Now Turning at Wilmslow, as will be the one behind it.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Ex LNER (and Grand Central) Mark 4 sets for TfW
- Thread starter Class455
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Noticed the MK4 stayed on the platform for quite a while after terminating. My connection was due onto the same platform. The platform staff had to announce very loudly on the tannoy that passengers were NOT to attempt to board the train as it was not the Fishguard service !
Is there a reason they stay around on platform 3/4 for so long. There didn't appear to be any other services blocking the way to Canton.
It just doesn't work very well having so many terminating trains at Cardiff. Resulted in the Fishguard arriving and leaving late. Another reason the hourly direct Manchester to West Wales is very much missed.
Is there a reason they stay around on platform 3/4 for so long. There didn't appear to be any other services blocking the way to Canton.
It just doesn't work very well having so many terminating trains at Cardiff. Resulted in the Fishguard arriving and leaving late. Another reason the hourly direct Manchester to West Wales is very much missed.
Topological
Established Member
It took a very long time for the systems to show it. I figured the chances of it making it to Manchester were 0 when there was additional delay at Crewe so got the 16:06. I am now on a very empty 16:49 from Wilmslow.
So many people were making their way the other way from the northbound working.
Not a good day, especially given that the earlier delays have cleared.
It is not progress...
Cardiff cannot handle terminators and yet TfW added 1 from each direction with these Mk4s and their insufficient petrol.
Very nice trains, but not suitable for the South Wales to Manchester journey.
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 4,132
Why not? Loco hauled stock was used for years before Sprinters came along.
This is a long journey and travelling public deserve decent comfort. I have yet to go on any multiple unit anywhere that offers same comfort as a decent loco hauled coach.
Credit should be given for foresight introducing such an option.
Philip Roberts
Member
A friend of mine often travels between Cardiff and Manchester for work. He doesn't know a huge amount about trains. A few months ago he messaged me saying he was on the comfiest TfW train he'd ever been on. I knew straight away it was a MkIV
Topological
Established Member
Simple
The engine doesn't have the range (apparently, there's certainly no diagram which replicates what is offered by 197s on the same route)
It can be the most suitable accommodation, but if the train cannot run the service in its entirety then it is not a suitable train.
(Yes you could change locomotives at stations on the way, but that is not proposed)
I am amazed that a main-line loco hasn't got big enough fuel tanks to give it the range of a DMU!
Just as well you went to Wilmslow as the next service was a 2 car Sprinter!
It was a miracle today that my journey wasnt disrupted and I arrived at my destination only a few minutes late (thanks to the 1601 being late leaving Cardiff due to the MK4 blocking the platform for so long) but i can live with that. It was very busy but I had a seat.
The MK4's are very nice trains I agree but personally my favourites are the 197s, (despite what some people say about them) as long as there are enough carriages. A 2 car 197 isnt anywhere near enough capacity and it still happens very often.
I mean we are talking about a 90’s locomotive vs a brand new DMU.
DMU’s have the benefit of only needing to be specced to move themselves and nothing more. A loco is designed to move an amount of unpowered stuff (coaches or wagons) and a 67 is capable of pulling a lot more than just 5 coaches and a DVT at up to 125mph.
197’s have 6 cylinder diesel engines with a total displacement of 12.8L and produce 503hp. Whilst the 67’s engine has a displacement of 11.6L PER CYLINDER. And it has 12 cylinder (which is 139.2L total) producing 3,200hp.
So a 5 car 197 has less than half the displacement at 64L.
My brother drives a 2.2L 4 cylinder diesel and I drive a 3L 6 cylinder diesel and I get about a quarter less fuel economy than he does.
So I’m sure you can imagine how the 67’s 5,400L fuel tank doesn’t quite compare to the 197’s (which I don’t know the actual size of but I’m trying to find out).
What I can say though is internally the 67’s are down as having a range of 800 miles with the 197’s (as well as 150’s 158’s and 175’s) as having a range of 1600 miles. 153’s and 170’s are showing as 1400 miles and then the much newer 231’s are showing at just 400 !!
Edit to add, a source tells me the 197’s are about 1200L per tank (or per coach) happy to be corrected if anyone knows better.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 4,132
But the loco could be changed for a different type that does have the range, it's the choice of TfW not the fault of the stock.
Topological
Established Member
I saw the pair of 153s very full pulling into platform 5 at Crewe (always hard to say whether the standees were getting off, or actually standees). They managed to delay our departure.
For me, the 197s do what the line needs to do. They are flexible to split and join, they can rescue each other and keep to time well. Yes they are not an Intercity in the spirit of London to York non-stop, but then nor is Shrewsbury to Crewe*. When we have 5-car 197s, the Marches will be a very pleasant travel experience.
So yes, very happy with my quiet Mk4, and do aim for the Mk4 over a short-form on the 197s, but only because I want to work on the train.
* I think that is the longest non-stop stretch a Mk4 does on TfW?
Yes, I am not blaming the stock. The stock would be excellent on many routes and the collective could work well too (though Holyhead - Cardiff looks like a better route as they can fuel at both ends - I think because TfW do stable a set in Holyhead.)
But TfW have either 67s (which cannot run the service as it used to be), or 197s (which can).
Steveswan10
Member
Could they fit extended fuel tanks like they did with the class 47's?
I mean, it could, but as has been discussed previously on this thread. It would not be a simple swap and would need a lot of modifications.
The 68’s seem an ‘obvious’ choice. They have bigger fuel tanks at 5000L and someone on the Chiltern MK3 replacement thread said that they were somewhat involved and Chiltern started saving a lot of fuel when they went from 67’s to 68’s so I would assume that means they’re a fair bit more fuel efficient and would have a much better range.
There was in the original franchise documents a mention of changing to the 68’s but TFW seem committed to the 67’s at least until a bi or tri mode loco becomes viable.
47s were previously fitted with boiler water tanks which could be converted to long range fuel tanks.
Also 67s are on 2-axle bogies so have relatively high axle loads. Adding additional fuel tanks would increase the overall weight and axle load, which might result in speed restrictions.
Steveswan10
Member
Ahh right understandable, thanks for the info regarding that
I agree with Richard here; there is no DMU that would be more suitable, from the point of view of the passenger environment, than the mark 4s*. The closest thing would be the class 175s, but the lack of through corridor connections works against them.
I will however agree that it is not ideal to have split the service in Cardiff (although this is currently happening, unadvertised, with the DMU services anyway*).When TfW first announced that they would be obtaining the mark 4 sets from Grand Central for use on Manchester services, it was thought (I can't remember if this was part of TfW's announcement, or just speculation on here) that the mark 4s would run between Swansea and Manchester every 3 hours. I think this, if possible, would have been a better approach than the Cardiff split. Is it actually confirmed that the range of the class 67s is insufficient to do that? I think the Cardiff split was originally reported on here as being a political decision, to allow every other train between Cardiff and Manchester to be a mark 4 set instead of every third train had they run through to Swansea, with the 'limited fuel range' explanation (or excuse?) only coming out later.
* On these two points; my mother was planning to travel on an early morning service from Whitland to Leominster or Ludlow earlier this week and was very displeased. This was advertised as a through train to Manchester, but (according to RealTimeTrains, I wasn't there so am unable to confirm) what turned up at Whitland was a 4-car train (a 150 plus two 153s) which split at Swansea, leaving the 150 behind. By the time it reached Cardiff, it was very overcrowded and late (if I recall correctly RTT said it got into Cardiff at 10:19) and was terminated there. RTT did, at one point, suggest that a 2-car 197 would restart the service from Cardiff but, if so, this left before the pair of 153s from the west arrived. Mum therefore had to wait for the following Manchester service, which happened to be a mark 4 set as-booked - however apparently this was not up to the normal comfort standards and she had a negative report on that too - that it was far too cold (was the aircon stuck on?)
It's not really/just TfW's choice, but that of Arriva / Welsh Government at the time the 57s on 'Gerald' were replaced by 67s, since the fact trainning had already been done on the 67s was, as I understand it from this forum, a big factor in TfW continuing to use them.
A multiple unit solution, with end-gangways, would not be too bad in theory. The problem is the 197s are a not really an inter-urban design; they are a short-distance stopping DMU with one or two minor concessions to longer-distance passengers where KeolisAmey thought they could generate some extra revenue (catering cupboard and first class) but, if it doesn't directly make money forget it (the fact that KeolisAmey had either specified 'ironing board' seats or just went with whatever CAF offered by default tells you all you need to know - they clearly didn't care about long-distance comfort on the 197s).
Can they not fuel the mark 4s in Crewe?
If the fuel thing is confirmed, then I would argue that neither 197s nor 67s can 'run the service as it used to be'. Ok, the 197s can physically operate the timetable but the interior specification provides nothing like the quality level of the 175s used previously. To take just one example, until the ADSO issues are resolved to allow the operation of 5-car formations to Manchester, a 197-operated service on this route will have a maximum of two toilets, whereas the 3-car 175s have 3 toilets. Even when the 5-car 197 formations finally arrive, there will still only be three toilets, and those three toilets will have to provide for 5 coach loads of passengers instead of 3. The rail industry's train design best-practice document does not consider the 197's ratio of seats to toilets to be appropriate for inter-urban services, and neither do I.
Topological
Established Member
There is a lot there, but there are a couple of small points to correct what is otherwise a very good post. I don't agree with the criticisms of the 197s, but do accept that they are not the 175s.
A 5-car 197 has three toilets, 2 accessible and 1 non-accessible. The 3-car 197s have one of each. I agree it is not right, but that is a specification failure that seems to affect most modern trains.
Since we did not actually get the ironing board seats, the 197s have better seats than other Civities. I can certainly sit in one for 4 hours plus.
Crewe could fuel 67s, but not in service. Presumably, they could go to Longsight for fuelling at the Manchester end, but that would need a diagramming change as there is no time in the present turnaround. I realise in the cold morning light I did not check how long the turnaround on Cardiff trains at Holyhead is.
I was under the impression this decision was train crew based. Splitting at Cardiff means there's no need to train the west Wales depots? Fuel range wise, it makes very little difference if you run the loco to Swansea or spin it back to Manchester - it's still doing miles either way. The diagrams may end in the wrong locations for balance if you send a loco to Swansea, but that's far from insurmountable.
To be fair, it's a difficult one as there's only a very small fleet, yet despite this, given the routes they operate there's a huge training requirement across many depots. To a certain extent, it's worth compromising in some areas (eg: routes on which the sets are used) to save having to start the mammoth training exercise all over. I suspect that the 67s will also come at quite a favourable price point, given there's very limited other use for them from a leasing perspective.
I'm afraid I disagree strongly here. 197s have the same interior that all long distance multiple units have. The seating is near identical (infact, bettee - with more padded cushions) to those fitted to almost all new build, long distance stock (all class 80x's up until Lumo/Avanti). The only element you could argue is commuter focused is door layout - but this makes complete sense on any routes where there is high turnover of customers en-route. This would be true of many TfW routes, not least any that run through Cardiff/Newport/Shrewsbury/Crewe/ Chester (a non-exhaustive list!).
Are there any mk4 diagrams that currently start/end in Crewe? (I don't know the situation in TfW land too well). If the quoted 800 mile range of a 67 is to be believed, I would strongly suspect this will already be the case (unless these are low utilisation diagrams, eg: PM Canton - Crewe, overnight, Am Crewe - Canton). You really don't get much at all from 800 miles range.
In this regard, 68s may not be the perfect fix, either, as they too allegedly struggled for range at TPE.
If locos don't already fuel at Crewe, you'd need training for staff to take the 67s to a suitable depot, you'd need staff on night shifts to move the locos, too. If you don't have diagrams that start/end at Crewe, you've got to find a way to bring the trains to Crewe at the end of the service and then return them to where they are required in the morning.
I'm not sure I follow the toilet argument - given that 156s have operated much the same routes for decades with 1 toilet to 2 vehicles, I'd say it's a reasonable provision. Interior spec is always going to be subjective; I personally find the 197s on a par to the 175s internally.
Topological
Established Member
They could
Crewe works as "Manchester" for Mk4 purposes since the empties go to and from Crewe.
Canton currently provides the sets that work to and from Swansea (there is 1 arrival in Swansea on a week day and no departures yet).
The issue with West Wales is that the trains continue to Carmarthen or beyond. Very few terminate at Swansea. Therefore the situation is a little more complex.
The point remains that there is time in the turn around at Canton, but not in Manchester. Therefore it is not possible for the Mk4 sets to run the service that the 197s/175s do/did.
The 197s are perfectly adequate and give flexibility. It is clear in this fuelling discussion how much extra effort the Mk4s need for what is only a marginal gain over a 5-car 197.
We must remember that most passengers on the Marches are making shorter journeys and that most stations have a decent turnover that benefits from the 1/3rd 2/3rds door configuration.
Craigeybagel has told us this on very good authority.
There is all ready 1 service to and from Swansea a day and Cardiff mainline crews sign them.
I get the idea that it doesn’t matter where they go the range is the same but, the problem is If the set was to go additionally to Swansea after its trip to Manchester and it doesn’t have enough fuel to Manchester and back to Cardiff again, then when it gets back to Cardiff from swansea, it then needs to go to Canton depot to get fuelled, so what has been achieved ? Nothing, well actually, you’ve removed that set from operating between Cardiff and Manchester where it is most needed.
If you’re thinking, fuel them on a short layover mid service, then no.
When they’re on depot overnight then almost certainly already do get fuelled there.
You know I’ve said many times I like the 197’s and take no major issues with them (some small gripes but all liveable) but the MK4’s are just fantastic in my opinion. My wife doesn’t really like trains (I make her go on them when we go places without the kids because we get free travel haha!) but she very much enjoys getting on the MK4 (specifically 1st class) down to Cardiff or up to Manchester. I think the every other hour is a good compromise but it would be good if there was a way to get them to Swansea and reduce the Cardiff terminators.
If an 8th set appears I do wonder if some clever diagrams could be thought of.
nineteenninety
Member
67s have a capacity of 5000L, so the same as the 68.
Ahh ok, I got my figure of 5,400L from Wikipedia so always a bit ropey haha!
Thanks
craigybagel
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 5,535
To answer some points from the last few hours:
Yes, they can and do get fuelled at Crewe, and it's a good thing too given they regularly end up on there with less than a quarter of a tank left, judging by the fuel gauges.
Running through to Swansea adds miles to the diagram that's currently spent sitting on Canton. It would also likely see the sets out for longer in the day. It's been looked at and the 67s just aren't up to it.
At the time this project was put together, there were no other passenger locomotives available. The ex TPE 68s might be an option now, but it would appear the plan is to stick with the 67s - which to be fair after a lot of hard work by TfW and DBC are performing much better than at the start. My suspicion is they'll try and hold out long enough for a bi-mode loco to be designed that's powerful enough on diesel to cope with the Marches. We're not there yet, but as designs progress we're getting closer.
The split at Cardiff is nothing to do with traincrew; there's more than enough Cardiff traincrew to work through to Swansea, and in fact the evening Swansea service is worked by the same Cardiff driver all the way through from Shrewsbury. If it was worth running to West Wales and they needed to train Carmarthen crew to make it happen they would do. They've already more than doubled the numbers of loco trained crews as it is just to bring them onto their existing services.
The MKIVs provide a premium service that so far has proved very popular - and it provides it on the part of the route (Manchester - Cardiff) that has the biggest market for such a product.
Yes, they can and do get fuelled at Crewe, and it's a good thing too given they regularly end up on there with less than a quarter of a tank left, judging by the fuel gauges.
Running through to Swansea adds miles to the diagram that's currently spent sitting on Canton. It would also likely see the sets out for longer in the day. It's been looked at and the 67s just aren't up to it.
At the time this project was put together, there were no other passenger locomotives available. The ex TPE 68s might be an option now, but it would appear the plan is to stick with the 67s - which to be fair after a lot of hard work by TfW and DBC are performing much better than at the start. My suspicion is they'll try and hold out long enough for a bi-mode loco to be designed that's powerful enough on diesel to cope with the Marches. We're not there yet, but as designs progress we're getting closer.
The split at Cardiff is nothing to do with traincrew; there's more than enough Cardiff traincrew to work through to Swansea, and in fact the evening Swansea service is worked by the same Cardiff driver all the way through from Shrewsbury. If it was worth running to West Wales and they needed to train Carmarthen crew to make it happen they would do. They've already more than doubled the numbers of loco trained crews as it is just to bring them onto their existing services.
The MKIVs provide a premium service that so far has proved very popular - and it provides it on the part of the route (Manchester - Cardiff) that has the biggest market for such a product.
BillStampy
Member
The 67s do work Swansea returns on Sundays fairly well, with the Canton diagram doing: Canton - Swansea, Swansea - Manchester and back, then back to Canton. Which is a fairly large amount of miles, but I think since it's Sunday, it can just start later instead of early to work less time, which explains why they run Sunday Swanseas but not any other day.
Cambrian359
Member
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 270
Forgive me if this is stupid question, if the mk4s operated with a class 67 each end instead of 1 and 1 driving trailer, would it be possible to use only 1 ends engine until fuel is low then switch to the other ends engine? Doubling their range? Is that a doable thing or? Or would both ends engines have to be running if there is a loco on both ends?
The diagrams also need to take into account maintenance swaps. Diagrams start/end Holyhead, Canton & Crewe. Crewe is the maintenance Depot for Mk4's so they have to be rotated. The average diagram length is around 700 miles per day, so if you add in a Swansea trips that around another 80 miles which is too close to the 67's limit.
Because of the varying diagram mileage, it's not simple to fit in Swansea trips unless all diagrams can do it. If only some extra Swansea services can manage it, it throws out the ease of diagramming a 2 hourly mk4 services to Manchester which is what the current set up is, meaning Mk4 services could end up being a bit random. It may also means more timetable changes as some of the connections on the Cardiff - West Wales services call at Swanline stations, which Mk4's can't do currently.
Because of the varying diagram mileage, it's not simple to fit in Swansea trips unless all diagrams can do it. If only some extra Swansea services can manage it, it throws out the ease of diagramming a 2 hourly mk4 services to Manchester which is what the current set up is, meaning Mk4 services could end up being a bit random. It may also means more timetable changes as some of the connections on the Cardiff - West Wales services call at Swanline stations, which Mk4's can't do currently.
This idea has been thrown around, but i'm not sure the expense of doubling up 67's would be beneficial enough just for running to Swansea instead of Cardiff.
Its a shame the MK4's cannot work through to Swansea every 3 hours. The other Manchester services (2 per 3 hours) could all start and terminate in Carmarthen/Milford . With the GWR and Swanline due to extend to Pembroke Dock there is already plenty of direct services between West Wales and Cardiff to mitigate the loss of 1 direct train every 3 hours terminating in Swansea.
I agree that the MK4 service is excellent which is why I would be keen to see it extend to Swansea more than just the 1 train in each direction we currently get (at the moment on weekdays just 1 journey as the morning service is still booked a 197)
On Sundays they are able to run more MK4 services to Swansea as there are only 2 diagrams. Ironically Sunday is the only day there is still an hourly direct service to and from Swansea to Manchester. Something similar could be looked at for weekdays/Saturdays but with more than just the 2 diagrams used on a Sunday.
It would also help with the issue of so many terminating services at Cardiff.
The issue with Swanline stops shouldnt be so much of an issue from December as I think only the 1730 ex Manchester is due to call at Swanline stops. The others are all part of the new Cardiff-Swansea-Pembroke Dock pattern.
I agree that the MK4 service is excellent which is why I would be keen to see it extend to Swansea more than just the 1 train in each direction we currently get (at the moment on weekdays just 1 journey as the morning service is still booked a 197)
On Sundays they are able to run more MK4 services to Swansea as there are only 2 diagrams. Ironically Sunday is the only day there is still an hourly direct service to and from Swansea to Manchester. Something similar could be looked at for weekdays/Saturdays but with more than just the 2 diagrams used on a Sunday.
It would also help with the issue of so many terminating services at Cardiff.
The issue with Swanline stops shouldnt be so much of an issue from December as I think only the 1730 ex Manchester is due to call at Swanline stops. The others are all part of the new Cardiff-Swansea-Pembroke Dock pattern.
Envoy
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 2,833
That reminds me - on Sunday mornings a departure leaves Cardiff for Swansea at 8.04 and the next one is GWR at 9.44. However, at 9.14, the 67 with its Mk4 coaches leaves Cardiff EMPTY as no passengers are allowed for some odd reason. It arrives Swansea at 10.08 - which would have been ideal for people to change to 1B06 GWR departure at 10.27 for Carmarthen to arrive at 11.10 - which is 6 minutes AFTER the bus to Aberystwyth has left. Hmmm..
I really do wonder whether getting a new locomotive that is bi-mode with a powerful diesel engine for The Marches would be the way forward given that the Mk4 coaches are knocking on in age? Perhaps collaboration is needed with GWR (project Churchward) as they are also looking for a solution - new stock for routes such as Cardiff to Portsmouth & Cardiff to Penzance?
Last edited:
- Status