Class 442’s for ATW?

[pemma]

If or when, Wales and Borders ever receives any new stock, it needs more than an allocation on a one for one basis. There are many more needed to catch up on the dire shortage that has been accumulating over several years and now reached a critical position.

1 for 1 rarely works with trains having different carriage lengths and different length formations. For example, 10 x 153s can't be replaced by 5 x 150s without potentially causing problems.

 

[daikilo]

Yes, the North (of England) was badly served in terms of rail investment for many years... but then a strategic decision was taken that, if economic growth was to contonue at a UK-wide level, investment had to be re-directed from the overheated South-east corner to the under-invested North of England, and rail investment was key to that plan... In other words, a significant degree of strategic overview at a UK-wide level...
It seems that the people of Wales are being let down at this time, for whatever reason... (I'm thinking beyond 'leaves on the line' here..)..

Economic regeneration and transport go hand in hand, along with expansion of services such as training. The most efficient way of achieving that is to have a coherent long-term plan and access to the needed investment, which needs to be seen to be ring-fenced but not necessarily public. I believe the EU understands that with their regional development funds, but they will dry-up quickly so a replacement is needed very soon or degeneration will occur.

 

[D60]

Economic regeneration and transport go hand in hand, along with expansion of services such as training. The most efficient way of achieving that is to have a coherent long-term plan and access to the needed investment, which needs to be seen to be ring-fenced but not necessarily public. I believe the EU understands that with their regional development funds, but they will dry-up quickly so a replacement is needed very soon or degeneration will occur.

Interestingly, the economic driver behind aiming to unlock the unfulfilled economic potential of the North of England was faced and addressed at a strategic UK-Governmental level, rather than at the EU-regional level.. (NW England, Yorkshire & Humber, NE England, Wales, for instance, competing against each other for limited resources..)..
The UK Govt has always redistributed resources from one 'region' to another... Our governance, and our railways, are more fragmented now than in living memory.. (see 'Europe of Regions and Cities, EU Committee of Regions, EU Competition Rules in relation to Railways.. sorry can't post links on this phone..)..

 

[gareth950]

Wales is undoubtedly the most let down part of the UK when it comes to Rail now. It's the only part of the UK to still be subject to a 'no-growth' franchise let in 2003.
The problem in Wales is that no-one knows who's really in charge and accountable. ATW are sticking like glue to the letter of their no-growth contract and whenever challenged about their dire level of service roll out the same excuses - "our contract was let in 2003 on a no-growth basis - we are meeting and exceeding the conditions of our contract - we have 127 trains allocated to us and no more are available - it's Network Rail's fault the signals are failing - it's Network Rail's fault there are leaves on the line knackering the wheels..........."

The Welsh Govt pass the blame back to ATW; "ATW are responsible for providing sufficient service provision as set out in their contract" and the DFT; "Rail is not a devolved matter in Wales", the DFT pass the blame back to the Welsh Govt "The Welsh Govt are responsible for working with ATW to manage the current franchise". And NR say to the Welsh Govt - "the DFT are our paymasters, it's not our fault we haven't got the money".

From Chris Grayling's comments in Parliament on Tuesday (see the W&B thread) it seems the next franchise won't be as straight forward after all. He's not promising full control of it to the WG. Maybe the Welsh bits will be 'not for profit' and the bits that cross into England will be 'for profit', to fit in with each government's ideology.

The passengers are just stuck in the middle of all of this and just want to scream at everyone 'in charge' of the whole fiasco! Banging heads together is an understatement at the approach that is needed.

 

[PHILIPE]

1 for 1 rarely works with trains having different carriage lengths and different length formations. For example, 10 x 153s can't be replaced by 5 x 150s without potentially causing problems.

The DFT count in terms of number of carriages and numbers of seats

 

[berneyarms]

1 for 1 rarely works with trains having different carriage lengths and different length formations. For example, 10 x 153s can't be replaced by 5 x 150s without potentially causing problems.

I'm pretty sure the previous poster meant train sets rather than individual coaches, in other words ATW needs more trains.

If 442s replaced 175s on the Marches, then there needs to be a cascade that results in increases in capacity across the ATW network.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Wales is undoubtedly the most let down part of the UK when it comes to Rail now. It's the only part of the UK to still be subject to a 'no-growth' franchise let in 2003.
The problem in Wales is that no-one knows who's really in charge and accountable. ATW are sticking like glue to the letter of their no-growth contract and whenever challenged about their dire level of service roll out the same excuses - "our contract was let in 2003 on a no-growth basis - we are meeting and exceeding the conditions of our contract - we have 127 trains allocated to us and no more are available - it's Network Rail's fault the signals are failing - it's Network Rail's fault there are leaves on the line knackering the wheels..........."

The Welsh Govt pass the blame back to ATW; "ATW are responsible for providing sufficient service provision as set out in their contract" and the DFT; "Rail is not a devolved matter in Wales", the DFT pass the blame back to the Welsh Govt "The Welsh Govt are responsible for working with ATW to manage the current franchise". And NR say to the Welsh Govt - "the DFT are our paymasters, it's not our fault we haven't got the money".

From Chris Grayling's comments in Parliament on Tuesday (see the W&B thread) it seems the next franchise won't be as straight forward after all. He's not promising full control of it to the WG. Maybe the Welsh bits will be 'not for profit' and the bits that cross into England will be 'for profit', to fit in with each government's ideology.

The passengers are just stuck in the middle of all of this and just want to scream at everyone 'in charge' of the whole fiasco! Banging heads together is an understatement at the approach that is needed.

they all say "its the other boys fault"

 

[gareth950]

they all say "its the other boys fault"

Thanks for summing up what it took me 15 minutes and several paragraphs to write in one short sentence! :roll:

 

[tbtc]

Yes, the North (of England) was badly served in terms of rail investment for many years...

"Northern" services have been badly served in rail investment for many years (albeit an increase in the numbers of 1980s DMUs, so an improvement in "quantity" if not exactly an improvement in "quality").

But "the North" has seen 170s, 175s, 180s, 185s, 220s, 221s and 390s (plus a few 222s, depending on whether you draw the boundaries) since privatisation, which add up to a decent number.

So, like Wales, there's been investment in the medium/ long distance services (like the W&B 175s, Voyagers to Holyhead, 180s initially to Cardiff) but little investment in "local trains for local people".

The difference is that people often confuse "the North" (the area) and "Northern" (the franchise).

Wales is undoubtedly the most let down part of the UK when it comes to Rail now. It's the only part of the UK to still be subject to a 'no-growth' franchise let in 2003.
The problem in Wales is that no-one knows who's really in charge and accountable. ATW are sticking like glue to the letter of their no-growth contract and whenever challenged about their dire level of service roll out the same excuses - "our contract was let in 2003 on a no-growth basis - we are meeting and exceeding the conditions of our contract - we have 127 trains allocated to us and no more are available - it's Network Rail's fault the signals are failing - it's Network Rail's fault there are leaves on the line knackering the wheels..........."

I appreciate the frustration, but Wales & Borders is a significantly loss making franchise - fare income on existing services is only going to cover around half of costs on existing services - so even a reasonably successful improvement (like the increase on the Cambrian) is going to lose the franchise money.

Blame privatisation/ greedy ROSCOs/ track access charges/ inefficiencies/ nasty private companies creaming money away for shareholders etc, but the economics mean that Arriva are going to lose money for every extra DMU they lease.

So I can't blame Arriva here - they simply have no incentive to invest, given the heavy subsidies needed just to run existing services. Blame the politicians who need to dip their hands in their pockets to pay for these services (but would rather daydream about a shiny new "Metro" or argue about shifting boundaries than do anything boring like fund additional carriages on existing services).

A "no growth" arrangement seems appropriate on something like Wales & Borders - since any increases would need funded by Westminster/ Welsh Assembly - so allows them to fund any incremental benefits - it's common for contracting out organisations (Serco etc) to take on a contract to maintain the existing level of provision which then gives scope for other increases to be paid for.

 

[Blindtraveler]

So, hypothetically here, if the core Marches and maybe North Welsh Coast become loco hauled, it woant free up enough to retire Pacers but what stocks likely to go where? i assume 158s stay put on Cambrian but 175s on Holyhead West Midlands and on routes West of Swansea?
All 150s on Valleys and Cardif/Swansea local workings and double dogboxes on likes of HOW?

 

[Gareth Marston]

"Northern" services have been badly served in rail investment for many years (albeit an increase in the numbers of 1980s DMUs, so an improvement in "quantity" if not exactly an improvement in "quality").

But "the North" has seen 170s, 175s, 180s, 185s, 220s, 221s and 390s (plus a few 222s, depending on whether you draw the boundaries) since privatisation, which add up to a decent number.

So, like Wales, there's been investment in the medium/ long distance services (like the W&B 175s, Voyagers to Holyhead, 180s initially to Cardiff) but little investment in "local trains for local people".

The difference is that people often confuse "the North" (the area) and "Northern" (the franchise).



I appreciate the frustration, but Wales & Borders is a significantly loss making franchise - fare income on existing services is only going to cover around half of costs on existing services - so even a reasonably successful improvement (like the increase on the Cambrian) is going to lose the franchise money.

Blame privatisation/ greedy ROSCOs/ track access charges/ inefficiencies/ nasty private companies creaming money away for shareholders etc, but the economics mean that Arriva are going to lose money for every extra DMU they lease.

So I can't blame Arriva here - they simply have no incentive to invest, given the heavy subsidies needed just to run existing services. Blame the politicians who need to dip their hands in their pockets to pay for these services (but would rather daydream about a shiny new "Metro" or argue about shifting boundaries than do anything boring like fund additional carriages on existing services).

A "no growth" arrangement seems appropriate on something like Wales & Borders - since any increases would need funded by Westminster/ Welsh Assembly - so allows them to fund any incremental benefits - it's common for contracting out organisations (Serco etc) to take on a contract to maintain the existing level of provision which then gives scope for other increases to be paid for.

agree/disagree with you there - if you base the whole economy of SE Wales around commuting into Cardiff you cant expect it drive through the Coryton Interchange every morning and evening. You need an efficient public transport system and you have to pay for it centrally to some extent and not look at it in blinkered balance sheet exercise for the TOC...

We know that there are manufactures prepared to build DMU's and the WG could have at any time in the last 15 years traded in one of its many bypass/dual carriageway/link road schemes which are all away from the central Cardiff core and got a small fleet of DMU's -say 40-50 carriages and today's crisis on the Welsh rail network would largely be averted even if some folk still were in Pacers.

That would have been strategic thinking looking at the wider economic picture of making the city region work.

 

[ruthtom010]

Under a fifth of jobs in South East Wales are located in the centre of Cardiff......

 

[D60]

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to more threads about future uses of 442s"

What we learn here from history, is of a railway that once was able to re-deploy displaced resources from elsewhere on the railway to fulfil a service need (see previous posts from a couple of pages ago..)..
But now, whether for reasons of fragmentation within the railway, fragmentation of governance, over-dependence on 'the market', stifling contracts, the ample opportunity for blame transference amongst all players and participants at all levels... resulting in a population ill-served by all involved...

 

[Gareth Marston]

Under a fifth of jobs in South East Wales are located in the centre of Cardiff......

SE Wales like everywhere else has business parks just off motorway junctions with inadequate car parking and virtually non existent public transport options.
The M4 is clogged up with relativity short distance commuting hop on hop off journeys including many who have to fight their way around the Coryton Interchange - if folk going into central Cardiff had better public transport it would free space on the roads for those others.

 

[PHILIPE]

they all say "its the other boys fault"

And the Minister (Ken Skates) blames Netwrok Rail for everything. Hasn't he ever heard of the DFT ?

 

[59CosG95]

And the Minister (Ken Skates) blames Netwrok Rail for everything. Hasn't he ever heard of the DFT ?

And he calls himself a politician :roll:

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If ATW did get then 442s, is there any guarantee that they'd keep the stock that the 442s would displace?

 

[gareth950]

If ATW did get then 442s, is there any guarantee that they'd keep the stock that the 442s would displace?

There would be no point in getting the 442s in the first place if they didn't!

 

[berneyarms]

If ATW did get then 442s, is there any guarantee that they'd keep the stock that the 442s would displace?

I think that's the point people are trying to make - they need extra trains!

 

[nowinaminute]

Having grown up in Southampton and having moved to Bridgend in my 20s it would certainly be a sight seeing 442s in action here!

I don't get the train much, maybe once a week, but on two occasions I have been completely unable to get onto an Arriva train due to overcrowding. Nothing worse than being on the platform with loads of other people and seeing a 175 pull up that has already long reached "standing room only" point.

 

[craigybagel]

There would be no point in getting the 442s in the first place if they didn't!

I think that's the point people are trying to make - they need extra trains!

5 car 442s would still be better than 3 car 175s though. Yes, more stock is needed, a cascade down to the valleys in particular, but if all that happened was a unit for unit replacement that would still be a bonus. There is only one booked working of multiple 175s in service per day (and even that is only a 4 car) so they wouldn't be able to use them to replace carriage for carriage.

 

[tbtc]

As far as I am aware, 23m stock can't go further up the Valleys than Radyr (?), which means that any plan to put 442s on long distance services wouldn't free up many trains suitable on the busy diagrams through Cardiff Queen Street (158s, 175s).

So, more capacity = great (albeit the complications of some W&B diagrams, given the interworking at Shrewsbury, portion working etc), but I don't know that it is going to free up the right sort of units.

agree/disagree with you there - if you base the whole economy of SE Wales around commuting into Cardiff you cant expect it drive through the Coryton Interchange every morning and evening. You need an efficient public transport system and you have to pay for it centrally to some extent and not look at it in blinkered balance sheet exercise for the TOC...

We know that there are manufactures prepared to build DMU's and the WG could have at any time in the last 15 years traded in one of its many bypass/dual carriageway/link road schemes which are all away from the central Cardiff core and got a small fleet of DMU's -say 40-50 carriages and today's crisis on the Welsh rail network would largely be averted even if some folk still were in Pacers.

That would have been strategic thinking looking at the wider economic picture of making the city region work.

I agree about a well funded public transport network - don't get me wrong - I just think that the economics of Wales & Borders mean that it's never going to be profitable for Arriva to invest in additional stock so I don't think they should get the blame that they do receive for not investing further (than the franchise commitments).

For all that it's a "no growth" franchise, there has been growth (e.g. the Ebbw Vale line opened), it's just that "the state" needs to dip into its pocket to pay for that (we can argue all night about whether that should be Westminster/ Cardiff Bay etc).

In hindsight, a few dozen DMU carriages would have been well worth building for the Valley Lines (nothing expensive, nothing flashy, no high speed required), or electrification to have happened by now. I don't know whether the expectation of electrification over the past five years has stopped any "short term" investment in the area. But, given the loss making franchise, the responsibility for funding those should be with Cardiff Bay (or Westminster).

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to more threads about future uses of 442s"

What we learn here from history, is of a railway that once was able to re-deploy displaced resources from elsewhere on the railway to fulfil a service need (see previous posts from a couple of pages ago..)..
But now, whether for reasons of fragmentation within the railway, fragmentation of governance, over-dependence on 'the market', stifling contracts, the ample opportunity for blame transference amongst all players and participants at all levels... resulting in a population ill-served by all involved...

I know that enthusiasts like to paint the BR days in black/white ("if BR were around today then they'd be wonderful/ terrible), but I honestly don't know what BR would do with 442s.

They are partly 1960s stock, 23m long coaches (so non-standard in the Southern Region), restricted to Third Rail (unless loco hauled), narrow doored, would cost a few quid to upgrade to 2020 standards - under a "fragmented" or "unified" railway these would be oddball trains.

We've debated them a thousand times on here and nobody has found any real solutions for them - they are the wrong type of trains (regardless of whether we lived under a privatised or nationalised railway).

 

[D60]

In reply to the last section of tbtc's response above...
It's not about harking back to the BR era, or even about 'privatisation' vs 'nationalisation'.. (isn't Network Rail effectively state-owned? And isn't Deutsche-Bahn effectively state-owned? And even the period of loco-hauled operation referred to in the retrospective linked to in KrusAragon's post 2 or 3 pages back, was in the 'post-privatisation' era..)..
No, it's about a chronic rolling stock crisis, passengers being failed, rolling stock resources standing idle, that were at one point considered as suitable for another TOC... And no-one having the wit (or even 'strategic overview') to pull things together to make things happen.. while instead they all find excuses, transfer blame, and fail to act..

 

[krus_aragon]

The North has had it as bad (though obviously Northern is now ordering additional rolling stock and ATW is not).

And, equally obviously (I hope) Northern is a newly-let franchise, whereas ATW is not (yet).

 

[Bletchleyite]

We've debated them a thousand times on here and nobody has found any real solutions for them - they are the wrong type of trains (regardless of whether we lived under a privatised or nationalised railway).

Though that is more if you consider them as "trains" and not as the Mk3 shell on which they are based. In that form they are Mk3 coaches with most of the problems solved - e.g. power doors. And all the Mk3 passenger coaches are in use, near enough, so there is demand for them.

 

[43096]

I know that enthusiasts like to paint the BR days in black/white ("if BR were around today then they'd be wonderful/ terrible), but I honestly don't know what BR would do with 442s.

They'd probably still be operating the duties they were built for. BR would never have had the funding to displace them from the Bournemouth line.

 

[Envoy]

What ATW need is some Class 180 Adelante trains for the long distance routes - such as Carmarthen to Manchester? GWR are releasing some of these in summer 2017 and transferring them to Hull Trains & Grand Central.
Surely, with the desperate situation on Wales & Borders, they have a greater need for these trains than the two east coast operations? Furthermore, they are related to the class 175 Coradia trains so perhaps one coach could be removed from the 5 car Adelantes to add to the 2 coach Coradias?

With more of the 175’s freed up to operate say Newport to Fishguard and Maesteg to Cheltenham, it would make available some 150’s for the valleys and perhaps even a 158 or two for the Cambrian > Birmingham route.

If Hull Trains & Grand Central are in such need for new trains, surely they could be given priority to get their order the Hitachi AT200’s delivered ahead of those for GWR?

 

[CosherB]

What ATW need is some Class 180 Adelante trains for the long distance routes - such as Carmarthen to Manchester? GWR are releasing some of these in summer 2017 and transferring them to Hull Trains & Grand Central.
Surely, with the desperate situation on Wales & Borders, they have a greater need for these trains than the two east coast operations? Furthermore, they are related to the class 175 Coradia trains so perhaps one coach could be removed from the 5 car Adelantes to add to the 2 coach Coradias?

With more of the 175’s freed up to operate say Newport to Fishguard and Maesteg to Cheltenham, it would make available some 150’s for the valleys and perhaps even a 158 or two for the Cambrian > Birmingham route.

If Hull Trains & Grand Central are in such need for new trains, surely they could be given priority to get their order the Hitachi AT200’s delivered ahead of those for GWR?

175s and 180s may well be badged as part of the same 'family', but they are very different beasts underneath.

 

[sprinterguy]

What ATW need is some Class 180 Adelante trains for the long distance routes - such as Carmarthen to Manchester? GWR are releasing some of these in summer 2017 and transferring them to Hull Trains & Grand Central.
Surely, with the desperate situation on Wales & Borders, they have a greater need for these trains than the two east coast operations?

Technical differences as pointed out by CosherB aside, I agree that it seems a shame that all the 180s are being placed with open access operators when they would seem ideal for boosting capacity on ATW's franchised regional operations on the Welsh Marches and North Wales Coast routes from Manchester.

 

[D60]

What ATW need is some Class 180 Adelante trains for the long distance routes - such as Carmarthen to Manchester? GWR are releasing some of these in summer 2017 and transferring them to Hull Trains & Grand Central.
Surely, with the desperate situation on Wales & Borders, they have a greater need for these trains than the two east coast operations? Furthermore, they are related to the class 175 Coradia trains so perhaps one coach could be removed from the 5 car Adelantes to add to the 2 coach Coradias?

With more of the 175’s freed up to operate say Newport to Fishguard and Maesteg to Cheltenham, it would make available some 150’s for the valleys and perhaps even a 158 or two for the Cambrian > Birmingham route.

If Hull Trains & Grand Central are in such need for new trains, surely they could be given priority to get their order the Hitachi AT200’s delivered ahead of those for GWR?

Tbtc, above, suggests that 442s are 'oddball trains'.... Well if 442s are oddball trains, then so are 175/180s... Yet no-one is suggesting that they should be sidelined during the current rolling stock crisis, nor that the railway could manage without them while passengers are being left on platforms...
Yes, any cascade of 442s (or even 180s) to ATW would necessarily need to be a fairly complex cascade to best release stock to where they are best needed... Conceivably involving services of a neighbouring TOC into S.Wales (GWR), services beyond the borders of Wales (to Manchester, to Bristol and beyond..).. In other words, a 'bigger picture' overview that current structures on the railway, or in governance, seem incapable of...
Current fragmented organisational structures are failing passengers, both on the railway and in governance..