TFW Liverpool-Cardiff

[Steveswan10]

Hi all, is there any news on the potential start of the new Liverpool-Cardiff via Chester service starting anytime soon?

 

[dk1]

All gone very quiet so suppose much is down to the late delivery of 197s. Extending the Liverpool-Chester to Llandudno has been held up by level crossing risks along the N.Wales coast and will not start before December 2024.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

All gone very quiet so suppose much is down to the late delivery of 197s. Extending the Liverpool-Chester to Llandudno has been held up by level crossing risks along the N.Wales coast and will not start before December 2024.

All standard-signalled 197/0 are now in service, and only three 197/1A left to be accepted. The 197/1B are due in service (declassified) in the coming weeks, and that only leaves the 197/0E units. I believe the 197/0E units will enter service ahead of the Dec 24 Cambrian introduction (rather embarrassingly late, if you ask me) to allow the Maesteg and Gloucester services to be run with 197s while we await Rhymney electrification to free up the 231s.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

All gone very quiet so suppose much is down to the late delivery of 197s. Extending the Liverpool-Chester to Llandudno has been held up by level crossing risks along the N.Wales coast and will not start before December 2024.

Can I ask how a certain route causes more risk than all the other trains that pass said Level crossings daily?

 

[dk1]

Can I ask how a certain route causes more risk than all the other trains that pass said Level crossings daily?

Apparently the extra train each way each hour tips the scale of risk at three foot crossings. Looking at several £millions for replacement accessible bridges unless any further mitigation can be made.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Apparently the extra train each way each hour tips the scale of risk at three foot crossings. Looking at several £millions for replacement accessible bridges unless any further mitigation can be made.

Many Thanks for the info. Absolute nonsense in my opinion, but people that get paid more and know a lot more than me decide how many times you can look left and right per hour it seems.

 

[dk1]

Many Thanks for the info. Absolute nonsense in my opinion, but people that get paid more and know a lot more than me decide how many times you can look left and right per hour it seems.

Has been the same issues between Ely & Peterborough which along with the North Junction upgrade is holding back an hourly service from Ipswich.

 

[Jez]

All standard-signalled 197/0 are now in service, and only three 197/1A left to be accepted. The 197/1B are due in service (declassified) in the coming weeks, and that only leaves the 197/0E units. I believe the 197/0E units will enter service ahead of the Dec 24 Cambrian introduction (rather embarrassingly late, if you ask me) to allow the Maesteg and Gloucester services to be run with 197s while we await Rhymney electrification to free up the 231s.

I thought the same as you about 197s going to Maesteg and Cheltenham as a temporary measure. But was told on a Facebook group quite a few times I was wrong and Maesteg etc would be stuck with Sprinters until the the FLIRTS take over.

I've not heard anything official that they Won't go to Maesteg as a temporary measure so I hope they will..

The Cardiff Liverpool service all appears to have gone very quiet. It appears they are concentrating on running existing services properly first!

 

[Bikeman78]

I thought the same as you about 197s going to Maesteg and Cheltenham as a temporary measure. But was told on a Facebook group quite a few times I was wrong and Maesteg etc would be stuck with Sprinters until the the FLIRTS take over.

I've not heard anything official that they Won't go to Maesteg as a temporary measure so I hope they will..

The Cardiff Liverpool service all appears to have gone very quiet. It appears they are concentrating on running existing services properly first!

I expect that Maesteg, Cheltenham and Ebbw Vale will see 197s occasionally. Maesteg to Ebbw Vale will need four units, Newport to Ebbw Vale two units and Cardiff to Cheltenham Spa three units. That leaves two class 231s to spare. Should be fine 99% of the time but there needs to be a plan B for days of poor availability.

 

[Jez]

I expect that Maesteg, Cheltenham and Ebbw Vale will see 197s occasionally. Maesteg to Ebbw Vale will need four units, Newport to Ebbw Vale two units and Cardiff to Cheltenham Spa three units. That leaves two class 231s to spare. Should be fine 99% of the time but there needs to be a plan B for days of poor availability.

In the plans for the December 23 timetable which were announced last December it said all Maesteg Ebbw Vale and Cheltenhams would be 197s (as a temporary measure). Obviously lots have changed since last December in terms of the plans for the December 23 timetable so not 100% what's happening.

It makes sense to me if TFW have the Cambrian 197s available to use them in the South until they can go to the Cambrian.

 

[D6975]

I expect that Maesteg, Cheltenham and Ebbw Vale will see 197s occasionally. Maesteg to Ebbw Vale will need four units, Newport to Ebbw Vale two units and Cardiff to Cheltenham Spa three units. That leaves two class 231s to spare. Should be fine 99% of the time but there needs to be a plan B for days of poor availability.

Aleady happening, 197s have already worked up to Cheltenham in the past couple of weeks.

 

[Jez]

Aleady happening, 197s have already worked up to Cheltenham in the past couple of weeks.

Just testing and route clearance I think? I don't think one has been in passenger service

 

[Dr Day]

Back to the OP. Are there any level crossing risks or signalling issues associated with an the additional Chester-Cardiff portion on the Marches, as well as the problems with the Chester-Llandudno portion on the North Wales Coast section mentioned upthread? ie are there any other infrastructure costs that will need to be taken into consideration in determining whether the Liverpool-Cardiff (and Llandudno) additional services will operate or not?

 

[Steveswan10]

As a signaller on the marches (Leominster and Wooferton) im not sure to be honest....i know in the summer there are 3 UWC out of 8 (controlled by Leominster) that do get very busy plus the AHBC at leominster which is on a very busy main road...so that possibly could complicate things

 

[D6975]

Just testing and route clearance I think? I don't think one has been in passenger service

No, on passenger services.
(they are doing training/testing runs too)

 

[SuperLuke2334]

No, on passenger services.
(they are doing training/testing runs too)

When was this that they were in service?

 

[Llandudno]

Apparently the extra train each way each hour tips the scale of risk at three foot crossings. Looking at several £millions for replacement accessible bridges unless any further mitigation can be made.

Another convenient excuse TfW can roll out for not introducing the much promised improved service on the north Wales coast!

I wonder if the introduction of occasional freight services (or booked freight paths) on the north Wales coast has had an impact on foot crossing risks?

 

[td97]

Can I ask how a certain route causes more risk than all the other trains that pass said Level crossings daily?

Apparently the extra train each way each hour tips the scale of risk at three foot crossings. Looking at several £millions for replacement accessible bridges unless any further mitigation can be made.

Many Thanks for the info. Absolute nonsense in my opinion, but people that get paid more and know a lot more than me decide how many times you can look left and right per hour it seems.

The level crossing risk rating at a level crossing can never increase. This additional train per hour increases the risk.
So how is the risk rating maintained at its existing score with an extra tph? Upgraded barriers, crossing keeper, reducing line speed, closure, etc. are all considerations to lower the risk again.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

The level crossing risk rating at a level crossing can never increase. This additional train per hour increases the risk.
So how is the risk rating maintained at its existing score with an extra tph? Upgraded barriers, crossing keeper, reducing line speed, closure, etc. are all considerations to lower the risk again.

I'm just not agreeing, sorry... in times of disruption say, when all trains have been brought to a stop, and they finally get running again, to resume usual service, I'm sure many more than the usual may pass per hour in one direction trying to get service restored. Do they think of the level crossings then?

Also on the North Wales coast as we are speaking about, it is almost all long, straight, clear sighted for a good distance, an extra train an hour is not like crossing a road as pedestrian's often do with cars turning corners, driving at different speeds and often one car after another after another with minimal distance between and everyone manages. It just just doesn't add up. You can see and hear, on these long stretches, and extra train an hour really doesn't make any difference.

 

[frodshamfella]

Many Thanks for the info. Absolute nonsense in my opinion, but people that get paid more and know a lot more than me decide how many times you can look left and right per hour it seems.

Quite, ive heard it all now

I'm just not agreeing, sorry... in times of disruption say, when all trains have been brought to a stop, and they finally get running again, to resume usual service, I'm sure many more than the usual may pass per hour in one direction trying to get service restored. Do they think of the level crossings then?

Also on the North Wales coast as we are speaking about, it is almost all long, straight, clear sighted for a good distance, an extra train an hour is not like crossing a road as pedestrian's often do with cars turning corners, driving at different speeds and often one car after another after another with minimal distance between and everyone manages. It just just doesn't add up. You can see and hear, on these long stretches, and extra train an hour really doesn't make any difference.

I agree with you, its not even that busy a stretch of track . What about Merseyrail to Southport, there are several levels crossing along that, and its much more frequent a service and 3rd rail . I wish they would just get on with it, progress if you want to call it that, is at a snails pace.

 

[dk1]

I agree with you, it’s not even that busy a stretch of track . What about Merseyrail to Southport, there are several levels crossing along that, and it’s much more frequent a service and 3rd rail . I wish they would just get on with it, progress if you want to call it that, is at a snails pace.

You’ll probably find other routes which already have a more frequent service because they have grandfather rights. Try adding any extra new traffic that is going to be regular and this is where it’ll come unstuck and possibly refused due to risk assessments.

 

[8A Rail]

You’ll probably find other routes which already have a more frequent service because they have grandfather rights. Try adding any extra new traffic that is going to be regular and this is where it’ll come unstuck and possibly refused due to risk assessments.

So don't you think on that basis that North Wales Coast line has 'grandfather' rights then? Those foot crossings have been there since time memorial and the train frequency was far more intense too. I think it is TfW more like making excuses!

 

[dk1]

So don't you think on that basis that North Wales Coast line has 'grandfather' rights then? Those foot crossings have been there since time memorial and the train frequency was far more intense too. I think it is TfW more like making excuses!

It’s Network Rail. You can read more about it in Decembers MR magazine.

 

[craigybagel]

Back to the OP. Are there any level crossing risks or signalling issues associated with an the additional Chester-Cardiff portion on the Marches, as well as the problems with the Chester-Llandudno portion on the North Wales Coast section mentioned upthread? ie are there any other infrastructure costs that will need to be taken into consideration in determining whether the Liverpool-Cardiff (and Llandudno) additional services will operate or not?

In theory the Liverpool Cardiff services should fit in the currently unused path in the hours the Holyhead - Cardiff doesn't run. As to how well this will work in practice......the Marches is already tight with some long AB sections, especially north of Craven Arms where the HOWL has to be fitted in as well. Shrewsbury - Chester isn't much better either with the long section between Gobowen and Wrexham, and the single track from there to Rossett. It will be interesting to see how it all comes together.

Another convenient excuse TfW can roll out for not introducing the much promised improved service on the north Wales coast!

TFW don't make the rules, they have to follow them. If NR say no, then that's that until the problem can be fixed.

 

[33017]

No, on passenger services.
(they are doing training/testing runs too)

No, they haven’t.

Test running has been done as follows (can’t be bothered going any further back):

197010 16-20/10, 23-25/10, 30/10, 01/11, 06-08/11 & 10/11
197018 20-23/11
197020 13-16/11
197050 27/11 & 28/11

 

[frodshamfella]

So don't you think on that basis that North Wales Coast line has 'grandfather' rights then? Those foot crossings have been there since time memorial and the train frequency was far more intense too. I think it is TfW more like making excuses!

Quite, why say your going to launch something with all the fanfare and news articles.

 

[dk1]

Quite, why say your going to launch something with all the fanfare and news articles.

These things happen. Several franchise commitments over the years have proved to be difficult to achieve.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Quite, why say your going to launch something with all the fanfare and news articles.

These things happen. Several franchise commitments over the years have proved to be difficult to achieve.

You can say what you like when bidding for a franchise "we will run a train every 30 seconds on the Heart of Wales Line" then win the bid & quietly drop it as Network Rail said no.
Obviously I'm using exaggerated examples, but you get the idea.

 

[Krokodil]

Also on the North Wales coast as we are speaking about, it is almost all long, straight, clear sighted for a good distance, an extra train an hour is not like crossing a road as pedestrian's often do with cars turning corners, driving at different speeds and often one car after another after another with minimal distance between and everyone manages. It just just doesn't add up. You can see and hear, on these long stretches, and extra train an hour really doesn't make any difference.

Those crossings have seen multiple fatalities. Miniature warning lights have reduced the number of accidents (not a lot you can do about suicides) but there's still a lot of misuse.

You’ll probably find other routes which already have a more frequent service because they have grandfather rights. Try adding any extra new traffic that is going to be regular and this is where it’ll come unstuck and possibly refused due to risk assessments.

What I don't understand is why Network Rail are refusing to let TfW reinstate the pre-pandemic half-hourly frequency between Llandudno Junction and Llandudno on the basis of crossing risk at Deganwy. Surely Grandfather Rights can extend as far as 2019. It's a half-hourly frequency on weekends.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Those crossings have seen multiple fatalities. Miniature warning lights have reduced the number of accidents (not a lot you can do about suicides) but there's still a lot of misuse.

Is it worse in the summer? I was always led to believe it was holidaymakers who were both unused to railway crossings & more relaxed as on holiday aling with excited children. Although none, of course, are an excuse. Caravans one side of the railway and the sea the other is always going to be a problem. The worst ones have been replaced by bridges but there are lots of crossings.