You're misrepresenting my argument here - I don't want all charters banned, but where a conflict arises in the same path between an existing public service and a charter, the existing public service should be prioritised.
-
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!
Bustitution on Cambrian to accommodate private charter
- Thread starter Bertiethebobby
- 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
I am not "misrepresenting" anything. You need to be clearer what it is you are arguing for.
I never said you want all charters banned, and I don't think anyone has claimed that? But you do come across as appearing to want charters to cease running on this particular line, given the posts above yours, which appear to state the position.
OK so on this line, it's stated above that TfW wanted to run more trains, meaning there'd be no room for charters. It's claimed that agreement was reached for more trains to run subject to allowing some charters to run. Assuming the above post is correct (which I don't know; I've asked for a source to verify this), are you saying you disagree with those arrangements?
Agreed; I used the same source, now that I am aware of the trains in question (which really ought to have been included in the opening post from the outset, but nevermind)
And this is very wrong; it should be published further in advance, and the industry should not treat cancellations 5-6 weeks ahead as if the trains never existed.
Though it's nothing compared to what the likes of TPE get up to on a regular basis, as mentioned up thread; the industry does need to get its act in order. But, I do think we need to separate out the two issues. It's not mutually exclusive to say that charters should be allowed to continue to operate, but also that sufficient notice should be given, and - where this is not the case - that appropriate rights and compensation should be available to customers who were affected.
james_the_xv
Member
Yes the train is WTT. But today's service was cancelled with code: 'PD - Not planned to operate'. You see it with many services, both passenger and freight with, where it is pre-agreed that the service won't operate on that particular day.
Why put a note in a printed timetable where the train will not run ~5 times in 140+ days? There are planned engineering work cancellations for longer lengths of time with no note in timetables?
Not really. This hasn't been cancelled out of the blue.
Do you have any evidence that advances were made available for this service? Or it appeared in journey planners?
I disagree with those arrangements if it means this situation happens, yes. If running an extra train means charters can't run on this one line out of the entire country, so be it. The arrangements should not have been put in place with the caveat that charter operators (or in this case seemingly Pathfinder only) can override the extra public path.
james_the_xv
Member
This probably comes down to the charter operator needing to confirm they'll use the path, and if they didn't tfw would run their service. Saves cancelling and then re-instating (and the arguments around which is best)
Do we know how far ahead TfW have been issuing Advances for?
It would have appeared in journey planners for searches made before the respective dates (28/02 and 20/02)
Thanks for confirming; as I thought, you are effectively proposing barring charters from this line. We'll agree to disagree on that!
On a separate tangent - Network Rail are not dispassionate arbiters of who gets to use the line in this instance - because of the lack of ERTMS fitment to most locomotives, it's in their interest to allow charters, since they would invariably have to use NR's 97/3s and pay for the privilege.
james_the_xv
Member
No idea - hence my point. If TfW did offer advances for a service they planned to cancel due to agreement with NR, that's a whole seperate issue.
Indeed; I agree that it's a completely separate issue
Wilts Wanderer
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2016
- Messages
- 2,504
Out of interest, how does this situation compare with Scotrail’s Edinburgh-Tweedbank timetable, where I seem to remember they have to withdraw selected booked passenger trains to allow a charter to run? I do recall there is a note in the public timetable to that effect however I’m not sure how accurate it is (possibly just stating ‘this train may not run on selected dates’?)
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 16,030
The infrastructure was built to squeeze an hourly service in (and it needed tweaking to do that). There is no float in it.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,355
But the charter path was there before the service train. An extra service is being run in the charter path on days when a charter doesn't run.
It seems entirely right to me that the charter should run.
The point is probably less about TfW Advance fares, and more about ones that connect into or out of other services. I'm guessing (but don't know) that the bulk of advances would be in this category.
Would Avanti allow travel from London an hour later or the ticket easily be changed to allow that? Doubtful because the industry is often quite bad at that stuff.
It's just poor customer service for regular customers to do this after booking opens.
Of course the wider question is probably how main lines like this were run down to the point where you can only fit in one train an hour but that's definitely a topic for another thread!
Falcon1200
Established Member
Was the Cambrian 'main line' ever able to accommodate more than an hourly service?
The arrangement seems to me a sensible way, in the circumstances, to provide paths for conflicting operations. Certainly advertising in advance that the two TfW trains will not run a few times a year would help, but are the days on which the charters operate set in stone, or as seems more likely, variable?
Wetherspoons in Pwllheli, opposite the station, appreciated the business I'm sure. I would say at least 100 people from the train all crossed the road and went in there shortly after it arrived. I can't imagine they would normally be that busy at that time on a Thursday.
Iskra
Established Member
You’re misunderstanding causality here. From my understanding it’s a path for ad hoc workings that’s been taken into passenger use for additional services apart from when it’s needed for ad hoc workings, like a charter. Complaining about this is more likely to get the previous situation restored, with less passenger workings and the path not always being used, rather than getting charters dropped.
This happened last year too, so is hardly news.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 16,030
How does track monitoring work, down at night and stable and back before passenger service, or does that need to knock out a passenger train?
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Nearly all "engineering" work on the Cambrain is done at night, either using the 97s dragging stuff, or putting the whole route under a Possession, so allowing machines to run under their own power. There was a machine in the Engineers Siding at Welshpool for a couple of days last week.
And in respect of the trains that ran as Replacement Buses; these services are probabaly the least used of any of the services on our line, and when I saw the eastbound coach at Welshpool I think there was only 3 passengers on it. I certainly haven't heard any complaints from anyone locally.
I don't think there's a problem with the arrangement but I also think it would be reasonable to expect all of the following:
- Minimum twelve weeks notice in all cases where a TfW service is withdrawn in exchange for the charter service
- Only specific TfW services eligible to be withdrawn in this way. No through Pwllheli services or services with connections to the Coast line to be withdrawn
- The services which won't run on certain days to be highlighted in the timetable PDF and at stations, including a special note
- Posters at stations to advise a list of dates when these nominated services will not run. As long as equal prominence is given the same poster can act as an advertisement for the charter, if that's what Pathfinder etc want
The charter operator paid for the bus.
Disabled access would be an issue. As would the long list of request stops.
The Welsh Government clearly disagrees and sees economic value in the charters.
Any different to engineering alterations?
Yes, it runs to Aberystwyth after the last train, stables at Machynlleth around 0300 and leaves again for Pwllheli at 2330 the next night.
I've a feeling that the RHTT does similar. Freight however appears to have daytime paths.
Peregrine 4903
Established Member
Charters are planned at T6 which might be why the tfw train wasn't removed until T5.
You'd think someone would have raised that when TfW made the original access application though.
It's plain five weeks is unacceptable given TfW usually go beyond that.
Shouldn't be any need to carry TfW's passengers between Machynlleth and Pwllheli. Of course access may still be poor at Aberystwyth and Machynlleth, and presumably some charters might not even have time to serve Caersws and Bow Street if they wanted to or no.
Quite different yes. Any engineering access agreed at five weeks would be for an emergency only, not able to be fixed in any other way. Otherwise the request should be rejected. This isn't an emergency, it's been known about for almost ten years since the first track access application for the extra services.
Last edited:
Happy to be corrected but I believe a large number of passing loops will have been removed over the years. In common with lines like Salisbury - Exeter the timetabled service has been increased since the layout was rationalised so this can make it very tight trying to either recover late running or operate extra services.
In this case Aberystwyth only having one platform can't help either.
Falcon1200
Established Member
I expect you are right, and the situation does as you say show what happens when traffic increases beyond the expectations of the past.
The newer-model ETCS Network Rail wanted to install would have made it easily possible for the two services to follow one another on a tight headway, assuming that charter is planned a touch slower than the TfW to balance out the TfW making the stops.
As noted above however if that were the case the charter wouldn't be able to actually serve Aberystwyth and would instead have to go straight towards Pwllheli. I wouldn't like to comment on the viability of TfW carrying charter passengers from Machynlleth or Dovey Jn to Aberystwyth. It's certainly something that's done sometimes but it may be very bad for business if Aberystwyth is the main draw. Also while trains would be able to pass between Welshpool and Fron in this way, Newtown is a short loop barely longer than the station platform is. No doubt this would mean some further retimings adding complexity.
As noted above however if that were the case the charter wouldn't be able to actually serve Aberystwyth and would instead have to go straight towards Pwllheli. I wouldn't like to comment on the viability of TfW carrying charter passengers from Machynlleth or Dovey Jn to Aberystwyth. It's certainly something that's done sometimes but it may be very bad for business if Aberystwyth is the main draw. Also while trains would be able to pass between Welshpool and Fron in this way, Newtown is a short loop barely longer than the station platform is. No doubt this would mean some further retimings adding complexity.
Last edited:
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Unacceptable to who? As I said I've heard no complaints about this excursion from passengers locally.
Seems to me the people who are moaning most loudly about this aren't actually affected.
Yes, a lot of loops were removed many years ago, all at now closed intermediate stations, and with little to no chance of them being reinstated.
It doesn't help, but isn't insurmountable.
Belperpete
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 1,650
As far as ordinary passengers are concerned, these were NOT ad-hoc services, but regular, timetabled services, like any other that appear in the printed and on-line timetables. Passengers with open returns would have been quite entitled to expect to travel on them.
In the case of engineering work, TfW put up posters and on-line advice that services are going to be affected. I don't recall seeing any such posters about these cancellations. Does anybody know what TfW's journey check showed on the day?
The Welsh Government pumped a lot of money into providing the extra infrastructure to allow an hourly service between Shrewsbury and Aberystwyth (and there was talk about upgrading Mach-Pwllheli to hourly too). This is the first I have heard that this money was spent for something that could be withdrawn at whim with little or no notice.
I have known similar cases elsewhere where a charter has carried the ordinary passengers, but I suspect that this could be problematic at Caersws (which has a very short platform).
I would have been particularly upset had I planned to travel on the Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury service, as the bus would certainly have missed my onward connections at Shrewsbury and beyond. It takes considerably longer by bus - on one occasion, the bus I was on took so long that we saw the following train (an hour later) overtake us! During the recent engineering work closures, TfW's journey planner was actually advising me to catch the TrawsCymru buses to Dolgellau and then to Ruabon, and catch a train from there, as being quicker than taking the rail replacement bus to Shrewsbury.
Cambrian359
Member
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 209
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood but I thought the whole point of the signalling system on the Cambrian was to trial and roll out a system that would allow trains to run faster and much closer together based on a GPS type of system?
On that basis why can 1 train not follow 10 minutes behind the other? Particularly if splitting off in different directions
(Forgive me if I’ve not used correct technical terms but hopefully its understood)
On that basis why can 1 train not follow 10 minutes behind the other? Particularly if splitting off in different directions
(Forgive me if I’ve not used correct technical terms but hopefully its understood)
Belperpete
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 1,650
The purpose of the Cambrian trial was to trial ETCS. ETCS comes in various forms, that on the Cambrian is level 2. This requires train detection by track-circuit or axle-counter, which effectively form block sections, with only one train allowed in each section at a time. To get trains travelling closely together, you need lots of short track-circuits or axle-counters, which costs a lot of money. I understand that this is what they have done on the core Thameslink section, but no way could such expenditure have been justified on the Cambrian! I understand that some of the Cambrian sections have been split into two (e.g. Mach-Dovey junction has been split into two, with intermediate stop boards), but not sure if all sections have been.
Level 3 is where the train reports its position by radio, and so trains can run closely together. The train needs to be able to report the position of both its front and back. Proving where the back of the train is has been problematic, particularly where trains are made up of variable numbers of wagons or coaches. I am not aware of any mixed traffic passenger railway that has currently implemented level 3 due to this problem.
- Status