Arriva accused of 'massive rail fail' after 150 passengers unable to board packed tra

[PHILIPE]

tbtc,
It is about co-ordination if VT had advised ATW about their train plan when it was bid (or a joint plan agreed before bid) Arriva may have been able to do something with their train plan and conversely the same applies in reverse.

I am afraid I don't believe anyone who says there isn't spare stock on Saturday and Sundays when the availability is built around weekday demand for most TOCs.

There is spare stock at SOME places but not at all. ATW use all theirs on a Saturday and strengthen services such as Ebbw Vales. There is a 175 (SX) but has to be booked for Maintenance.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

An obvious question - why did VT cancel their train in the first place?

I'm not excusing them, but it might be something like:
- if there was a Voyager unit available, it would have been put on the BHI-Euston shuttles via the Chiltern line (because of the Watford blockade, which is a higher order of problem than the North Wales line)
- if there had been a unit for Holyhead, it starts very early from Birmingham and would have had to run via Nuneaton and Stoke to get to Crewe (because of the Stafford blockade), and would be unable to work its normal diagram.
- no outbound working means no unit or crew at Holyhead to form the return 0855.

As for ATW's 2-car 158, old hands will know that these workings were 3-car 175s until ATW diverted everything via Shrewsbury and reduced then to 158s to fit in with the Cambrian diagrams
There were also other ATW trains running east of LLJ, it was not an "only one inadequate train" situation except west of LLJ.

The policy of not using 57+Pendolino workings also played a part.
There must have been plenty of 390s idle all weekend.

 

[berneyarms]

I'm not excusing them, but it might be something like:
- if there was a Voyager unit available, it would have been put on the BHI-Euston shuttles via the Chiltern line (because of the Watford blockade, which is a higher order of problem than the North Wales line)
- if there had been a unit for Holyhead, it starts very early from Birmingham and would have had to run via Nuneaton and Stoke to get to Crewe (because of the Stafford blockade), and would be unable to work its normal diagram.
- no outbound working means no unit or crew at Holyhead to form the return 0855.

As for ATW's 2-car 158, old hands will know that these workings were 3-car 175s until ATW diverted everything via Shrewsbury and reduced then to 158s to fit in with the Cambrian diagrams
There were also other ATW trains running east of LLJ, it was not an "only one inadequate train" situation except west of LLJ.

The policy of not using 57+Pendolino workings also played a part.
There must have been plenty of 390s idle all weekend.

Clearly you didn't read the earlier posts.

Looking at Real Time Trains, it is clear that there was a set available.

The Voyager sat in Holyhead until 13:58. It was there over Christmas.

Provided a crew was sourced it could have operated at 08:55 to Chester and returned at 11:17 to Holyhead.

 

[Robertj21a]

Clearly you didn't read the earlier posts.

Looking at Real Time Trains, it is clear that there was a set available.

The Voyager sat in Holyhead until 13:58. It was there over Christmas.

Provided a crew was sourced it could have operated at 08:55 to Chester and returned at 11:17 to Holyhead.

Quite - so why didn't VT use it ?

Reading through this thread, there's a lot of anti-ATW rubbish being thrown in for good measure. Why can't some people recognise that they had nothing to do with the cause of the problem ?

 

[merlodlliw]

According to todays North Wales Rail Website, "Geralds" stock was used yesterday 29th December for the North Wales relief service.

 

[Wolfie]

I'm guessing that the Virgin services along the route were cancelled to provide Voyagers for blockade busters elsewhere, so, either use the Pretendolino to deputise for some of the missing Voyagers, or use it for the blockade buster and leave a Voyager or two in North Wales.

Hopefully with a diesel and not a 90 up front....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Virgin is clearly 100% to blame for this end of, and should have provided some alternate capacity either, by talking to Arriva about extra capacity, providing buses or digging out a 57 to drag a 390 to and from Crewe although the later seems to be regarded as too expensive and difficult these days.

Defending Virgin slightly, their focus was obviously on ameliorating the worst effects of the WCML Watford blockade. Frankly the number of people that affected dwarfs 150 in a relative backwater. Also, given they are running a management contract for DfT it's by no means certain they had the final say. Finally, if Virgin had won the previous abortive WCML competition it wouldn't even have the Voyagers available to run even blockade busters....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is surely the crux of the matter, someone in WG needs to sit down with ATW and VT and bang heads together until they realise they are jointly responsible for providing a service in North Wales, and whatever their own short-term commercial advantage may be, when there are problems they need to work together to solve them. I've banged on to them about this for years, but never even had a response, so it must be time to get AMs and MPs involved.

Virgin are contracted to DfT NOT the WG. Frankly North Wales is not going to rate that highly with DfT when Euston is blockaded... political realities...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Also, given they are running a management contract for DfT it's by no means certain they had the final say.

No, it's a real (premium-paying) franchise once again, since June 2014.
http://www.virgin.com/news/virgin-trains-sign-new-west-coast-franchise-deal

 

[Wolfie]

No, it's a real (premium-paying) franchise once again, since June 2014.
http://www.virgin.com/news/virgin-trains-sign-new-west-coast-franchise-deal

Oops... mea culpa...

 

[Kettledrum]

That isn't the reality of rail travel at all.

People book tickets for particular services, sometimes months in advance. If I had booked tickets for this particular Train and was not allowed on due to overcrowding I wouldn't be happy.

Can you imagine what a mess the network would be if all train operators ran trains with that in mind? Oh, these towns don't need to worry about a service - by the time the train gets to them they'll be overcrowded and they can get a train two hours later.

I agree it shouldn't be the reality of rail travel at all. Other industries have maxims such as "world class customer service" and "the customer is always right".

This is light years away from where so much of the rail industry is, where the term "passengers" is used instead of "customers", and it's often implied that problems are their fault for wanting to travel at the wrong time.

 

[PHILIPE]

I agree it shouldn't be the reality of rail travel at all. Other industries have maxims such as "world class customer service" and "the customer is always right".

This is light years away from where so much of the rail industry is, where the term "passengers" is used instead of "customers", and it's often implied that problems are their fault for wanting to travel at the wrong time.

A person being transported is a passenger. Customer is not the normal language for such a person and although it may be technically correct (A person who buys goods or services) it does not sound right in the context of travelling. What the reasoning is in terming travellers as customers by TOCs I don't understand.

 

[yorksrob]

Hopefully with a diesel and not a 90 up front....
..

Well, it made it to Llandudno a couple of months ago, so the necessary loco's and expertise do exist.

 

[GarethC]

The North Wales Coast wasn't the only area where the WCML blockade was causing similar issues. I travelled from Stockport to Ipswich on the 27th December on the EMT Liverpool-Norwich. As Virgin had recommended that all London passengers should travel via Sheffield all Transpennine Express and EMT services leaving (and in the case of the Liverpool-Norwich, arriving in) Manchester were full and standing. At Stockport two road coaches materialised at 1300 which both left full for Sheffield but still left passengers waiting for the train. At Sheffield the entire 4-coach 158 emptied and we had virtually two seats each for the rest of the journey. EMT had put additional capacity on their London intercity services but as with the ATW case the connection was overloaded.

Passenger decisions have an effect here too. Most people were travelling with lots of luggage and, having spoken to some in the vestibule, didn't travel very often. At Liverpool they had jumped on the first available train to Sheffield and hadn't considered that they might have been able to change at Manchester for a different, possibly lighter loaded train via Marple or waited for a later service.

Neither EMT or TPE (nor ATW) are going to be able to magic additional stock so the responsibility needs to be on the operator who cancels their services (or Network Rail to compensate for) to hire additional capacity similar to the Northern DRS loco sets and the ATW local hauled relief train (which did run and passengers in North Wales could have caught a bit later on).

 

[WatcherZero]

Not unsurprisingly ATW has now started an internal review into passengers being allowed in the drivers cab.

 

[berneyarms]

I was wondering when that would happen.

 

[quarella]

At Liverpool they had jumped on the first available train to Sheffield and hadn't considered that they might have been able to change at Manchester for a different, possibly lighter loaded train via Marple or waited for a later service.
.

In part journey planners are to blame. They serve a purpose but only supply one option.

 

[drbdrb]

Customer is not the normal language for such a person and although it may be technically correct (A person who buys goods or services) it does not sound right in the context of travelling.

If train companies thought of their customers as customers, people who they provide a service to, rather than passengers, people they do something to, things might improve significantly.

 

[bramling]

I agree it shouldn't be the reality of rail travel at all. Other industries have maxims such as "world class customer service" and "the customer is always right".

This is light years away from where so much of the rail industry is, where the term "passengers" is used instead of "customers", and it's often implied that problems are their fault for wanting to travel at the wrong time.

From a passenger's point of view, I find the most unpleasant aspect of rail travel is quite often the behaviour of some other passengers.

The reality is that there will be problems if loads of people all choose to make a non-essential journey all at the same time. People don't *have* to make long journeys at Christmas.

 

[6Gman]

From a passenger's point of view, I find the most unpleasant aspect of rail travel is quite often the behaviour of some other passengers.

The reality is that there will be problems if loads of people all choose to make a non-essential journey all at the same time. People don't *have* to make long journeys at Christmas.

This "travel at this time of year is optional" argument has been used a few times recently, but who is to judge what is/isn't essential travel?

 

[Tracky]

Quarella makes a good point. Because of various bits of engineering work passengers travelling from North Wales and Chester were directed via Shrewsbury and Birmingham to London. Computerised journey planners showed this as the most apropriate option, and in many cases the simplest with one or two changes.

It was never going to go well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I agree with 6G regarding the judgement of "essential" though I suspect people are really suggesting that Christmas/Leisure travel is less time critical than commuter and business travel.

I would argue that the railways should operate a more realistic and relaxed timetable at this time of year with slower paths and more padding. Dwell time at stations for laden passengers not used to rail travel and information which is common sense to commuters but not obvious to this crowd. The downside (obviously) is that you get less train mileage out of a slower timetable so less capacity overall.

Still my view - manage expectations.

 

[drbdrb]

This "travel at this time of year is optional" argument has been used a few times recently, but who is to judge what is/isn't essential travel?

Travel for anyone is optional.

Commute for work - quit, get another job locally.
Travel to customers/suppliers for work - don't bother, only seek local customers/suppliers
Travel to family - If they don't live locally ignore them.

 

[Parallel]

Yeah, I don't believe this is ATW's fault really, Virgin should have done more IMO to prevent this from happening. If the overcrowded service to Holyhead was a 158 then where else are they meant to get a spare unit from? Only 158s can run on the Cambrian line and with a train once every two hours, you can't take one off there.

It's easier to free up a DMU in South Wales (around Cardiff) as a valley lines pacer set that work doubled up can be split, then one working a different diagram, freeing up a 150. But that's not much use if the issue is from Shrewsbury to Holyhead. Also, keeping on the 158 that detaches at Shrewsbury will just short form the next service it attaches to, possibly leaving a similar amount of people on the platform. Even if there was a 175, it can't attach to a 158 can it? And it can't run as an additional service with no crew. Arriva is in a lose-lose situation here, and although perhaps the communication between Virgin and ATW is bad, I think it's wrong that VT expect ATW to have the capacity (especially around Christmas) to convey their 4 carriages worth of passengers onto ATW's already busy service.

 

[Gareth Marston]

See article for passenger pic from cab.

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/arriva-trains-wales-investigate-claims-8364004

 

[Bletchleyite]

See article for passenger pic from cab.

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/arriva-trains-wales-investigate-claims-8364004

Looks very much like the secondman's side, so they most probably closed the cab off as if opening the gangway.

Neil

 

[Rich McLean]

Looks very much like the secondman's side, so they most probably closed the cab off as if opening the gangway.

Neil

Is this allowed though without a DM in attendance? Example being what if someone decided to jump in front of the train? It is the secondman's side and maybe partitioned from the driver, but its still part of the front cab.

 

[Penmorfa]

What hasn't been mentioned is that we now have two loco hauled sets for North Wales services. The WAG Cardiff set was being used for Crewe - Holyhead reliefs while the other, the Manchester commuter set, was out of traffic in Crewe.

A little bit of planning would have seen the spare set used between Crewe and Holyhead in the paths of Virgin services. To say there was no spare stock is not exactly true.

 

[berneyarms]

But the whole point is that there was a Virgin Voyager free to work the train in the first place.

 

[185143]

Looks very much like the secondman's side, so they most probably closed the cab off as if opening the gangway.

Neil

Is this allowed though without a DM in attendance? Example being what if someone decided to jump in front of the train? It is the secondman's side and maybe partitioned from the driver, but its still part of the front cab.

I made that point as I had a cab ride with a DM I know. He told me that the only way it was possible is with a DM in the cab.

 

[Penmorfa]

But the whole point is that there was a Virgin Voyager free to work the train in the first place.

By cooperating that Voyager need not have been in Holyhead at all. It only did one return working to Crewe all day. A very poor use of resources.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is this allowed though without a DM in attendance? Example being what if someone decided to jump in front of the train? It is the secondman's side and maybe partitioned from the driver, but its still part of the front cab.

I doubt it's allowed, and I expect someone will be slapped very hard for it (and will leave people behind next time), but it wasn't a "security risk".

If someone jumped? No worse than sitting behind the driver on a Class 101 set, not that those are running on the mainline any more!

Neil

 

[RPM]

If someone jumped? No worse than sitting behind the driver on a Class 101 set, not that those are running on the mainline any more!

Neil

Or a Chiltern 121, or a Tyne & Wear Metrocar etc.