• 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!

Could TFWs fleet replacement be a disaster?

Status
Not open for further replies.

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
That may be so, but that is a side effect of the large doors and means that space isn't available for legroom and toilets, both things that TfW have told me they intend to reduce (at least compared to 175s) along with bays of 4 around tables.

Indeed, the extra capacity will hopefully avoid the need for passengers to stand. You are also correct to say that the suburban door layout reduces the dwell time; if you replaced the class 175s tommorow with Turbostars on a vehicle-for-vehicle basis (ie. no capacity increase) you would indeed reduce the dwell times. However, if you could magic up an extra 62 class 175 intermediate vehicles to lengthen the fleet (providing a similar capacity boost to the Civity fleet) and this eliminated the crowding so everyone gets a seat that would also reduce dwell times. If you then replaced that expanded 175 fleet with equally long Turbostars I'm the dwell time saving wouldn't be nearly as big as moving from overcrowded 175s to overcrowded Turbostars.

Put another way, if the doorways aren't congested by overcrowding I doubt the door layout makes much difference to dwell times. Sure, it'll save a few seconds but unless the train is stopping at busy stations every 5 minutes its not worth the significant reduction in quality.

It's not just me, in the franchise annoucement TfW themselves refered to the Civity fleet as "Long distance and rural DMU" and they are listed with the mark 3s, mark 4s and 175s on the "Long Distance Express" table in the franchise documents.

You'd think the TOCs would ensure the tanks get emptied, yet there have been several reports on the forums of toilets being locked out of use due to full tanks.

I'm not just talking about overcrowded services (which incidentally are a lot more few and far between then people make it here, but that's a whole other rant). Normal everyday services with normal everyday loadings, are sped up by having the doors at ⅓ ⅔. Again, I'm speaking from experience, experience that the folks who've ordered these trains have also got. They know what they're doing.

And again, it's not a "significant reduction in quality", not by any means except your own. But I feel I'm really banging my head against a brick wall here and to be fair you're probably feeling the same about me!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
A big leap in capacity... for some. Not the Cambrian though which as it stands is set to lose a fair few seats due to no extra carriages and the new carriages having less seats. Milford Haven is probably the biggest loser, it could lose all its current 3-car workings when the 5-car Manchesters split at Swansea with only the 2-car unit going through to Carmarthen/Milford

There's a lot of "could" and "might" on this thread. Maybe the seats on the new trains won't be as comfortable as the ones on the old trains, maybe they will.. not worth arguing about in such detail right now.

The Cambrian has seen significant increases in service due to the infrastructure improvements (plus some pressure being taken off at the eastern end due to the additional Birmingham - Shrewsbury services from WMR.

But if the new franchise (and it's political paymasters) decide that, despite the large increase in overall fleet capacity, that Milford Haven can cope with shorter trains then presumably there are other parts of the franchise that are much more in need.

Normal everyday services with normal everyday loadings, are sped up by having the doors at ⅓ ⅔. Again, I'm speaking from experience, experience that the folks who've ordered these trains have also got. They know what they're doing.

And again, it's not a "significant reduction in quality", not by any means except your own. But I feel I'm really banging my head against a brick wall here and to be fair you're probably feeling the same about me!

This feels like an argument between someone who works on these trains, day in, day out, and experiences the benefits/problems with each type of rolling stock... against someone who's brother once used a train with doors closer to the middle of the carriage than they expected... I think I'd take the views of the former over the latter, but that's just me!
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
3,074
The major disaster though is that the Civity units appear to be planned as diesel-mechanical units. See also this topic This means they will be bad for the environment. The class 230s at least are intended to be diesel-electric battery hybrids; regenerative braking charging the batteries should improve the fuel economy quite a bit compared to a DMU I would have thought. Diesel-mechanical is just not future-proof. Even if the Civity units are just diesel-electric to start with, that would make it easier to add pantographs and/or batteries at a later date. Better yet, passive provision for pantographs etc. should be built in from the outset; there's probably not enough electrification yet to justify them being bi-mode from day one, but if the wires reach Shrewsbury (from Wolverhampton) making the Cambrian units (at least) bi-mode would surely make sense.

They'll soon be trialling a hybrid [diesel/battery] conversion for conventional DMUs like Turbostars which could presumably be retro-fitted to these CAF fleets if successful.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Wales is making moves towards integrated public transport not just in the Cardiff area but more generally, using the Trawscymru network to fill in the transport network in the rural areas. People will therefore use the train in conjunction with bus services for their local trips.

I expect in practice this will mean more local journeys using the train for one or two stops, rather than the current situation where the train is predominantly used by long distance travellers, with the number of people using them in the latter way may not grow as fast. This means that the rural network, whose service will generally become more frequent, will need to be ready for more hop-on, hop-off tripping than it used to be.
 

Tomos y Tanc

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2019
Messages
640
Wales is making moves towards integrated public transport not just in the Cardiff area but more generally, using the Trawscymru network to fill in the transport network in the rural areas. People will therefore use the train in conjunction with bus services for their local trips.

I expect in practice this will mean more local journeys using the train for one or two stops, rather than the current situation where the train is predominantly used by long distance travellers, with the number of people using them in the latter way may not grow as fast. This means that the rural network, whose service will generally become more frequent, will need to be ready for more hop-on, hop-off tripping than it used to be.

You may be right. Just from subjective experience the majority of the passengers on the Marches line seem to only travel for one or two stops with particularly heavy usage between Wrexham and Chester and Wrexham and Shrewsbury. The economy of north east Wales is pretty closely integrated with the north west of England's and TfW's long distance services are very much seen as 'local trains' by people on both sides of the border.

The civitys seem a pretty good compromise given the dual purposes of services which cater for both long-distance travellers and local commuters.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The civitys seem a pretty good compromise given the dual purposes of services which cater for both long-distance travellers and local commuters.

I agree. They are regional expresses, and so a hybrid layout (doors at thirds but 2+2 high backed seating with armrests and tables) is the best compromise.

The only "actual" IC services are getting Mk4s.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
Wales is making moves towards integrated public transport not just in the Cardiff area but more generally, using the Trawscymru network to fill in the transport network in the rural areas. People will therefore use the train in conjunction with bus services for their local trips.

I expect in practice this will mean more local journeys using the train for one or two stops, rather than the current situation where the train is predominantly used by long distance travellers, with the number of people using them in the latter way may not grow as fast. This means that the rural network, whose service will generally become more frequent, will need to be ready for more hop-on, hop-off tripping than it used to be.

Of course, this is already the case in much of the valleys that are served by rail. Certainly back when I lived at home, it would be much more common to use the train to travel a village or two over than it was the bus, mainly because the train was cheaper and more reliable than the bus service!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Of course, this is already the case in much of the valleys that are served by rail. Certainly back when I lived at home, it would be much more common to use the train to travel a village or two over than it was the bus, mainly because the train was cheaper and more reliable than the bus service!

You do get that when there's a good local train service - doing a couple of stops on Merseyrail is also common - but almost nobody does it on the south WCML at least around MK.
 

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,069
I understand that the longest tram trip will be about 50 mins. Presumably, anyone who might need a toilet will go before they catch the tram, just as they would if they caught a bus (often for over 50 mins).
Deleted
 
Last edited:

Brissle Girl

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2018
Messages
2,484
This feels like an argument between someone who works on these trains, day in, day out, and experiences the benefits/problems with each type of rolling stock... against someone who's brother once used a train with doors closer to the middle of the carriage than they expected... I think I'd take the views of the former over the latter, but that's just me!

Very true. And noting the comment from Rhydgaled "Regarding the quality of stock, I have sent many e-mails to TfW etc. regarding this over the past year." I question why anyone would think that they have a right to bombard a public authority with continued questions on a subject, just because they don't happen to like the anticipated outcome (or maybe their brother doesn't). If one is unhappy after one or maybe two rounds of correspondence then the appropriate way forward is to raise it with their relevant representative, which in this case would be their AM. One doesn't have a divine right to demand a particular type of door configuration (or unit end gangways), and to keep on debating the point ad nauseum with TfW, particularly once the decision has been made is both futile and a waste of time.
 

Gwenllian2001

Member
Joined
15 Jan 2012
Messages
671
Location
Maesteg
Similar to a Met line journey to London from Chesham or Amersham.
I think that the biggest problem is the near total disappearance of public conveniences from our towns and villages due to 'austerity economics'.

The lack of facilities at stations, which used to have them, hasn't helped either. To build new facilities at stations which have been reduced to unmanned platforms will be costly and will need to be supervised and maintained. On board facilities will not be immune from misuse but, as part of the train, will be in the public eye and easier to supervise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Brissle Girl

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2018
Messages
2,484
Not sure I agree with that. Unless guards are expected to deal with any issues (which I doubt given the unpleasant nature of them) then a train will just have the toilet locked out of use until it is able to go out of service. Which then causes a short form or cancellation. At a manned station (which I believe TfW have said they will be) then the job description could include basic station maintenance, or a roving maintenance team could be on site within a relatively short time.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
Similar to a Met line journey to London from Chesham or Amersham. Is there something in the Welsh water (or Brains beer) that makes for weaker bladders?

Nothing to do with the water or beer (well apart from match days!), and everything to do with:
  • The sheer number of other public toilets in London compared to the South Wales Valleys.
  • The rural nature of much of the South Wales Valleys compared to the area covered by the London Underground, which links with the above.
  • The fact that many of the stations in the South Wales Valleys areas used to have much more facilities historically, but have since seen staff removed and facilities closed. This means there is a general skepticism and cynicism in the views of some of us from the area when at station toilets are being talked about.
  • The fact that many stations in the area are unmanned and so don't have staff to look after toilet facilities, again as above means people don't really believe there will be adequate at station toilet facilities.
  • The fact that passengers have been used to having toilets on these services for a few decades. Compared with LU where I don't think there have ever been toilets on trains? (certainly not in the same time period!).
  • The fact that most underground lines have higher frequencies than what is being proposed for the valleys. Especially when you are looking at 15 minutes between services in the upper valleys, or possibly longer on Sundays (which does make me question what the proposed Sunday service is, I've only seen 4tph for weekdays, and not sure if that includes weekday evenings either considering the fact services turn to hourly after 7pm right now).
 

hobbm013

Member
Joined
15 Apr 2019
Messages
171
Nothing to do with the water or beer (well apart from match days!), and everything to do with:
  • The sheer number of other public toilets in London compared to the South Wales Valleys.
  • The rural nature of much of the South Wales Valleys compared to the area covered by the London Underground, which links with the above.
  • The fact that many of the stations in the South Wales Valleys areas used to have much more facilities historically, but have since seen staff removed and facilities closed. This means there is a general skepticism and cynicism in the views of some of us from the area when at station toilets are being talked about.
  • The fact that many stations in the area are unmanned and so don't have staff to look after toilet facilities, again as above means people don't really believe there will be adequate at station toilet facilities.
  • The fact that passengers have been used to having toilets on these services for a few decades. Compared with LU where I don't think there have ever been toilets on trains? (certainly not in the same time period!).
  • The fact that most underground lines have higher frequencies than what is being proposed for the valleys. Especially when you are looking at 15 minutes between services in the upper valleys, or possibly longer on Sundays (which does make me question what the proposed Sunday service is, I've only seen 4tph for weekdays, and not sure if that includes weekday evenings either considering the fact services turn to hourly after 7pm right now).
To be fair, majority of underground stations don’t have toilets
 

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,069
SNIP
  • The fact that most underground lines have higher frequencies than what is being proposed for the valleys. Especially when you are looking at 15 minutes between services in the upper valleys, or possibly longer on Sundays (which does make me question what the proposed Sunday service is, I've only seen 4tph for weekdays, and not sure if that includes weekday evenings either considering the fact services turn to hourly after 7pm right now).
And compared with 2 destinations that each get 2tph from the City.
 

Tomos y Tanc

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2019
Messages
640
WelshBluebird offers a very good summary of why people in the south Wales valleys are skeptical about TfW's plans. The valleys have had so many promises broken over the years, and not just by rail companies, that they have every right to be dubious.

If however the plans involve the return of proper manned stations in places like Aberdare, Porth and Treorchy complete with toilets, waiting rooms and refreshments, it would be a major step forward.

The problem comes with some of the lesser used platforms and stations. It could be argued that there are too many of them, particularly in the Rhondda, but I suspect there would be hell to pay if you tried to close any of them!
 

Nick Ashwell

Member
Joined
20 Dec 2018
Messages
389
Having gone to university in Trefforest I can say for sure that below Pontypridd there aren't that many problems other than overcrowding, I never checked train times during weekdays, just walked down to the station and jumped on a train without much thought.

Now your example towns aren't what can exactly be called big and worthy of fully manned stations, Chepstow and Caldicot are about the same size as Aberdare and Porth has a population of around 5,000, no way that could sustain a manned station. Chepstow gets regional services to Nottingham and yet doesn't have a TfW ticket machine (only a third party ticket seller), no toilets or waiting room (unless you count the coffee shop) and Caldicot is a completely unmanned halt with a much worse service than Porth yet triple the size! Why are the Valleys getting so much when those of us in the border regions are left in a much worse situation despite having a similar travel time to Cardiff, there is not even one train every hour from Caldicot to the capital, an easily commutable route which surely whilst currently gaining 1 tph from 2022 (a ridiculous timescale!) seems to be being left alone other than small, negligible improvements.

The Valleys is getting a lot of investment compared to other parts of Wales and yet it complains about being left out, whilst since mining ended there haven't been the jobs, the same goes for Chepstow and Caldicot which are now almost purely commuter towns with awful public transport links, in fact it's cheaper to catch the English bus to Newport from Chepstow than the Welsh one and the English bus is almost as quick as the train (about five mins difference) for half the cost.

What Cardiff Bay should have done is pushed KeliosAmey for much quicker timescales for everything they possibly could, not yet having the ability to purchase tickets at a large number of stations is pathetic, in fact I once got into an argument at Newport station with a member of staff on the barrier for not having previously bought a ticket, this was despite me explaining I boarded at Caldicot and not seeing the conductor move down the train! Fleet replacement whilst important isn't just what needs doing and focusing almost all the improvements in the Valleys stinks of political point scoring, rather than placing what is needed in place in a reasonable timeframe!
 

Tomos y Tanc

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2019
Messages
640
Now your example towns aren't what can exactly be called big and worthy of fully manned stations, Chepstow and Caldicot are about the same size as Aberdare and Porth has a population of around 5,000, no way that could sustain a manned station. Chepstow gets regional services to Nottingham and yet doesn't have a TfW ticket machine (only a third party ticket seller), no toilets or waiting room (unless you count the coffee shop) and Caldicot is a completely unmanned halt with a much worse service than Porth yet triple the size!

Um. In 2017/18 Chepstow handled 0.253m passengers. Porth handled 0.355m and, as you point out, Chepstow has a coffee shop, Porth doesn't. In the same period, Caldicott was used by 0.101m passengers while Aberdare handled almost six times as many, 0.5672. The size of a town doesn't necessarily equate to the number of rail journeys generated.

Do Chepstow and Caldicott deserve better rail services? Yes, of course, but that's an entirely different issue from station facilities.

Remember it was the DfT that stood in the way of TfW providing regular Cardiff > Bristol services which would have been a huge boon for southern Monmouthshire.
 
Last edited:

James James

Member
Joined
29 Jan 2018
Messages
426
You'd think the TOCs would ensure the tanks get emptied, yet there have been several reports on the forums of toilets being locked out of use due to full tanks.
Plot twist: I've learned that Bioreactor toilets occasionally need to "dehydrate" during service, at which point they temporarily need to go out of service. That could perhaps also be an issue. (It's hard to find much reliable information on this, it's entirely possible the journalist who wrote this was making things up.)

But equally, perhaps no UK TOCs are using such toilets, the list of train companies that this manufacturer supplies appears to only include continental railways:
https://www.akwauv-protec.com/Bioreactor.htm
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
I'm not just talking about overcrowded services (which incidentally are a lot more few and far between then people make it here, but that's a whole other rant). Normal everyday services with normal everyday loadings, are sped up by having the doors at ⅓ ⅔. Again, I'm speaking from experience, experience that the folks who've ordered these trains have also got. They know what they're doing.

And again, it's not a "significant reduction in quality", not by any means except your own. But I feel I'm really banging my head against a brick wall here and to be fair you're probably feeling the same about me!
Yes, we're both banging our heads against brick walls. I think that might be my fault for not being clear enough on one key point, namely that I completely understand that doors at thirds would reduce dwell times. You have, quite correctly, been arguing that fact, but it hasn't got us anywhere because I already know it to be true. It would appear that, essentially, there are two main things we disagree on:
  • Whether the change of door layout represents a significant reduction in quality
  • Whether quality or dwell time is more important
The latter obviously is going to to have a different answer for different types of service. Different parts of the rail industry seem to have a different view on that; TPE and SWT/SWR have even appeared to change their minds on where to draw the line.
 

Nick Ashwell

Member
Joined
20 Dec 2018
Messages
389
Um. In 2017/18 Chepstow handled 0.253m passengers. Porth handled 0.355m and, as you point out, Chepstow has a coffee shop, Porth doesn't. In the same period, Caldicott was used by 0.101m passengers while Aberdare handled almost six times as many, 0.5672. The size of a town doesn't necessarily equate to the number of rail journeys generated.

Do Chepstow and Caldicot deserve better rail services? Yes, of course, but that's an entirely different issue from station facilities.

Remember it was the DfT that stood in the way of TfW providing regular Cardiff > Bristol services which would have been a huge boon for southern Monmouthshire.

Have you considered if Chepstow and Caldicot had the same level of service as those stations? Passenger numbers would increase, it's just not viable to take the train most of the time. And would those services be that great for southern Monmouthshire? You'd have to either connect or drive to Severn Tunnel Junction, people would continue to drive to work rather than take trains. Yes when I lived in Caldicot I was known to just walk to Severn Tunnel but it's still over a mile even as a local knowing the shortcuts. Yes an extra connection would be useful but IIRC it was actually an Arriva timetable change which made connecting at Severn Tunnel awful, especially considering it's often a 45 minute wait on a cold winters evening.

The coffee shop is not exactly provided by TfW but is rather a private enterprise that chose that location, if someone wanted to open some sort of small coffee shack at Porth I wouldn't see TfW standing in their way. It would be something they could market but as for them funding putting those sorts of things in, that's just a waste of taxpayers money, money better spent improving services elsewhere! Asking for things like toilets at small stations is just peeing into the wind, the cost of staffing stations with those facilities would be extremely high, the question regarding WC should be directed at local councils and not travel providers.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
Do any trams have Toilets on? For thats what a Tram-Train is, a tram. You don't see the Class 399s on the Sheffield Supertram services to Rotherham having Toilets.
Tram trains with toilets are currently offered by Alstom (Citadis Dualis) and Stadler (Citylink).
I believe some are in service.

Here is an example.

Toilets have been removed because it was cheaper to remove them and promise some vapourware station improvements at a later date.
These improvements will obviously be pushed back for years, if they ever actually occur.
 

Caaardiff

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2019
Messages
851
Am I right in thinking GWR now use Turbos on Cardiff - Portsmouth, which is about the same journey time as Cardiff - Manchester, and about the same number of stops. Do GWR get complaints about the Turbos being used?
 

Nick Ashwell

Member
Joined
20 Dec 2018
Messages
389
I've heard complaints regarding 3+2 seating. Personally I prefer travelling on the 158s we used to get, in terms of comfort it's a downgrade (at least in my opinion). However I would guess there are less end to end journeys on the GWR route
 

Tomos y Tanc

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2019
Messages
640
Have you considered if Chepstow and Caldicot had the same level of service as those stations? Passenger numbers would increase, it's just not viable to take the train most of the time. And would those services be that great for southern Monmouthshire? You'd have to either connect or drive to Severn Tunnel Junction, people would continue to drive to work rather than take trains. Yes when I lived in Caldicot I was known to just walk to Severn Tunnel but it's still over a mile even as a local knowing the shortcuts. Yes an extra connection would be useful but IIRC it was actually an Arriva timetable change which made connecting at Severn Tunnel awful, especially considering it's often a 45 minute wait on a cold winters evening.

You make my point for me.

Of course, passenger numbers at Chepstow and Caldicott are poor because of the low frequency of services. The answer to that is to improve services. Station facilities are an entirely seperate issue.

In terms of services in southern Monmouthshire, given the commuter flows to Bristol, a more frequent service from Cardiff to BTM via Severn Tunnel Juntion would be useful and would provide better connection times.

Are you really suggesting that commuters heading to Bristol from Caldicott and Chepstow would prefer to change at Gloucester rather than change at or drive to STJ?
 
Last edited:

Nick Ashwell

Member
Joined
20 Dec 2018
Messages
389
I often change at Cheltenham as it can be quicker to get into Bristol and the comfort of a Voyager beats a small DMU. As for the majority of commuters? In Chepstow they get the 7XP to Bristol or drive, getting the train is just not really that viable for commuting when the bus is faster. From Caldicot (single T) you realistically have to drive if you want to commute to Bristol, especially now the tolls have been removed, removing the financial reasoning for taking the train. What is actually needed is the original Severn Bridge to be rebuilt (they're planning a road bridge in the area, not that hard to add rail) so that Southern Monmouthshire and Lydney can receive a direct service to Bristol, only then would commuting to Bristol become viable by train, especially considering how poorly located Temple Meads is for commuting (I used to do it and very quickly switched to the bus).
 

Fincra5

Established Member
Joined
6 Jun 2009
Messages
2,486
Tram trains with toilets are currently offered by Alstom (Citadis Dualis) and Stadler (Citylink).
I believe some are in service.

Here is an example.

Toilets have been removed because it was cheaper to remove them and promise some vapourware station improvements at a later date.
These improvements will obviously be pushed back for years, if they ever actually occur.

Not to mention Space Saving for extra capacity I guess.

At the end of the day the Valley's won't the only place in the UK to operate trains (well glorified trams in this case) without toilets. The Sheffield Supertram to Rotherham doesn't have them...

Most Metro services don't have toilets and not all Stations are staffed with toilet facitilies - infact most aren't.
Southern Coastway used to be all 377s with at least 1 Toilet but now a bulk are 313s without. Again the majoirty of stations aren't staffed or have toilet facilites.

People are able to hold their bladders. Go before you board/ leave the pub...
People manage on night buses all the time, so whats so different about the Valley Lines?

Yes its a change from the Mix of Pacers and 150s that currently have toilets but then what do people do if the toilet is locked out...
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
Perhaps most of this thread should be hived off into a separate thread on 'Why the Welsh need the loo more than most other people'.

:E
 

Brissle Girl

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2018
Messages
2,484
With a nod to the original Channel Tunnel Rail Link, maybe they should rename the South Wales Metro “Cardiff & Incontinental Railways” to reflect the particular concern there appears to be in the area. (With apologies to those who do indeed have a relevant medical condition.)
 

Fincra5

Established Member
Joined
6 Jun 2009
Messages
2,486
Perhaps most of this thread should be hived off into a separate thread on 'Why the Welsh need the loo more than most other people'.

:E

Hahaha! Perhaps! :lol:
5644eacb14000069023caa48.jpeg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top