The loco hauled stock was out on Saturday operating as follows:
08 46 Crewe to Holyhead
12 22 Holyhead to Crewe
14 24 Crewe to Holyhead
19 33 Holyhead to Crewe
It would be a bit hard for it to be in two places at once!
Surely the real issue here is that the Virgin services were cancelled?
Agreed - not sure what ATW were meant to do, if they were using all of their stock as it was - they did what they could
I recall last year someone started a thread complaining about the Northern Stoke-Manchester service being inadequate pre-Christmas based on one service. It turned out that line had more adequate provision than other lines and the real problem was XC had turned around a service at Macclesfield so Northern were carrying the XC passengers as well as their own.
...funnily enough, that's what came to my mind too - easy to blame the train/TOC that turns up, people don't notice the one that was "missing" (like blaming your left back for missing in a penalty shoot out, when your centre forward chickened out of taking a penalty).
ATW provided a service and are cast as the bad guys. Virgin didn't provide a service, yet seem to be getting less of the criticism.
Looks like that Pretendolino would have come in handy. Pity Virgin got rid of it.
What use would it have been (other than the "nice to have some loco hauled stock" argument)?
If Virgin had had any spare stock, they'd have used it on the London blockades.
It wouldn't have been worth ATW taking on the stock for the sake of one day (and not their "problem" to solve at great expense).
A lack of co-ordination between operators seems to be here as well. A better joint plan seems to be necessary as well.
It's not about co-ordination - it's about Virgin not providing their service (and therefore dumping their passengers onto another TOC, who got the blame).
ATW don't have the spare capacity to deal with taking on Virgin's passengers - there's nothing to "co-ordinate" - we just need the Intercity TOC to provide a service (and not leave it for the Provincial TOC to deal with)
But that train is normally only a two car service. It combines with another set at Shrewsbury. It was perfectly normal for it to be a two car unit.
The issue is clearly that the 08:55 Holyhead-Euston Virgin Trains service did not operate, which then caused a much higher loading for the following train than normal.
ATW then end up being blamed for another operator's lack of service and are expected to magically find additional rolling stock that it does not have
Agreed - can't blame ATW for the lack of a magic wand
as far as the general public is concerned, it will appear to be Arriva's fault for having not predicted such high passenger numbers, while Saintly Virgin suffers no negative fallout from it.
Agreed (sadly)
To me, it's Virgin's responsibility to provide replacements for their withdrawn trains. They shouldn't simply give up and leave it all to someone else.
True
I agree with VT not running causing some the problem ,but ATW must have known about the VTs being cancelled, it just seems the two just dont talk to each other
What could ATW have done though?
No spare stock sitting around for when Virgin are having a bad day. They were using the loco hauled set already that day.
However much ATW knew, they wouldn't have had the resources to pick up the additional passengers
the problem should have been foreseen by ATWs Cardiff mandarins,who were probably on leave
I've criticised those in Cardiff a few times on this Forum, but any foresight wouldn't have helped them find spare trains (if they were already using the loco hauled set).
Good that Arriva's unwillingness to attempt to be flexible when faced with extra demand is being noticed
How "flexible" could they be, if they were using all available trains at the time (including the loco hauled set)?
A VT voyager was sitting unused in Holyhead until 13:58.
Why could it not have operated at 08:55 to Chester, arriving there at 10:28 and then return at 11:16 from Chester to Holyhead arriving there at 12:50.
An onward connection to Crewe was at 10:55 and a train arrived from Crewe at Chester at 10:45.
That would have sorted the problem out.
Instead, we have people here blaming ATW for something that frankly is not their fault.
Good question - not sure why ATW are being blamed for running their regular service, when Virgin had given up (and had a Voyager sat unused in Wales?)...
whilst I agree this was 50% Virgin's issue, ATW deserve great criticism for a badly run unit desk in their control on so many occasions in recent years
Are we just blaming ATW for what happened this weekend because people have a chip on their shoulder about the TOC anyway?
(in the way that Northern managed to get criticised when they've done something unquestionably good, like introduce WiFi)
ATW's stock isn't sufficient for normal operations, capacity wise. However they diagram the units, there will be problems somewhere as a result
To take this thread in a slightly different direction (and since a lot of the anti-ATW stuff seems to be based on people who've had "previous" with ATW...), is there something to be said for chopping up some existing ATW services?
There's clearly very little demand to travel from end to end on services like Manchester - Milford Haven or Holyhead - Cardiff/ Birmingham International), but the current through services mean that ATW end up with bigger units stuck at the quieter end of a route when people are stood on shorter DMUs at the busy end of the route.
For example, cut the Manchester - Milford Haven service at Cardiff (maybe when the SWML is electrified?), and you can ensure that Manchester - Cardiff never sees anything shorter than three coaches (rather than seeing a three coach unit at Milford Haven whilst there's a two coach one struggling at the Manchester end of the route)?
All of the interworking and portion working doesn't seem to be helping. Keep things simpler?
The issue here wasn't a lack of flexibility by ATW, or their management being on leave, it's an industry issue where one TOC can suspend it's operations on a route without making any effort to deal with the inevitable consequences.
Yup.
Easy to pass the buck and leave it for another TOC to clear up - what Virgin have done here is the railway equivalent of "fly tipping"
ATW don't have enough stock as it is, as has been said upthread. It's all very well some of you lot clutching your pearls and wailing that something should be done but really, where do you think they should magic stock from? Atw has many faults and I know a few friends who work for them who feel frustrated but this was clearly virgin's fault. I don't necessarily expect the passenger on the ground to understand but I'd have thought most on a forum such as this would realise that someone can't just nip down to the train shop and pick up a couple of 175s on their way to work
Agreed
What should Arriva done then?
Strengthening that service would mean it would be over length when it attached to the other portion at Shrewsbury so not viable!
Running a relief wouldnt be possible because no train crew available!
Yeah definitely Arrivas fault!
But go on then tell us what Arriva should have done bearing in mind they would have to pay for it all!
Agreed
Oh the joys of competition, multiple units and how much choice it gives us. Lets face it Virgin should carry the can for this one. They won't loose any passengers as a result of it though as Joe public doesn't really have a choice.
How is this the fault of multiple units?
I'm not sure that it's really the fault of "competition" either (?) - just a case of cancelling one train without there being any spare capacity on the subsequent one.
It'd be like my local bus company cancelling a scheduled double decker and then expecting everyone to cram onto the next minibus (along with all of the other passengers due on that service).