• 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!

TFW Stock Shortages

Status
Not open for further replies.

Y Ddraig Coch

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2013
Messages
1,288
Thanks. Tbh it's quite worrying that TfW don't have derogations granted for Pacers and the non-compliant 150s/153s/158s yet. A serious crisis could be looming if DfT plays hardball.

Absolutely , if the DfT play hard ball I'm sure TfW will argue it isn't their fault, the train manufacturers delayed deliveries and its their fault. Where I'm sure the DfT will argue that TfW knew in plenty of time that there would be delays to the deliveries of the new / refurbished rolling stock and should have had contingencies or come up with some sort of a plan to speed up the modifications before now.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Brissle Girl

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2018
Messages
2,485
Absolutely , if the DfT play hard ball I'm sure TfW will argue it isn't their fault, the train manufacturers delayed deliveries and its their fault. Where I'm sure the DfT will argue that TfW knew in plenty of time that there would be delays to the deliveries of the new / refurbished rolling stock and should have had contingencies or come up with some sort of a plan to speed up the modifications before now.
But if they’ve granted derogations to several of the other franchises, over which they’ve had total control throughout, but refuse TfWs request, where the Welsh Govt has only been responsible for 15 months, then all hell will be let loose, and rightly so.
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,061
But if they’ve granted derogations to several of the other franchises, over which they’ve had total control throughout, but refuse TfWs request, where the Welsh Govt has only been responsible for 15 months, then all hell will be let loose, and rightly so.

Indeed. Even under normal circumstances I'd expect the DfT to cave on this one - but given its election season, why make the government more unpopular then it already is in Wales?
 

Chris217

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2018
Messages
620
Government interference again!
I guess they are all happy to run rail replacement buses than use the Pacers.

I know what most people would prefer.
 

tomos dafis

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2018
Messages
135
Thanks. Tbh it's quite worrying that TfW don't have derogations granted for Pacers and the non-compliant 150s/153s/158s yet. A serious crisis could be looming if DfT plays hardball.
https://www.senedd.tv/Meeting/Clip/...50cab1fc74?inPoint=00:23:45&outPoint=00:28:40
In the extract from First Minister's questions, the First Minister suggests that Northern have received derrogations for pacers/other non-compliant stock on the basis that they can and will be able to couple non-compliant stock to a compliant unit so that overall the train is partially compliant. If that is the yardstick at the moment, the Welsh First Minister says TFW will not have enough compliant stock to do that by Jan 1st, so this is a real sticking point.
Also, it has implications for the proposed continued use of non-compliant Mark 2 and Mark 3 LHCS On Rhymney locals and Holyhead -Cardiff services - what can you couple to them to make the overall train partially compliant?
If derrogations are not granted to TFW then the situation come Jan 1st will be dire. Politically, if we see the collapse of the rail services in Wales and Borders the acrimonious blame game will start. I believe both the Westminster DfT and Welsh Government have to jointly shoulder responsibility for the mess, as well as the contractors for the 230's and 769's who have clearly over-promised and let down organisations lacking the technical and business savvy to foresee long delays to, or even failure of, projects to re-engineer redundant traction to an appropriate timetable.
 

tomos dafis

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2018
Messages
135
If DfT play hardball,then they have to dig us out of the mess they have created.
The cynic in me says that during an election the Tories might be glad to see the DfT play hardball and precipitate a crisis in Wales and Borders Rail to give them another stick to beat the Labour Welsh government with. On the other hand, hoping to make gains in Wales, the Tories may not want to see a crisis situation on rail in Wales which could be used to reflect on their time in charge of the DfT who had ultimate control over the Wales and Borders franchise until 15 months ago. So perhaps both parties will steer clear of the issue but that solves nothing for passengers.
 

Nick Ashwell

Member
Joined
20 Dec 2018
Messages
389
I personally expect some sort of emergency timetable if degradations aren't made.

The blame has to be placed right on the doorstep of the DfT and Porterbrook in my eyes, however, the public knows that the franchise is devolved and therefore it could well be that the WAG takes the blame. The time wasn't there between the end of the Arriva franchise and the PRM deadline. As outlined above Arriva had no requirement to do anything and the timing of the change over was always going to impact badly. Placing your hope in an unproven train that Porterbrook was offering was of course always going to be a risk and a stupid one to boot, there are always going to be problems when introducing a new class of unit.

Are all 170s expected to be in Wales by the deadline? (I know this overlaps with the other thread but hear me out)

They obviously aren't owned by Rock Rail and therefore if contracts are in place for TfW to take over the lease you would expect for the ROSCO to be open to legal challenges if they aren't handed over in time and considering they aren't being replaced with the same ROSCOs units there could be an even stronger argument for the ROSCO to tell GA where to stick it (it's not the ROSCOs fault after all that the FLIRTS aren't fully in place).

By the wiki count (sprinkle with salt) there are 30 Pacers in service alongside 36 Sprinters, if a number of 153s can get degradations if coupled to other PRMd 153s could they partially free up 150s to be coupled to Pacers to operate on the core Valleys lines? That on its own won't be enough however could surely mitigate the problem somewhat but again that won't be anywhere near enough.
 

Cardiff123

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2013
Messages
1,318
TfW's plan is to confine Pacers to the Rhymney line and run them in pairs.
Not all of the 150s/153s will be PRM compliant by January either.
Specifying that non compliant trains must run paired to compliant ones most likely won't be practical.
 

Brissle Girl

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2018
Messages
2,485
Why would you spend money making trains compliant post 2020 when there is an extremely high likelihood that there will be no use for them, compliant or not. That’s the situation for Pacers and at least one ROSCO made that very clear a couple of years ago.
 

sefyllian

Member
Joined
14 Jan 2013
Messages
97
A serious crisis could be looming if DfT plays hardball.
As there would be political consequences either way, I doubt that DfT can announce *anything* now that we’re in the pre-election purdah period. (By convention, the civil service doesn’t make any announcements that could be regarded as political during a campaign).

So it may well be that neither we nor TfW find out if derogations are permitted for at least another month. Which is cutting it rather fine, especially if the answer is no…
 

Brissle Girl

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2018
Messages
2,485
As there would be political consequences either way, I doubt that DfT can announce *anything* now that we’re in the pre-election purdah period. (By convention, the civil service doesn’t make any announcements that could be regarded as political during a campaign).

So it may well be that neither we nor TfW find out if derogations are permitted for at least another month. Which is cutting it rather fine, especially if the answer is no…
That's true, but neither is essential business allowed to grind to a halt because of purdah. There are rules in place regarding decisions/announcements during this period, one of which is that opposition parties need to be consulted. It would not surprise me if a decision is made during this period, as failure to do so will leave only 11 working days until the units cease to be compliant. And of course, there is a presumption that a majority government is able to take office immediately, a SoS for Transport is appointed immediately, and that the issue will be top of the list of things to look at, none of which is guaranteed by any means. (Remember that Gordon Brown stayed on as PM for 5 days in 2010 until Cameron was able to confirm that he could form a government.)
 

Cambrian359

Member
Joined
17 Jun 2018
Messages
202
What are the implications of running non PRM trains without derogations beyond January the first?
Fines?
Will DFT staff come out of the offices and sit on the tracks in front of the pacers preventing them being used or put clamps on them?(silly I know) bit my point is unless the consequences of running all these non prm trains is prison for TFW staff then realistically there’s nothing to stop them running them if the alternative is depots full of trains and a mostly closed down network .
 

Brissle Girl

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2018
Messages
2,485
They probably won't hold an operating license to use them, which means all sorts of things, like no insurance, Network Rail refusing to allow them to operate, unions not allowing them to be used, etc, etc,. I just couldn't see that happening.
 

Cambrian359

Member
Joined
17 Jun 2018
Messages
202
They probably won't hold an operating license to use them, which means all sorts of things, like no insurance, Network Rail refusing to allow them to operate, unions not allowing them to be used, etc, etc,. I just couldn't see that happening.
ok good points!
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
If the UK Government chooses to "play hardball" over PRM dispensations, I suspect TfW will have its services in England first in line for cancellations/bustitution! <(
 

Cardiff123

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2013
Messages
1,318
That's true, but neither is essential business allowed to grind to a halt because of purdah. There are rules in place regarding decisions/announcements during this period, one of which is that opposition parties need to be consulted. It would not surprise me if a decision is made during this period, as failure to do so will leave only 11 working days until the units cease to be compliant.

Hopefully a decision will be made before 12th December and TfW will know what this decision is, but the decision will be embargoed publicly until after 13th December.
 

Cardiff123

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2013
Messages
1,318
If the UK Government chooses to "play hardball" over PRM dispensations, I suspect TfW will have its services in England first in line for cancellations/bustitution! <(
I can't see any justifiable reasons there would be for DfT granting derogations for Pacers at Northern and GWR, but not at TfW. All 3 operators are facing the same problems due to delays to new trains and most notably the 769s.
 

507021

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
4,670
Location
Chester
I can't see any justifiable reasons there would be for DfT granting derogations for Pacers at Northern and GWR, but not at TfW. All 3 operators are facing the same problems due to delays to new trains and most notably the 769s.

Reported elsewhere that 769450 has been accepted by Northern.
 

Rich McLean

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2012
Messages
1,684
I see that the majority of TfW 158s between Birmingham and Shrewsbury are now 2 car vice 4, so 158s can be released to cover shortages elsewhere.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
I can't see any justifiable reasons there would be for DfT granting derogations for Pacers at Northern and GWR, but not at TfW. All 3 operators are facing the same problems due to delays to new trains and most notably the 769s.
Reportedly the Northern and GWR dispensations will only permit use of a non-compliant unit when it is coupled to a compliant unit, so that at least part of the train is PRM compliant. Such a dispensation would not solve TfW's problem, because it will not have enough compliant units.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
The clip you made is not working. But looking at the transcript from FMQs, the First Minister's comments can be summed up as:
"We couldn't do anything when warned in 2013 about the need to get trains ready for PRM deadline, because of the no growth ATW franchise that Welsh Govt had no control over"
"It's Porterbrook's fault that we are having to apply for derogations to continue using Pacers into next year, because they haven't delivered the 769s on time as promised. We don't want to use Pacers, but Porterbrook's failings have given us no choice."
At best the 769s would have replaced 14 of the 26 Pacer diagrams. The lack of 230s is also a factor.
 

topydre

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Messages
188
I see that the majority of TfW 158s between Birmingham and Shrewsbury are now 2 car vice 4, so 158s can be released to cover shortages elsewhere.

yes and there’s much anecdotal evidence of people being unable to board in the Birmingham area and having to wait for 1 or 2 hours. This could undo the past decade’s hard-won footfall increase considering people’s feedback on the situation :(
 

tomos dafis

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2018
Messages
135
Reportedly the Northern and GWR dispensations will only permit use of a non-compliant unit when it is coupled to a compliant unit, so that at least part of the train is PRM compliant. Such a dispensation would not solve TfW's problem, because it will not have enough compliant units.
I have already made that exact same statement earlier today on this thread in post #216 above in this thread.
 

Eccles1983

On Moderation
Joined
4 Sep 2016
Messages
841
What are the implications of running non PRM trains without derogations beyond January the first?
Fines?
Will DFT staff come out of the offices and sit on the tracks in front of the pacers preventing them being used or put clamps on them?(silly I know) bit my point is unless the consequences of running all these non prm trains is prison for TFW staff then realistically there’s nothing to stop them running them if the alternative is depots full of trains and a mostly closed down network .


Do you think a TOC is going to risk having its operating licence revoked by running illegal stock on the network?

If they are banned by NR then running them would result in NR putting an all stop out to signallers with any offending units.

Once this has happened then the TOC picks up the bill for all subsequent delays.

The signallers would not allow them off depots before any of this actually took place. Once entered on trust it would flag up and they could simply refuse to clear signals to allow them on NR metals.
 

Eccles1983

On Moderation
Joined
4 Sep 2016
Messages
841
If the UK Government chooses to "play hardball" over PRM dispensations, I suspect TfW will have its services in England first in line for cancellations/bustitution! <(


I doubt it.

It's a franchise that needs money. Cutting off the profitable bits such as the English routes is literally removing ones nose to spite it's face.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,421
Can the PRM deficiencies be overcome by staffing in the short term? Extra staff on the trains to assist people on and off, tell them what the next station is etc etc?
 

Oxfordblues

Member
Joined
22 Dec 2013
Messages
651
One possible scenario: it's Friday 13th December and leave-leaning parties (Tory/Brexit) have won a working majority despite the best efforts of the remainers in Labour/Lib-Dem/Plaid/Greens and the SNP. Grant Shapps is reappointed Transport Secretary and one of his first announcements is a blanket derogation on all vehicles not compliant with regulations inspired by what he might refer to as "EU red-tape". Even if a "Remain Alliance" prevails they could hardly go ahead with mass train cancellations from 1 January which the Tories and Brexit Party would surely blame on continued EU membership.

Either way I believe derogations are politically inevitable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top