Class 442’s for ATW?

[59CosG95]

Well theirs no easy fit in terms of deploying them and shuffling the existing fleet in relation to their depots. Deploying them on Cardiff to Manchester will at least allow the Holyhead to Cardiff's to interlink with Cardiff to West Wales diagrams to get the 175's back to Chester, cutting back the Holyhead to Birmingham to Chester and extending the Crewe to Chester shuttle to Holyhead using 175s might be another option.

Well, us Brummies are going to feel very hard done by!

 

[gimmea50anyday]

No ATW used class 37's hauling 4 mark 2's which did the same stopping patterns as the dmu's however only ran Rhymney - Cardiff Central and didn't do the section to Penarth most likely due to lack of run round

50's were used on some welsh valley services. Funnily enough some 50's have been made available for mainline use....

 

[1179_Clee2]

IF ATW took on Class 442's what are we looking at and how many?
ATW currently use Class 67's and MK 3b DVT are we looking at pure loco hauled or push pull? The 442's could be converted to AAR multiple working to work with 67's but at what cost, would it be better to use DVT's?
Arriva or DB have 12 MK 3b DVT's stored plus 3 in use so could use 15 and 15 442's? would you continue to use the Gerald?
Are we looking at 15 rakes of 67 4 car 442 (minus motor coach) and DVT ?

 

[krus_aragon]

IF ATW took on Class 442's what are we looking at and how many?
ATW currently use Class 67's and MK 3b DVT are we looking at pure loco hauled or push pull? The 442's could be converted to AAR multiple working to work with 67's but at what cost, would it be better to use DVT's?
Arriva or DB have 12 MK 3b DVT's stored plus 3 in use so could use 15 and 15 442's? would you continue to use the Gerald?
Are we looking at 15 rakes of 67 4 car 442 (minus motor coach) and DVT ?

The issue with pure loco-hauled is reversals and/or running around. Hence why the Cardiff-Holyhead had to be top-and-tailed in its pre-DVT years: running aroung and recoupling for the reversal at Chester wasn't viable. This issue would raise its head on any Cardiff-Holyhead 442 drags.

Swansea/Cardiff to Manchester is a straight run loco-hauled, but once you pull into Picaddilly's main platforms you've got the issue of releasing the loco at the front. From the sectional appending only platform 5 retains a run-round loop, which would limit operational flexibility.

Holyhead/Llandudno to Manchester would be more viable, as having pulled into the through platforms at Piccadilly you can carry on ahead to a goods/freight loop to run around. Holyhead is quiet enoughthat using the run-around loops there won't be an issue, but I'm not certain if the run-aroung points at Llandudno station were retained when it was last renovated. Regardless, the fact that Arriva use a DVT on their Manchester-Holyhead/Llandudno loco-hauled diagram shows that they'd prefer not to run around if possible.

 

[gareth950]

Crew training alone would take longer than that, even if the stock was ready to go RIGHT NOW.

This article was front page of the South Wales Echo (the regional newspaper for Cardiff and the Valleys) yesterday with the headline 'New Year, New Hope for Rail Passengers'. 'Former Gatwick Express trains could help allieviate ATWs overcrowding problems'. That headline leads a layman to believe to expect improvements to come in the new year.
Are you saying if this proposal gets the go-ahead the earliest 442s could be in passenger service in Wales would be at the December 2017 timetable change?

It seems that article was writen more to put pressure on ATW and the WG rather than being based on any facts.

 

[Gareth Marston]

This article was front page of the South Wales Echo (the regional newspaper for Cardiff and the Valleys) yesterday with the headline 'New Year, New Hope for Rail Passengers'. 'Former Gatwick Express trains could help allieviate ATWs overcrowding problems'. That headline leads a layman to believe to expect improvements to come in the new year.
Are you saying if this proposal gets the go-ahead the earliest 442s could be in passenger service in Wales would be at the December 2017 timetable change?

It seems that article was writen more to put pressure on ATW and the WG rather than being based on any facts.

Well WG needs a good kick up the backside.

 

[6Gman]

This looks very worrying, wibble on this forum MUST NOT become reality.

This year everything that supposedly won't/can't happen is.

Class 47 - hauling 442s - driven by Donald Trump!

 

[jopsuk]

surely for a Weymouth unit the right (yet not quite) loco is to go raiding heritage railways for 33/1s?

 

[RichmondCommu]

What loco class would probably get used to haul it?

Class 20s.

 

[sprinterguy]

IF ATW took on Class 442's what are we looking at and how many?
Are we looking at 15 rakes of 67 4 car 442 (minus motor coach) and DVT ?

I'd be surprised if ATW were interested in fielding that many sets. Note that contemporary capacity increases using hauled stock are quite limited in their application, notably within the DB fold (Class 68s with Chiltern, HSTs with Crosscountry, class 67s with ATW, class 37s on the Cumbrian Coast inherited from the previous Northern franchise).

For instance, six 442 rakes would allow ATW to replace 11 x 2-car class 175s with 11 x 3-car class 175s, and extend 5 x 3-car diagrams to 4-car using pairs of 2-car class 175s, leaving an additional spare 2-car class 175.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What's the business case?
It it tactical (to get ATW over a stock crisis of low availability, or to provide a window for TSI upgrades), or is it strategic (long term usage in the new franchise).
If the former, it will be a handful of sets to allow a few 175s or other stock to be dealt with in turn, before returning to their normal work.
If the latter, WG will surely wait for the competitive bids for the new franchise (against a spec they still have to write, and against a devolution deal with DfT that still has to happen).

The operation will be costly with loco haulage.
It took ATW years to get its 2 LHCS sets into service, and the weak points were the availability of modified DVTs to avoid top and tail working.
I'd expect a minimal 442 solution until the next franchise deal is agreed.
It's really up to the ROSCO to make it work, if they want to re-lease the 442s.

 

[Gareth Marston]

What's the business case?
It it tactical (to get ATW over a stock crisis of low availability, or to provide a window for TSI upgrades), or is it strategic (long term usage in the new franchise).
If the former, it will be a handful of sets to allow a few 175s or other stock to be dealt with in turn, before returning to their normal work.
If the latter, WG will surely wait for the competitive bids for the new franchise (against a spec they still have to write, and against a devolution deal with DfT that still has to happen).

The operation will be costly with loco haulage.
It took ATW years to get its 2 LHCS sets into service, and the weak points were the availability of modified DVTs to avoid top and tail working.
I'd expect a minimal 442 solution until the next franchise deal is agreed.
It's really up to the ROSCO to make it work, if they want to re-lease the 442s.

The ROSCO looks like its invested in this and wants to find a use for them. The Welsh Government has sat on its hands for years hoping someone else will find a solution to overcrowding for them - which of course hasn't happened - now with TSI looming its crunch time. Whethehr they act is another thing.

 

[craigybagel]

Are you saying if this proposal gets the go-ahead the earliest 442s could be in passenger service in Wales would be at the December 2017 timetable change?
.

If you needed to wait until a timetable change to introduce them then yes that would be my own expectation. Regardless of whether or not you use them on North Wales or the Marches, there aren't enough loco trained crews available to work them at present.

To be fair though - given that surely there'd need to be some degree of rewiring done to the units I can't see how they could be made ready by May anyway.

IF ATW took on Class 442's what are we looking at and how many?
ATW currently use Class 67's and MK 3b DVT are we looking at pure loco hauled or push pull? The 442's could be converted to AAR multiple working to work with 67's but at what cost, would it be better to use DVT's?
Arriva or DB have 12 MK 3b DVT's stored plus 3 in use so could use 15 and 15 442's? would you continue to use the Gerald?
Are we looking at 15 rakes of 67 4 car 442 (minus motor coach) and DVT ?

Nobody knows. This whole article is nothing more than wild speculation. If there are solid plans in place, they've done a good job of keeping it secret, even from staff!

Well, us Brummies are going to feel very hard done by!

It's already quicker to make a double connection at Crewe and Chester to get from Birmingham to North Wales then it is to stay on the ATW service. Running North Wales services to Crewe is much more sensible and useful than sending them a backwards way to Birmingham.

 

[Welshman]

It's already quicker to make a double connection at Crewe and Chester to get from Birmingham to North Wales then it is to stay on the ATW service. Running North Wales services to Crewe is much more sensible and useful than sending them a backwards way to Birmingham.

As indeed they already do on a Sunday

 

[sprinterguy]

It's already quicker to make a double connection at Crewe and Chester to get from Birmingham to North Wales then it is to stay on the ATW service.

Which rather overlooks the value and convenience of a direct train, especially for infrequent travellers, those with luggage and the mobility impaired. I can appreciate terminating the Birmingham service at Chester, though, if it increases capacity overall (More 6-car 158 workings out of Birmingham as a result? Some 4-car peak time workings are very crowded at present) and serves an operational need.

 

[northwichcat]

What's the business case?

Depends on the exact proposal.

How many 442s would be acquired?
Would any DMUs currently with ATW be subleased or go off-lease if they acquired 442s?
Is the plan to use the 442s in their current condition or to refresh/refurbish them?
Would the 442s remain as 5 car or could they have a carriage removed?
Would there be any ticketing changes like introducing more Advance tickets on services which are booked to be larger 442s?
Are there any clearance issues/platform length issues with using them on the proposed routes?

It was reported Kelios and Stagecoach both produced a viable business case for using 442s on North TPE but First found alternatives to have a better business case. Although, First haven't got their 2 x interim mk3 sets that they were supposed to have available for service by now!

 

[craigybagel]

Which rather overlooks the value and convenience of a direct train, especially for infrequent travellers, those with luggage and the mobility impaired. I can appreciate terminating the Birmingham service at Chester, though, if it increases capacity overall (More 6-car 158 workings out of Birmingham as a result? Some 4-car peak time workings are very crowded at present) and serves an operational need.

True, but that direct train would be of value to a lot more people if it was going to Crewe instead of Birmingham.

Of course, what we really need are the old Holyhead-Birmingham via Stafford services back....

 

[northwichcat]

Could this 442 idea be partly the result of TOCs looking at alternatives following electrification delays? Northern need GWR's Sprinters but GWR still need them. Solution 442s replace ATW's 158s allowing much needed extra capacity for Manchester to South Wales services at the same time as freeing up Sprinters for another TOC?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

True, but that direct train would be of value to a lot more people if it was going to Crewe instead of Birmingham.
Of course, what we really need are the old Holyhead-Birmingham via Stafford services back....

Diverting the Holyhead-Stafford-Birminghams via Shrewsbury and combining them with the Chester-Shrewsbury-Birmingham service was a cheapskate way of retaining a through service while the freed up stock was diverted to Manchester-Cardiff.
The LM 2tph Birmingham-Liverpools are now using the Crewe-Birmingham paths.
Hopefully something better will come in the next franchise.

 

[craigybagel]

Could this 442 idea be partly the result of TOCs looking at alternatives following electrification delays? Northern need GWR's Sprinters but GWR still need them. Solution 442s replace ATW's 158s allowing much needed extra capacity for Manchester to South Wales services at the same time as freeing up Sprinters for another TOC?

Except that all bar about 3 158s are used on the Cambrian each day and can't be replaced.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Diverting the Holyhead-Stafford-Birminghams via Shrewsbury and combining them with the Chester-Shrewsbury-Birmingham service was a cheapskate way of retaining a through service while the freed up stock was diverted to Manchester-Cardiff.
The LM 2tph Birmingham-Liverpools are now using the Crewe-Birmingham paths.
Hopefully something better will come in the next franchise.

Indeed - although with the slow lines from Stafford-Crewe now fit for 100mph running and with Virgin running one fewer service Wolverhampton-Birmingham each hour that might free things up.
Again though, it's something that would be nice to see but almost certainly never will actually happen.

 

[gareth950]

Could this 442 idea be partly the result of TOCs looking at alternatives following electrification delays? Northern need GWR's Sprinters but GWR still need them. Solution 442s replace ATW's 158s allowing much needed extra capacity for Manchester to South Wales services at the same time as freeing up Sprinters for another TOC?

ATW currently has a DMU capacity crisis. Severe overcrowding is causing people in the morning and evening peaks to be left behind at stations, especially in and around Cardiff on 2 car local services. Any Sprinters freed up by using 442s are needed elsewhere in Wales to strengthen existing services. ATWs 150/2s are desperately needed in the valleys as they are the only suitable stock available to strengthen services there.
Add in the mix the fact that none of the Welsh fleet have had or have any plans in place for getting disability mods yet, so stock will need to be withdrawn and sent away very soon.

The article this thread has been based on suggested ATW getting 442s in addition to its current fleet, not being used to replace DMUs to be sent to English TOCs that already have cascade and disability mods plans in place and have done very well in securing extra DMU stock in the coming years compared to Wales.

 

[6Gman]

True, but that direct train would be of value to a lot more people if it was going to Crewe instead of Birmingham.

Of course, what we really need are the old Holyhead-Birmingham via Stafford services back....

Yes, yes - give that man a medal!

 

[Gareth Marston]

Could this 442 idea be partly the result of TOCs looking at alternatives following electrification delays? Northern need GWR's Sprinters but GWR still need them. Solution 442s replace ATW's 158s allowing much needed extra capacity for Manchester to South Wales services at the same time as freeing up Sprinters for another TOC?

All 24 ATW 158's are ETCS fitted and cycle back to home depot which is Machynlleth - there not moving elsewhere.

Were pushing for replacement franchise to have all 24 on BHM INTL- Shrewsbury- Crewe-Chester-Cambrian diagrams with some 3 car sets with all Salop to Brum diagrams 5 or 6 car.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Diverting the Holyhead-Stafford-Birminghams via Shrewsbury and combining them with the Chester-Shrewsbury-Birmingham service was a cheapskate way of retaining a through service while the freed up stock was diverted to Manchester-Cardiff.
The LM 2tph Birmingham-Liverpools are now using the Crewe-Birmingham paths.
Hopefully something better will come in the next franchise.

its killed growth both passenger numbers and revenue on North Wales/West Midlands flow.

 

[northwichcat]

The article this thread has been based on suggested ATW getting 442s in addition to its current fleet, not being used to replace DMUs to be sent to English TOCs that already have cascade and disability mods plans in place and have done very well in securing extra DMU stock in the coming years compared to Wales.

The only official quotes in that article are

Arriva - “We continue to work closely with the Welsh Government to explore all available options to secure extra trains for our network and are striving to identify solutions that could deliver additional short-term capacity.”

Angel Trains -"In total, Angel Trains has 18 five-car Class 442 units that will be available for lease, some of which are already stored at Ely.”

With some speculation from John Davies which isn't any more trustworthy than some of the posts on here.

10 x 5 car 442s joining and 5 x 2 car Sprinters being subleased out until the end of the current franchise wouldn't contradict either of those quotes. That would be 5 additional trains and 30 additional carriages.

You mention 'English TOCs' having rolling stock plans but they are set to be delayed by 9 months (September 2017 the originally planned date) and it's ATW's services which will get more and more overcrowded if the Northern Connect services to Chester don't start next year. I imagine the Northern Connect Chester services would be 5th or 6th in the list of priorities for Northern. You don't need to get all huffy and puffy about the suggestion of two Arriva companies working together to find an interim solution which benefits both companies.

 

[D60]

Not being fully up to speed with how it all works (or doesn't) nowadays in this age of a fragmented railway and fragmented governmental structures and decision-making responsibilities and budgets across the devolved nations/regions... Is anyone still taking a strategic overview at a UK-wide level, of available rolling stock resources and where best to deploy them..?
DfT, WAG, TOCs, ROSCOs, ATOC/RDG, 'city regions' and local govt, passenger focus groups..?
How are they all interacting, what are the relative positions of the DfT and WAG in this instance - especially as the services being discussed here are to a degree 'cross-border' in nature...?
The question of 'a strategic overview of rolling stock resources and where best to deploy them' could equally apply to the cl.230 discussion as to possible cl.442 deployment, but in this instance we have the added complication of devolved decision-making...
Maybe the question belongs in a different thread..? I'm guessing it's probably all been discussed at great length already before..!

 

[WatcherZero]

No, No one is giving overall strategic leadership.

The Rail Delivery Group is responsible for providing industry guidance on rolling stock forecasted requirements and retirements from the present up to 30 years ahead through its Long term passenger rolling stock strategy.

 

[43096]

No, No one is giving overall strategic leadership.

The Rail Delivery Group is responsible for providing industry guidance on rolling stock forecasted requirements and retirements from the present up to 30 years ahead.

RDG is an utterly pointless, clueless organisation, to the point where some of its own members wonder why they have to fund it!

 

[Gareth Marston]

Not being fully up to speed with how it all works (or doesn't) nowadays in this age of a fragmented railway and fragmented governmental structures and decision-making responsibilities and budgets across the devolved nations/regions... Is anyone still taking a strategic overview at a UK-wide level, of available rolling stock resources and where best to deploy them..?
DfT, WAG, TOCs, ROSCOs, ATOC/RDG, 'city regions' and local govt, passenger focus groups..?
How are they all interacting, what are the relative positions of the DfT and WAG in this instance - especially as the services being discussed here are to a degree 'cross-border' in nature...?
The question of 'a strategic overview of rolling stock resources and where best to deploy them' could equally apply to the cl.230 discussion as to possible cl.442 deployment, but in this instance we have the added complication of devolved decision-making...
Maybe the question belongs in a different thread..? I'm guessing it's probably all been discussed at great length already before..!

There was some vague hope that cascades caused by electric action would be the magic answer , then there was foist a bi mode on the TOC whenever you can franchise deals and beyond that the office cat at Marsahm St will have to be consulted if she's seen anything.:-x

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's being left to "the market".
Except when it really matters, like IEP, Crossrail, Thameslink and (to come) HS2.
The "market" is rigged by the DfT in terms of franchise renewal, when there seems to be a "winner takes all" policy, last seen at TPE, Northern and East Anglia over the last year.
It isn't quite Wales & Borders' turn yet, hence the speculation (and panic).
West Midlands and East Midlands come next, both of which could alter the rolling stock pool of interest to W&B (though probably not 442s).

The DfT, if not the WG, would say that passenger growth has been lower in Wales than in most other regions, so what's the problem until 2018, when a new franchise starts?
There isn't really a history of government (DfT, WG or SG) opening their wallets before they have to at franchise renewal, when they get a long-term deal with the winner.
Hand-to-mouth deals are very expensive, which is why the TOCs and ROSCOs like them.

 

[northwichcat]

The "market" is rigged by the DfT in terms of franchise renewal, when there seems to be a "winner takes all" policy, last seen at TPE, Northern and East Anglia over the last year.

If it hadn't been for the winning Anglia bid involving replacing all their diesel trains, Northern would have been the last franchise for a while to take on a significant number of cascaded diesel trains.