Cambrian hourly service consultation

[Rhydgaled]

Whilst I fully understand the tourism requirements of running steam excursions especially on the coastal Cambrian I also understand the "problem" that ERTMS has brought. My understanding was that somewhere in Europe a portable ERTMS unit was in use.

I had a quick Google, and found this:

http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2011/ertms/
Some of the railway press suggested that a Swedish portable ERTMS system could be used on steam locomotives, but this system is not considered by the rail industry to be a genuine solution, and rumours to the contrary should be ignored Network Rail said.

I do wonder whether one of the "specialist" companies couldn't invest in a couple of Heritage DMU's, modify them for ERTMS, and use those on the Cambrian. I'm sure they would be popular, especially if the driver's blinds were kept up.

Not DMUs, or steam, but I think I read somewhere that West Coast Railways weren't happy with the availablity of the four Network Rail yellow 37s a.k.a. 97s to haul charters on the Cambrian and are planning to fit some of their own 37s with ERTMS.

 

[D1009]

reading the endless ERTMS steam debate on here & elsewhere and some of the negative responses regarding the Machynlleth footbridge give me the impression that some stakeholder representatives are more concerned with steam trains for enthusiasts than they are in the needs of the general travelling public.

Of passengers on steam charters these days, enthusiasts are definitely in a minority.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Is the 'portable ERTMS cannot be fitted' an example of an 'it's out of the ordinary, it's too difficult, we can't be bothered, lets find a reason not to do it culture'?

Some people will suggest that certain parts of NR hierarchy DO NOT WANT STEAM SPECIALS' (or indeed any specials). Thus by making ERTMS impossible, or at least prohibitively expensive, and similarly by making the limited number of ERTMS fitted '37's unavailable, it avoids having to publicly state 'we don't want any specials on our line/s'.

 

[D1009]

Is the 'portable ERTMS cannot be fitted' an example of an 'it's out of the ordinary, it's too difficult, we can't be bothered, lets find a reason not to do it culture'?

Some people will suggest that certain parts of NR hierarchy DO NOT WANT STEAM SPECIALS' (or indeed any specials). Thus by making ERTMS impossible, or at least prohibitively expensive, and similarly by making the limited number of ERTMS fitted '37's unavailable, it avoids having to publicly state 'we don't want any specials on our line/s'.

Given the efforts to try to find a solution to the problem with ERTMS fitment to steam locos, which started when or even before ERTMS was first implemented, I find suggestions of NR conspiracy theories somewhat ridiculous.

 

[Llanigraham]

Is the 'portable ERTMS cannot be fitted' an example of an 'it's out of the ordinary, it's too difficult, we can't be bothered, lets find a reason not to do it culture'?

Some people will suggest that certain parts of NR hierarchy DO NOT WANT STEAM SPECIALS' (or indeed any specials). Thus by making ERTMS impossible, or at least prohibitively expensive, and similarly by making the limited number of ERTMS fitted '37's unavailable, it avoids having to publicly state 'we don't want any specials on our line/s'.

The problem seems to be that the portable ERTMS equipment currently doesn't "connect" with the braking systems of the trains, so the only "control" has to fall back onto a person. That isn't acceptable.

I know that there is very much the opposite attitude amongst the staff that work ERTMS; they would love to find a "work around" for this to work on the Cambrian. I also think you are very wrong about the attitude from the hierarchy, especially locally.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Is the 'portable ERTMS cannot be fitted' an example of an 'it's out of the ordinary, it's too difficult, we can't be bothered, lets find a reason not to do it culture'?

From the 6023 website

Also (and this has been another major job), regulations for main line certification include a host of devices that include the rail equivalent of a black box recorder - the On Train Monitoring Recorder (OTMR), a portable radio (GSM-R), and of course TPWS (Train Protection and Warning System). This has all meant a lot of wiring, and then re-wiring, every time specifications change.

Note the words 'major job', which I have put in bold. I think ETCS is even more complicated than TPWS. The ETCS equipment installed on the ATW class 158s is also quite big, it takes up at least one of the former vertical luggage stacks. Given they already have to squesse OTMR and TPWS equipment into steam locos intended for mainline use, there probably isn't much space left to squeese in full ETCS as well. Hence the idea of the 'portable' ETCS, which I assume would put most of the gear in a coach behind the loco, but I guess there is some issue with it not being the leading vehicle.

 

[craigybagel]

It might also be worth mentioning that on the 158s at least, ertms is on all the time, even when operating away from the Cambrian. It doesn't just get switched on at Shrewsbury.

 

[Llanigraham]

It might also be worth mentioning that on the 158s at least, ertms is on all the time, even when operating away from the Cambrian. It doesn't just get switched on at Shrewsbury.

And don't they know it at Woofferton!!

 

[craigybagel]

And don't they know it at Woofferton!!

Indeed. The signaller doesn't even look up now when we pull up outside

 

[Gareth Marston]

One aspect that I think we've all overlooked with the draft tt's is what happens with the unit that arrives Salop @ 1419 there's no additional train back to ABR till 1830 and the Ex Holyhead will have joined up with the detached unit on Platform 4 from the 1309 ex BHM INTL to go forward at 1433 as now.

There's time for it to be added to the 1533 from Salop and go to BHM INTL and return as part of the 1709 to Holyhead making the 1724 off New St six car. It's back @ Salop 1819.

I wonder if ATW will be advertising this as it's come of the back of WG money?

 

[PHILIPE]

One aspect that I think we've all overlooked with the draft tt's is what happens with the unit that arrives Salop @ 1419 there's no additional train back to ABR till 1830 and the Ex Holyhead will have joined up with the detached unit on Platform 4 from the 1309 ex BHM INTL to go forward at 1433 as now.

There's time for it to be added to the 1533 from Salop and go to BHM INTL and return as part of the 1709 to Holyhead making the 1724 off New St six car. It's back @ Salop 1819.

I wonder if ATW will be advertising this as it's come of the back of WG money?

I think that you'll find that the 09 30 Aberystwyth to Birmingham Intl will be back to 4 carriages with the withdrawal of the 08 07 from Machynlleth and the unit being absorbed elsewhere to cover the additionals. This means there will be no unit detaching at Shrewsbury on the 13 09 so the unit arriving at 14 19 will combine with the Holyhead.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The problem seems to be that the portable ERTMS equipment currently doesn't "connect" with the braking systems of the trains, so the only "control" has to fall back onto a person. That isn't acceptable.

I know that there is very much the opposite attitude amongst the staff that work ERTMS; they would love to find a "work around" for this to work on the Cambrian. I also think you are very wrong about the attitude from the hierarchy, especially locally.

I meant the hierarchy beyond Shrewsbury (from your location). WCR certainly seemed to think that certain people in NE region had a big downer on his steam trips.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I think that you'll find that the 09 30 Aberystwyth to Birmingham Intl will be back to 4 carriages with the withdrawal of the 08 07 from Machynlleth and the unit being absorbed elsewhere to cover the additionals. This means there will be no unit detaching at Shrewsbury on the 13 09 so the unit arriving at 14 19 will combine with the Holyhead.

0930 Hasn't been six car in months. Where would unit for 1829 to ABR come from if your right?

 

[PHILIPE]

0930 Hasn't been six car in months. Where would unit for 1829 to ABR come from if your right?

I should think it would be by splitting 17 09 Birmingham Intl to Llandudno at Shrewsbury. It currently splits and forms 19 24 Shrewsbury to Chester but from May, I fancy the 18 09 Birmingham to Aberystwyth will go forward from Shrewsbury with just 2 cars from Platform 3. The Pwllheli runs independently from Machynlleth now anyway so no problem there. The withdrawal of 2 cars and their capacity could be balanced out by the hourly service from Shrewsbury between 17 30 and 21 30.
Although this looks the probability, I wouldn't be inclined to trust "Open Train Times" at this time for platforming arrangements as the Timetable is still in process of preparation. The trains themselves is the important thing to have their input first before the Timetable Deadline (about a week on now) and Platforms and shunt moves are confirmed later so details should be more accurate when trains can be found in "Real Time Trains".

 

[D1009]

I meant the hierarchy beyond Shrewsbury (from your location). WCR certainly seemed to think that certain people in NE region had a big downer on his steam trips.

And what has that to do with the Cambrian?

 

[Llanigraham]

And what has that to do with the Cambrian?

Nothing, which is why I ignored it!

 

[Gareth Marston]

I should think it would be by splitting 17 09 Birmingham Intl to Llandudno at Shrewsbury. It currently splits and forms 19 24 Shrewsbury to Chester but from May, I fancy the 18 09 Birmingham to Aberystwyth will go forward from Shrewsbury with just 2 cars from Platform 3. The Pwllheli runs independently from Machynlleth now anyway so no problem there. The withdrawal of 2 cars and their capacity could be balanced out by the hourly service from Shrewsbury between 17 30 and 21 30.
Although this looks the probability, I wouldn't be inclined to trust "Open Train Times" at this time for platforming arrangements as the Timetable is still in process of preparation. The trains themselves is the important thing to have their input first before the Timetable Deadline (about a week on now) and Platforms and shunt moves are confirmed later so details should be more accurate when trains can be found in "Real Time Trains".

Looks like the 1409 ex INTL is still splitting at Llandudno Jnc on the tt's but how ate ATW resourcing it when as I said earlier the 0930 ex ABR has nor run as six car since last September?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Should have said 1309 ex INTL

 

[berneyarms]

That's odd - so what is happening the third set - is the train from Pwllheli terminating at Machynlleth and not joining to the two sets from Aberystwyth?

 

[Rhydgaled]

That's odd - so what is happening the third set - is the train from Pwllheli terminating at Machynlleth and not joining to the two sets from Aberystwyth?

And, if so, what does the set from Pwllheli then do?

 

[berneyarms]

And, if so, what does the set from Pwllheli then do?

I'm guessing that it goes into the depot for servicing.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

And what has that to do with the Cambrian?

Contrary to what you may think, or desire, The Cambrian does not exist in splendid isolation of the rest of NR and its procedures and protocols etc. What gets approved for use on The Cambrian experiment potentially gets wider approval.

If you're not up to debating issues, fine.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nothing, which is why I ignored it!

Ditto, reverting to type I see.

 

[berneyarms]

Contrary to what you may think, or desire, The Cambrian does not exist in splendid isolation of the rest of NR and its procedures and protocols etc. What gets approved for use on The Cambrian experiment potentially gets wider approval.

If you're not up to debating issues, fine.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Ditto, reverting to type I see.

To be fair - this thread is a discussion about the Cambrian lines and not elsewhere!

 

[Llanigraham]

Contrary to what you may think, or desire, The Cambrian does not exist in splendid isolation of the rest of NR and its procedures and protocols etc. What gets approved for use on The Cambrian experiment potentially gets wider approval.

If you're not up to debating issues, fine.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Ditto, reverting to type I see.

This thread is a discussion about the CAMBRIAN HOURLY SERVICE, not the rest of the country, therefore the points raised were of no relevance to the CAMBRIAN, therefore I ignored them. (Politely!!)

 

[GarethJohn]

When are they going to put the lifts in at Mach?
It is not acceptable for Wheelchair users to use the path under the bridge to change platforms or for getting tickets at the booking office for travel towards Shrewsbury as it is far to high and narrow, the road also frequently floods so passengers travelling to/from the coast and to/from Aberystwyth are going to have to change at Dovey Junction. How have they worked out which service is going to use the platform side track at Dovey Junction? Will better Waiting facilities be installed at Dovey Junction? In the summer when the Osprey returns a wait here will not be to bad but I wouldn't want to be stuck their for more than an hour during the winter.

 

[Greenback]

This thread is specifically about the Cambrian hourly service, so please keep on topic.

 

[GarethJohn]

This thread is specifically about the Cambrian hourly service, so please keep on topic.

Aberystwyth and Machynlleth are on the Cambrian.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

When are they going to put the lifts in at Mach?
It is not acceptable for Wheelchair users to use the path under the bridge to change platforms or for getting tickets at the booking office for travel towards Shrewsbury as it is far to high and narrow, the road also frequently floods so passengers travelling to/from the coast and to/from Aberystwyth are going to have to change at Dovey Junction. How have they worked out which service is going to use the platform side track at Dovey Junction? Will better Waiting facilities be installed at Dovey Junction? In the summer when the Osprey returns a wait here will not be to bad but I wouldn't want to be stuck their for more than an hour during the winter.

I think the issue is whether you need the footbridge with lifts, with its associated costs and visual intrusion, or whether you save that money by just using a single, accessible, platform at Machynlleth.

 

[GarethJohn]

I think the issue is whether you need the footbridge with lifts, with its associated costs and visual intrusion, or whether you save that money by just using a single, accessible, platform at Machynlleth.

The best platform for excursion trains and steam trains is the much longer platform 1 but the ticketing facilities are on Platform 2 if they are seriously considering reintroducing a regular steam train up the coast(yet I do not think they will ever be as frequent as the last time as they were pretty quite during the week) then they will have more need for both platforms when the hourly services commence, aesthetics at Machynlleth do not seem to be a NR concern, have you seen the new signalbox portacabins?
The WG have agreed to do something about Dovey Bridge with probably a new bridge and road layout, will the Train station area be included in the development? As I can hardly see them doing something without a new road going under/over the railway line in that area, or at least some significant development in regards to the access area for the''Eco units'' & the new NR compound that use the same access point as platform 1. As they will be funding both will they join up the thinking here?

 

[Greenback]

Aberystwyth and Machynlleth are on the Cambrian.

Sorry, my post was not aimed at you, but rather it was related tot he earlier discussion about ERTMS on other parts of the network.

However, this thread is specifcally about the hourly service, and not about infrastructure issues per se.

Feel free to start a new thread in the Infrastructure and Stations forum. I allowed your previous post on the grounds that interchange issues may be exacerbated the more frequent timetable and associated changes, but this isn't really the place to go into lifts and accessibility in detail.

 

[GarethJohn]

Sorry, my post was not aimed at you, but rather it was related tot he earlier discussion about ERTMS on other parts of the network.

However, this thread is specifcally about the hourly service, and not about infrastructure issues per se.

Feel free to start a new thread in the Infrastructure and Stations forum. I allowed your previous post on the grounds that interchange issues may be exacerbated the more frequent timetable and associated changes, but this isn't really the place to go into lifts and accessibility in detail.

The infrastructure with regards to Machynlleth is part of the discussion on the hourly service which is one reason why they are installing a lift at Machynlleth.
The whole upgrading of the Cambrian line has been to do with the hourly service. Aren't they related?