work through Cardiff rather than terminating there, trains coming off of Canton (with the crossing moves that entails) are a frequent source of delay. The answer isn't to put the 67s on the Holyheads, the answer is to solve the range issue (I wonder if an ETS generator in the DVT would work). The Holyheads themselves could do with extendibg westwards, resources permitting.

Any unreliability coming off Canton is probably balanced by the risks in running services through to West Wales and importing delays from there. The 67s have ~an hour in Cardiff to turn around, that usually is sufficient to provide a decent cushion for delays - and the same is true of the terminators from West Wales.

I suspect there isn't a solution to the range issue other than using a different loco. Ideally someone needs to work out how to build a Bi-mode with enough power to pull a train up the Marches on diesel.

 

[Jez]

As I've pointed out to you before, the market for through travel across Cardiff is really not that big. The MKIVs make much more sense on Manchester services than Holyhead because that's where the market for a premium 1st class service exists - and also because of the challenges of serving the North Wales request stops with loco hauled sets.

As someone who lives West of Cardiff id have to disagree there. Whilst id agree the amount of people travelling from Swansea, Neath, Port Talbot and Bridgend to Hereford, Crewe and Manchester is smaller than the amounts that travel from Cardiff and Newport there is definately a significant amount of passengers making cross Cardiff connections. A few months back I was travelling to Cardiff one Friday evening and on an overcrowded 197 on my table there were 3 other people (all who didnt know each other but all 3 were travelling beyond Cardiff/Newport, I think 2 were travelling to Cwmbran. Also in the days of seat reservations I remember seeing loads with cross Cardiff journeys - particularly Swansea and Bridgend to various stations on the marches. I was also surprised how many from West Wales used it too - random reservations like Lllanelli to Ludlow or Haverfordwest to Stockport.

I do agree that the MK4's should be for Manchester rather than Holyhead, its just a shame every 2 hourly MK4 cant start/end in Swansea. if fuel is the only issue then perhaps Landore should have been the South depot to look after the MK4 rather than Canton. And a few extra could be used to ensure enough to cover to Swansea. That would also free up a few extra 197s to ensure every other Manchester had 5 cars.

I make the journey from west Wales to east of Cardiff every 2 weeks, and quite a few stay on the train at Cardiff. Sure a lot of people change trains there, but there's a through market too.

thats my experience too - whilst a lot of people alight at Cardiff (probabaly more than half) there is still enough people to justify a direct service. No doubt a lot of people like myself will just use the through services now every other hour unless they really want a MK4.

 

[Krokodil]

Any unreliability coming off Canton is probably balanced by the risks in running services through to West Wales and importing delays from there. The 67s have ~an hour in Cardiff to turn around, that usually is sufficient to provide a decent cushion for delays

It's not just about late presentation from Canton though, it's also about the congestion caused by crossing trains over the entire station throat, and the extended platform dwell caused by clearing a train to run empty to depot or empty to the Brickyard Siding.

 

[Newp410]

It's not just about late presentation from Canton though, it's also about the congestion caused by crossing trains over the entire station throat, and the extended platform dwell caused by clearing a train to run empty to depot or empty to the Brickyard Siding.

Thats why we have quite a few of them that run to Pengam sidings and back rather than a reversal move in the platform to go to / from Canton as it frees the platforms up quicker. Brickyard or Line A is rarely used to reverse TfW services on a weekday, with just 6 or sometimes 7 services planned to reverse there all day.

 

[Topological]

I never said there was no market for it - just that there isn't a terribly large one. And that market is still getting served with a 2 hourly direct service if they can't cope with the same platform change at Cardiff. Given the benefits the MKIVs bring to Manchester services, that again seems like a reasonable compromise.


Any unreliability coming off Canton is probably balanced by the risks in running services through to West Wales and importing delays from there. The 67s have ~an hour in Cardiff to turn around, that usually is sufficient to provide a decent cushion for delays - and the same is true of the terminators from West Wales.

I suspect there isn't a solution to the range issue other than using a different loco. Ideally someone needs to work out how to build a Bi-mode with enough power to pull a train up the Marches on diesel.

Which same platform change? The connections do not work most hours and then TfW will not hold the onward train when the Mk4 is pulling into the platform next to it, so why would anyone think that was ok? I note that I am not alone in thinking more should be done there.

It seems there is selective memory going on about the issues of terminating trains in Cardiff too. The number of times I have been in a queue for a platform at Cardiff because there are terminating trains to move out of the way is countless, and this is commonly discussed in threads about Cardiff. It is easy to be on time at Newport and then very late into Cardiff. It is not just the recovery time the Mk4 has which is the issue.

I am not sure that importing delays from West Wales used to be an issue when there was an hourly train, but it is so long since that happened now that maybe it has faded into the distant past of my mind.

I do appreciate the insights you give us into what is happening on the route, but I do feel it is important to raise the issues that are seen when I travel.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Which same platform change? The connections do not work most hours and then TfW will not hold the onward train when the Mk4 is pulling into the platform next to it, so why would anyone think that was ok? I note that I am not alone in thinking more should be done there.

It seems there is selective memory going on about the issues of terminating trains in Cardiff too. The number of times I have been in a queue for a platform at Cardiff because there are terminating trains to move out of the way is countless, and this is commonly discussed in threads about Cardiff. It is easy to be on time at Newport and then very late into Cardiff. It is not just the recovery time the Mk4 has which is the issue.

I am not sure that importing delays from West Wales used to be an issue when there was an hourly train, but it is so long since that happened now that maybe it has faded into the distant past of my mind.

I do appreciate the insights you give us into what is happening on the route, but I do feel it is important to raise the issues that are seen when I travel.

You know, I think Mr C may have a good idea about being held outside Cardiff waiting for platforms as, if I’m not mistaken, is viewing it from the front window of the 67 or DVT.

I must also add that you say you feel it important to raise the issues you see when you travel, but that’s rather different from virtually insisting that the change that would suit you best, is the best overall option.

I have a feeling TFW would have looked at the numbers, figured where their bread was buttered and hence the reason they made the changes that they made. If they thought the money was in cross Cardiff connections, they’d have made changes to try and make the most money from that instead.

 

[MP393]

Another false start for HD06 this morning. Issue with the train supply from the Loco > Coaches has meant the second Crewe starter 1V33 06:27 ex Man Picc cancelled as nothing to step in. Seems the issue was the Loco (013) rather than the rake this morning, but that set does seem to be the unlucky one at the moment.

Other sets out today
67025+HD07 starts 04:54 Crewe - Cardiff

67008+HD01 starts 04:35 Cardiff - Manchester

67015+HD03 starts 05:30 Holyhead - Cardiff

 

[BillStampy]

Supposedly there's a set at Canton free? If not it'll probably be a 197 replacement.

 

[sd0733]

Supposedly there's a set at Canton free? If not it'll probably be a 197 replacement.

Theres no spare Mk4s on Canton, HD02 still on tyre turning shows as the only set there

 

[BillStampy]

Theres no spare Mk4s on Canton, HD02 still on tyre turning shows as the only set there

So there'll be a substitution at Cardiff for it then? That's sad. Oh well, it is what it is

 

[sd0733]

So there'll be a substitution at Cardiff for it then? That's sad. Oh well, it is what it is

Likely at least Cardiff to Crewe. If they can would often do a set swap at Crewe when it goes through (at 15:30 on that diagram) depending how long it takes to sort.

 

[Krokodil]

It seems there is selective memory going on about the issues of terminating trains in Cardiff too. The number of times I have been in a queue for a platform at Cardiff because there are terminating trains to move out of the way is countless, and this is commonly discussed in threads about Cardiff

The time taken to clear out a train for ECS was a recognised source of congestion at Manchester Piccadilly platform 13. That's why all weekday TfW services now work through to the airport, even the peak ones.

If you were to ask train planning I doubt that they would try and defend the current situation. They're just trying to make the best of scarce resources and gas-guzzling American locos.

 

[Topological]

The time taken to clear out a train for ECS was a recognised source of congestion at Manchester Piccadilly platform 13. That's why all weekday TfW services now work through to the airport, even the peak ones.

If you were to ask train planning I doubt that they would try and defend the current situation. They're just trying to make the best of scarce resources and gas-guzzling American locos.

So maybe the Holyhead should continue through to Swansea? That would appear to resolve the terminating issue (albeit an ex-Holyhead rather than ex-Manchester), but would need more thought on path alignment.

I would still prefer the whole thing be sorted by the Manchesters being 197s and running through with the Mk4 on Holyhead, sort of like it was when there was only the WAG express.

It is not just about me wanting the train I regularly used back, it is more about wanting to be able to get through Cardiff reliably without platforms being occupied by terminators.

At the other end of the line the Manchester Airport extensions did always seem to make sense. Seeing the 175/1 as it usually was parked in the loop just south of Piccadilly for 45 minutes or more was just crying out for such an extension.

This has all gone a long way off topic though, sorry all.

 

[craigybagel]

You know, I think Mr C may have a good idea about being held outside Cardiff waiting for platforms as, if I’m not mistaken, is viewing it from the front window of the 67 or DVT.

I must also add that you say you feel it important to raise the issues you see when you travel, but that’s rather different from virtually insisting that the change that would suit you best, is the best overall option.

I have a feeling TFW would have looked at the numbers, figured where their bread was buttered and hence the reason they made the changes that they made. If they thought the money was in cross Cardiff connections, they’d have made changes to try and make the most money from that instead.

Thank you. I am indeed coming into this conversation from years of working services in and out of Cardiff Central from both ends of the train.

I do suspect we're getting off topic so I'll just say this - TfW has always been a TOC of compromises. The network is too vast, varied, and until recently too poorly funded to be anything else. It also struggles from the historically poor design of Cardiff Central.

The current arrangement is a pretty good attempt to keep as many people as possible happy with the resources provided - not perfect, but on the way, and the proposed December TT is even closer. And abandoning the MKIVs or finding some other way of running every Manchester service beyond Cardiff would do more harm than good, at least in my opinion.

Back to the topic at hand - 197002 was used to cover for the unavailable MKIVs on the Cardiff - Manchester leg. It was hoped to swap the set out at Crewe but that proved impossible in the end.