• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

CAF Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

VT 390

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2018
Messages
1,366
Why not just terminate the Aberystwyth/Pwllheli services at Shrewsbury then any stock could operate Shrewsbury to Birmingham. I know that some passengers would not want to loose there through service but from my experience when I have travelled this route in full very few people were travelling through Shrewsbury with most people joining or leaving the service there.
Also if it meant having a more reliable service and more seats it would make the change at Shrewsbury worth it and at Shrewsbury it would be easy to change platforms as long as the connecting Birmingham services used any platform other than 3.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Jez

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2011
Messages
1,231
Location
Neath
Milford/Carmarthen-Manchester I would class as regional express as well as Cardiff-Holyhead, Birmingham-Holyhead and Manchester-Llandudno. This is why these are all mostly booked for 175 and/or 158s. Although they all at times call at stations which should not really be part of regional express services, especially on the North Wales Coast (due to not really having a stopper service like Swanline/Crewe Local which picks up the smaller stations most of the day) and some Manchester-South Wales services mainly in the morning and evening. Some Manchester to South Wales in particular pick up Crewe local stations and Swansea-Cardiff local stations as well as Craven Arms, Church Stretton, Pontypool etc which should not be regional express but stopper services. Even Cardiff-Nottingham pick up some smaller stations at times.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
From Modern Railways: December 2018 issue (page 14). You could read that as 14x 3-car units having first class and the other 12x 3-car units not having first class. Or you could read it as the 14 units for Manchester-Swansea will initially be standard only and the other 12 will be first class fitted from new. I'm inclined to go with the first interpretation myself (ie. 12x 3-car units WILL NOT get first class).

I would say it means 14 3-car units will get First Class and those 14 will initially operate with First Class declassified.

14 units fitted with first class sections seems a little more than I would expect given the very tight rostering planned for the Cambrian. I assume the 21 units with ETCS would have to cover:
  • Aberystwyth - Birmingham International (hourly)
  • Pwllheli - Birmingham International (every 2hrs)
  • Holyhead - Birmingham International (every 2hrs)
I make that 19 diagrams worth. That would give 4-car between Birmingham and Shrewsbury every hour, and as far as Machynlleth in the hours the train runs to Pwllheli. The Cambrian Coast, Machynlleth-Aberystwyth and Shrewsbury-Chester-Holyhead would be stuck with 2-cars at all times. With only 2 ETCS units spare in the fleet, there is zero scope to length Cambrian Coast workings in the summer and any strengthening of the Shrewsbury-Chester-Holyhead section would have to be done by attaching a non-ETCS fitted unit (assuming the software allows that).

With the extremely tight utilisation of the ETCS units established, I find it very unlikely that 14 first class units would be used only on Swansea-Manchester, which I estimate as requiring just 9 diagrams (leaving 5 units spare). The full Manchester-Carmarthen/Milford trips I think add up to 12 diagrams, so I do wonder whether the intension is to leave the 2-car portion at Swansea with the 3-car unit continuing west with first class declassified (or perhaps a 2-car unit heading west in some hours and a 3-car, with first class, in others).

Are the ECTS units all Standard Class ones?

I would argue that even the Holyhead-Cardiff services are medium-long distance regional express services; if anything Swansea-Manchester is more INTERCITY than Holyhead-Cardiff. Where I disagree is that 170s are suitable for Regional Express work. Note the word I have put it bold; express means the service isn't stopping every five minutes (although the 'regional' bit means they could run onto a rural line where they are stopping every five minutes for that part of the journey, but only a handful of pax will board/alight at many of those stops). Thus the extra 30 seconds or so of dwell time (if using end-door stock) at each of the main stations doesn't add up to a huge amount of the overall end-to-end running time. I think those dwell times are a price worth paying for the better passenger environment; clearly BR did too when they replaced the 150s on the likes of TPE with 155s/156s/158s (and similarly TPE are now doing the same with 802s/397s/mk5s replacing some of the 185s).

As I saw it 170s were fine for Edinburgh-Glasgow but going out to Aberdeen or Inverness warranted something more like a 158.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Maybe we do see it slightly differently; to me "Regional Express" services:
  • are medium/long-distance services
  • have at least some limited-stop (not-all-stations) sections (or if the stations are quite far apart anyway, particularly if the train gets above 75mph)
  • don't serve a big enough market to justify INTERCITY level facilities
  • may include sections on rural routes where all stations are served because this is the only service on the line (eg. the Cambrian Coast, I would call that a 'Regional' service if it terminated at Machynlleth but since it carries on at higher speeds to Birmingham, ommiting several stations east of Shrewsbury, the present service is a 'Regional Express')
Whether the passengers using it are 'primarily intermediate journeys' or the train is (for example) full of passengers doing Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury or Machynlleth to Birmingham (both of which I suppose are 'intermediate journeys' since they are not the full route, but nevertheless are still long journeys) is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned, as long as long-distance journeys are possible on the service (I'd need some examples to decide, but it's possible I would make exceptions to this if there are faster alternative trains on the same route, particularly if they overtake the service concerned).

Examples of regional express services in my view are:
  • Most of the proposed Civity routes on Wales & Borders
  • Cardiff - Nottingham
  • Liverpool - Norwich
  • Cardiff - Portsmouth
OK, our definition is quite similar, then. Though I'd also call something like a Manchester to Blackpool semifast a regional express - it is quite a broad church. That said, in DB terms some of those would be bordering on InterCity (remembering that DB InterCity services are now secondary, not primary - ICE is now the primary service - effectively S-RB-RE-IR-IC has now been replaced by S-RB-RE-IC-ICE).

(As a further comparison, the TPE Manchester-Scotland services would be IC but a Virgin Pendolino clearly ICE)

The 170s on Cardiff-Nottingham started my whole objection to 'doors-at-thirds'; they shouldn't be on that route and the Turbos for Cardiff-Portsmouth aren't right either.

I think this is the fundamental disagreement - the Class 170 is designed specifically for this kind of service and suits it very well. My only objection to 170s on those services is when they're too short for the demand, but that just requires more of them, it doesn't make them bad units.

I think with class 195s the coaches are actually slightly longer than a 158; but according to SARPA's March 2019 newsletter the 2-car Civitys for Wales & Borders would have 20 fewer seats than a 158 (the figures I had from Transport for Wales don't match the ones in the newsletter, but it's still fewer seats, tables and toilets than even the 175s (although the 2-car units are at least expected to have 2 toilets; same as now). The Aberystwyth unit can be pretty full throughout the journey at present, I can see 3-car units being needed at times if the hourly service increases demand much.

There's going to be summer capacity trouble unless Holyhead-Birmingham is to be cut back to Shrewsbury-Birmingham, connecting out of the Cambrian services at Shrewsbury. I can't see that happening because of the anger it would cause with Gobowen, Chirk, Ruabon and Wrexham losing their through Birmingham services (for Chester and the north Wales coast it's faster via Crewe anyway).

I completely agree that TfW have seriously under-ordered on almost an XC type scale. I think for long-term likely growth as increasing numbers of young people are abandoning driving the aim needs to be of a 7-car set out of Birmingham - 4 to Aber and 3 to Pwllheli. For now it should be a minimum of 3 and 2.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
I completely agree that TfW have seriously under-ordered on almost an XC type scale. I think for long-term likely growth as increasing numbers of young people are abandoning driving the aim needs to be of a 7-car set out of Birmingham - 4 to Aber and 3 to Pwllheli. For now it should be a minimum of 3 and 2.

Let's hope it doesn't come back to bite them as it did CrossCountry; considering many operators are increasing capacity significantly TfW do seem to be lagging behind a bit on that one.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Let's hope it doesn't come back to bite them as it did CrossCountry; considering many operators are increasing capacity significantly TfW do seem to be lagging behind a bit on that one.

I fear it will, and it's a flaw in doing full fleet replacements like this. That said, a reasonably affordable solution would be to convert all Holyhead to Cardiff services to Mk4 operation rather than just 3tpd, and the CAF units so released could be ETCS fitted and used on the Cambrian to at least mean all trains west from Shrewsbury can be 4-car.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
I fear it will, and it's a flaw in doing full fleet replacements like this. That said, a reasonably affordable solution would be to convert all Holyhead to Cardiff services to Mk4 operation rather than just 3tpd, and the CAF units so released could be ETCS fitted and used on the Cambrian to at least mean all trains west from Shrewsbury can be 4-car.

Or perhaps at least lengthen the Mk4 sets, one extra coach shouldn't affect performance too much I would think.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Or perhaps at least lengthen the Mk4 sets, one extra coach shouldn't affect performance too much I would think.
If you move beyond the Clarksonian definition of performance as simply speed and acceleration and consider number of passenger miles per litre of fuel such a lengthening would equate to higher performance.
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
I was thinking they might just form a subclass seeing how similar they are really.
Yeah. It's wasteful of a classification for any future variant to do otherwise.
If you move beyond the Clarksonian definition of performance as simply speed and acceleration and consider number of passenger miles per litre of fuel such a lengthening would equate to higher performance.
It probably will have little effect on the 67's considering they're cleared for 125MPH operations.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
I don't think lengthening the Mk4 sets, much as this might become a good idea if the quality of the services increase demand, would release CAF units for the Cambrian, though.

I meant more increasing capacity generally.

I agree it would only release CAFs if you increased the number of sets to potentially Mk4s on all services on Cardiff-Holyhead.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
If you move beyond the Clarksonian definition of performance as simply speed and acceleration and consider number of passenger miles per litre of fuel such a lengthening would equate to higher performance.

Rather like ScotRail's HSTs, I think they are going to find they need to lengthen the sets to meet demand.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
Yeah. It's wasteful of a classification for any future variant to do otherwise

They may of course surprise us an go for a completely random new class number.

It probably will have little effect on the 67's considering they're cleared for 125MPH operations.

They may be 125mph locos but I don't think they've ever run regular trains at that speed.

Certainly the current TfW Mk3s don't get up to more than 110mph though that's down to linespeed, Mk3b DVTs only being cleared for 110 and lack of E70 brake control.

I'm not sure a 67 would get anything more than about 4 or 5 coaches up to 125mph and it would probably need one of the really long 125mph sections to do it.
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
They may be 125mph locos but I don't think they've ever run regular trains at that speed.

Certainly the current TfW Mk3s don't get up to more than 110mph though that's down to linespeed, Mk3b DVTs only being cleared for 110 and lack of E70 brake control.

I'm not sure a 67 would get anything more than about 4 or 5 coaches up to 125mph and it would probably need one of the really long 125mph sections to do it.

When a guard fills out the prep sheet for the loco and stock, it includes the fact that the loco is 125mph max speed and the coaching stock 110mph (the limit being, as you point out, the DVT). However, this is all rather moot as there are no sections of track with a linespeed higher than 90 that the TfW sets are booked to pass over. In fact, I don't believe there are any bits of track ever used by TfW that the 67s would be permitted to run at 125mph.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
When a guard fills out the prep sheet for the loco and stock, it includes the fact that the loco is 125mph max speed and the coaching stock 110mph (the limit being, as you point out, the DVT). However, this is all rather moot as there are no sections of track with a linespeed higher than 90 that the TfW sets are booked to pass over. In fact, I don't believe there are any bits of track ever used by TfW that the 67s would be permitted to run at 125mph.

Although the North Wales Coast is 90mph max (indeed I believe other than one 95 and 100 section the maximum on mainlines in Wales is 90 or less) but I'm sure they run at 110mph when they go to Manchester, no - on the WCML?
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
Although the North Wales Coast is 90mph max (indeed I believe other than one 95 and 100 section the maximum on mainlines in Wales is 90 or less) but I'm sure they run at 110mph when they go to Manchester, no - on the WCML?

I believe that technically there is a 110mph section around Warrington for the short section along the WCML, but with Bank Quay station in the middle of it even if the limit is that high there's not a hope of it actually doing that kind of speed. Otherwise, Chester - Warrington is 75 and Earlestown - Manchester over Chat Moss is 90.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
I believe that technically there is a 110mph section around Warrington for the short section along the WCML, but with Bank Quay station in the middle of it even if the limit is that high there's not a hope of it actually doing that kind of speed. Otherwise, Chester - Warrington is 75 and Earlestown - Manchester over Chat Moss is 90.

Would 100 be possible, or is 90 really the highest one could attain?
 

topydre

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Messages
188
Regarding the 21 Cambrian units: TfW advertise a 65% seat increase across the W&B, yet there’s barely any increase in seating capacity on the Cambrian under the plans for 21 ertms units
 

Cambrian359

Member
Joined
17 Jun 2018
Messages
202
wasn't the point of having one large fleet of civitys replacing several other fleets so you could have a large fleet of go anywhere/do anything trains. we seem to be heading for several subfleets that cant go everywhere and do everything. first class/non first class, ertms non ertms and then 2 and 3 car units

Regarding the 21 Cambrian units: TfW advertise a 65% seat increase across the W&B, yet there’s barely any increase in seating capacity on the Cambrian under the plans for 21 ertms units
it is a bit worrying isn't it, if current 2/4/6 car services are replaced like for like then its a decrease for the Cambrian line seats with the new civitys, even if you include the extra Aberystwyth's the decrease on other Aberystwyth and Pwllheli services will surely counteract the extra Aberystwyth seat capacity increase.
it does feel like a slight of hand trick....65% increase for wales as a whole but not the Cambrian line. have any figures been released for the % seat increase/decrease on the Cambrian line?
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
Would 100 be possible, or is 90 really the highest one could attain?

I'd be surprised if they could do more then 50 on that bit never mind 100! It really isn't very long at all. But we're getting well off topic anyway.

Regarding the 21 Cambrian units: TfW advertise a 65% seat increase across the W&B, yet there’s barely any increase in seating capacity on the Cambrian under the plans for 21 ertms units

Aberystwyth going hourly all day is a pretty good increase. It's not yet been confirmed if the Birmingham - Holyhead service is still running, or if it does whether or not it will interwork with the Cambrian. If the answer to either of those is no, that will free up some more sets on top of the 3 from South Wales. I also seem to recall reading that the Non ERTMS sets will be designed in such a way that they can be fitted with ERTMS easily enough, if it turns out the numbers really don't work.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
Are the ECTS units all Standard Class ones?
Short answer: yes. Long answer: I think the article said 21x 2-car units will be ETCS fitted, so no 3-car units will be fitted with ETCS (and the 2-car ones as far as we know will all be standard class only).

As I saw it 170s were fine for Edinburgh-Glasgow but going out to Aberdeen or Inverness warranted something more like a 158.
Edinburgh-Glasgow is only about 50 minutes so I'd agree with that; although before I realised how many stops even the fastest services between Edinburgh and Glasgow make I used to think there should be 158s or similar on that too.

I think this is the fundamental disagreement - the Class 170 is designed specifically for this kind of service
As were the 158s and 175s and I think both those types suit the role much better than the 170s.

I completely agree that TfW have seriously under-ordered on almost an XC type scale. I think for long-term likely growth as increasing numbers of young people are abandoning driving the aim needs to be of a 7-car set out of Birmingham - 4 to Aber and 3 to Pwllheli. For now it should be a minimum of 3 and 2.
I'm not sure about 4-car to Aberystwyth all the time (maybe a few peak journies) or 3-car to Pwllhelli in winter but both portions 3-car in summer (and Aberystwyth year-round) would make alot more sense to me. The minimum I think should be 2+2 to Aberystwyth/Pwllheli (so 4-car east of Machynlleth) every other hour with the Aberystwyths that don't have a Pwllheli portion being 3-car (joining the Holyhead portion for the trip into Birmingham, giving at least a 5-car train east of Shrewsbury in those hours).

I fear it will, and it's a flaw in doing full fleet replacements like this. That said, a reasonably affordable solution would be to convert all Holyhead to Cardiff services to Mk4 operation rather than just 3tpd, and the CAF units so released could be ETCS fitted and used on the Cambrian to at least mean all trains west from Shrewsbury can be 4-car.
If more mark 4 sets were to be brought in I'd have thought it would make more sense to use them on Manchester-Swansea (as 5-car rakes) than Cardiff-Holyhead which I assume isn't so busy. It's a shame the new units (presumably) won't have BSI couplers; otherwise the obvious thing to do would be to retain the 158s alongside the new fleet (with the new fleet being fewer units than currently planned but with more 3-car sets making a similar total count of new vehicles).

Mk3b DVTs only being cleared for 110 and lack of E70 brake control.
I'm not sure if Greater Anglia would agree with you there (see attached photo of data panel on mrk3 DVT with 125mph quoted as top speed).
 

Attachments

  • DSC04258.JPG
    DSC04258.JPG
    863.1 KB · Views: 59

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
I'd be surprised if they could do more then 50 on that bit never mind 100! It really isn't very long at all. But we're getting well off topic anyway.

True we are, apologies.

I'm not sure if Greater Anglia would agree with you there (see attached photo of data panel on mrk3 DVT with 125mph quoted as top speed).

Off topic, but that's the first Mk3b DVT data panel I've seen with 125mph on it. They'd still need a functioning E70 or similar brake control to meet the W125 curve though.

Though of course this doesn't matter for TfW!


Trying to get myself back on-topic, I imagine the CAF units will predominantly run at no more than 90mph, and as such is there much point in them being 100mph units or can this be considered future-proofing to a degree.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
it is a bit worrying isn't it, if current 2/4/6 car services are replaced like for like then its a decrease for the Cambrian line seats with the new civitys, even if you include the extra Aberystwyth's the decrease on other Aberystwyth and Pwllheli services will surely counteract the extra Aberystwyth seat capacity increase.

It's exactly the same stupid mistake as Virgin made on XC 20 years ago and we are still suffering from now. If you double the frequency you are going to attract so much extra custom from a better service, particularly if that better service also includes new rolling stock, that you are going to need a LOT more capacity.

It's utterly idiotic, and because of ERTMS (which has caused nothing but problems and was a stupid move) it means they can't just bring in a few other units when it gets busy.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
It's exactly the same stupid mistake as Virgin made on XC 20 years ago and we are still suffering from now. If you double the frequency you are going to attract so much extra custom from a better service, particularly if that better service also includes new rolling stock, that you are going to need a LOT more capacity.

It's utterly idiotic, and because of ERTMS (which has caused nothing but problems and was a stupid move) it means they can't just bring in a few other units when it gets busy.

Whenever frequency is doubled they should use existing train lengths rather than shorter ones, but TfW seen to be falling into this trap of not doing so.

Other than as a pilot scheme, the ERTMS seems to cause more grief than its worth, could they not have retained conventional signalling with the ERTMS superimposed so that non-ERTMS units could operate the service if needed.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Whenever frequency is doubled they should use existing train lengths rather than shorter ones, but TfW seen to be falling into this trap of not doing so.

Indeed. Using it as a comparison, I long said the WLL Southern service needed to go either 8-car hourly or 8-car half hourly, as the latter would increase custom significantly - 4 car half hourly would not do. As it turns out they did the former in the end, and the overcrowding is near enough gone.

Other than as a pilot scheme, the ERTMS seems to cause more grief than its worth, could they not have retained conventional signalling with the ERTMS superimposed so that non-ERTMS units could operate the service if needed.

They should have put it somewhere insignificant like the Conwy Valley or an East Anglia branch line with a couple of units needing to be fitted and no overcrowding issue nor peaky seasonal demand. The Cambrian was an utterly mad choice - I can hardly imagine a worse one other than fitting it to a London commuter line and stuffing that up.

But realistically, it was yet another European standard applied to the UK where there will never be any interworking from the mainland. The UK should be exempted from ALL European/UIC "below the floor" rolling stock standards other than emissions related - PRM TSI is sensible (though RVAR did the job), but the rest of it is just pointless cost.
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
Trying to get myself back on-topic, I imagine the CAF units will predominantly run at no more than 90mph, and as such is there much point in them being 100mph units or can this be considered future-proofing to a degree.

There are already places where they will run at 100mph (specifically Wilmslow - Crewe, Birmingham New Street - International, Bridgend - Port Talbot and the once a day service via Stafford), and hopefully over time that milage will increase. At a time when other services are speeding up it would be a very retrograde step to introduce units that are slower - and bear in mind as well CAF are already building 100mph units for Northern and WMT, so it's probably easier to keep things the same!

It's exactly the same stupid mistake as Virgin made on XC 20 years ago and we are still suffering from now. If you double the frequency you are going to attract so much extra custom from a better service, particularly if that better service also includes new rolling stock, that you are going to need a LOT more capacity.

It's utterly idiotic, and because of ERTMS (which has caused nothing but problems and was a stupid move) it means they can't just bring in a few other units when it gets busy.

The Cambrian needed resignalling anyway, and somewhere in the country needed to be a testing ground for ERTMS in this country. The chances are that ERTMS will see a lot of use in this country, and hopefully the experience gained from the Cambrian will be put to good use.

Also, I think comparisons with Virgin are a gross exaggeration. They doubled services at the same time as nearly halving capacity on individual trains, which was a mess it's true. Overall the increase in capacity across TfW is going to be huge. Extra services on all routes, with trains as long or longer then now. Some Cambrian services will see a marginal reduction in seats, but overall it will be an increase much better then what Virgin did.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The Cambrian needed resignalling anyway, and somewhere in the country needed to be a testing ground for ERTMS in this country. The chances are that ERTMS will see a lot of use in this country, and hopefully the experience gained from the Cambrian will be put to good use.

But this has been to the massive disadvantage of users on a "peaky" seasonal line, which would probably be able to cope with a 158 (to Aber) and a 153 (to Pwllheli) in November but could probably easily fill a 7-car formation in August (4 to Aber and 3 to Pwll), a time when demand on commuter services is well down and rolling stock could be redeployed. But it can't, because only ERTMS fitted stock can work the line.

It was a terrible choice, one of the worst imaginable. The Cambrian should have been conventionally resignalled and the trial done on a country branch line somewhere.

Also, I think comparisons with Virgin are a gross exaggeration. They doubled services at the same time as nearly halving capacity on individual trains, which was a mess it's true. Overall the increase in capacity across TfW is going to be huge. Extra services on all routes, with trains as long or longer then now. Some Cambrian services will see a marginal reduction in seats, but overall it will be an increase much better then what Virgin did.

It's not much help to users of the Cambrian that the North Wales Coast is getting a capacity increase, is it?
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
But this has been to the massive disadvantage of users on a "peaky" seasonal line, which would probably be able to cope with a 158 (to Aber) and a 153 (to Pwllheli) in November but could probably easily fill a 7-car formation in August (4 to Aber and 3 to Pwll), a time when demand on commuter services is well down and rolling stock could be redeployed. But it can't, because only ERTMS fitted stock can work the line.

It was a terrible choice, one of the worst imaginable. The Cambrian should have been conventionally resignalled and the trial done on a country branch line somewhere.

It was a network of lines relatively self contained, with zero freight, and which could be run using a minimal amount of traincrew (ERTMS training is long and expensive), but which covers a large distance and features a mixture of speeds and other features. It also required resignalling. It was a great candidate. Given ATW's well publicised issues with lack of units there was never likely to be any huge increase in capacity in the summer months anyway, and they did at least try and do small increases with 158s released from other routes.

It's not much help to users of the Cambrian that the North Wales Coast is getting a capacity increase, is it?

No, but the Cambrian isn't getting a decrease either. It's not getting as big an increase as other parts of the franchise it's true, but it's still an improvement - and bear in mind the Cambrian has already had some improvements in recent times with the partial hourly service, a much better increase then any other part of the network got in that time. To compare it to Virgin's Operation Princess disaster is a gross exaggeration.
 

Cambrian359

Member
Joined
17 Jun 2018
Messages
202
No, but the Cambrian isn't getting a decrease either. It's not getting as big an increase as other parts of the franchise it's true, but it's still an improvement - and bear in mind the Cambrian has already had some improvements in recent times with the partial hourly service, a much better increase then any other part of the network got in that time. To compare it to Virgin's Operation Princess disaster is a gross exaggeration.
don't think that will be much comfort to users of the Cambrian line! having stood from Birmingham international to newtown myself before now (4 coaches) its not very nice! ive seen people stand as far machynlleth many a time, and this is outside the peak school holiday periods (they've probably continued standing further on the Pwllheli branch but machynlleth is my station)
 

Top