Arriva Trains Wales Query

[tbtc]

There are quite a few Scotrail cross-border services, but I get your point

The GSW service from Dumfries to Carlisle is slightly worse than hourly, plus there's the sleeper to London in the middle of the night, nothing like as many border crossings a day as Wales & Borders manage

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The GSW service from Dumfries to Carlisle is slightly worse than hourly, plus there's the sleeper to London in the middle of the night, nothing like as many border crossings a day as Wales & Borders manage

"Border" in this case is Carlisle (like it used to be in Caledonian/GSW days).
The Glasgow-Dumfries-Carlisle-Newcastle trains are "split" in franchise terms at Carlisle with Scotrail north and Northern east.
I don't know how they manage the sleeper, but it seems to be a 50/50 split between DfT/SG, judging by the offer to fund upgrades.

Then there are the NR cross-border oddities.
Carlisle box controls well across the border, and so does Chester (and for that matter the new ETCS installation at Machynlleth).
And Cardiff will soon be controlling Nantwich!

 

[Penmorfa]

Agreed, power door mark2s is a no-no, as is operating them once GWML electrification displaces mark 3s from Intercity 125s.

What I'm suggesting is a stop-gap measure, with a few rakes of mark 2s allowing increased capacity, and a few new services, until mark3s are spared to take over. There might need to be a few tweaks to the BSOs or DBSOs to make them able to take wheelchairs, but for the 5/6/7 years they would be operating I doubt it would be worth installing full diability compliance measures.

This is from the ATW website:

We work to reduce social exclusion through a positive policy of improved access to our services for customers with disabilities and will work closely with our rail industry colleagues to achieve this where they are responsible for the provision or ownership of facilities.

Our aim is to maintain and where possible improve standards of accessibility available on our network.

That means that any Mark 2's which replace existing trains must be fully accessible. So power operated doors, etc in every vehicle. No if's and but's. Let's face it - there is no future for the Arriva Mark 2's.

 

[IanXC]

Network rail is a not for profit Company,varied views on how they operate,as for me I am not bothered, so long as people get shifted in reasonable comfort,the current ATW lack of capacity must be sorted. N F P would be good so long as its run by rail professionals,not politicians, The Co Op & JL are excellent examples in retail

Network Rail is of course not for dividend.
The Coop and John Lewis are for profit. Its just how profit is distributed which differs from the norm, to members, and employees respectively.

 

[Rhydgaled]

This is from the ATW website:

We work to reduce social exclusion through a positive policy of improved access to our services for customers with disabilities and will work closely with our rail industry colleagues to achieve this where they are responsible for the provision or ownership of facilities.

Our aim is to maintain and where possible improve standards of accessibility available on our network.

That means that any Mark 2's which replace existing trains must be fully accessible. So power operated doors, etc in every vehicle. No if's and but's. Let's face it - there is no future for the Arriva Mark 2's.

The WAG express stock doesn't have power doors, and I'd be suprised if the new mark3s for it would have power doors either. The ATW DMU fleet isn't exaclly fully accessible itself (no accessible toilets on pacers, and possibly some other units too). Maybe the mark2s would have to be restricted to working additional services though. Perhaps it would be best just to try and get them to keep two rakes available for specials (then you only have to refurbish a few of the stored TSOs, rather than needing DBSOs and perhaps more BSOs too).

 

[Penmorfa]

The WAG express stock doesn't have power doors, and I'd be suprised if the new mark3s for it would have power doors either. The ATW DMU fleet isn't exaclly fully accessible itself (no accessible toilets on pacers, and possibly some other units too). Maybe the mark2s would have to be restricted to working additional services though. Perhaps it would be best just to try and get them to keep two rakes available for specials (then you only have to refurbish a few of the stored TSOs, rather than needing DBSOs and perhaps more BSOs too).

The WAG express stock was brought in to run new services, not to replace existing vehicles. Eventually the Mark 3's will need doing, possibly they are being done already?

check this page to see the specifications;
http://www.arrivatrainswales.co.uk/TrainFacilities/

All Pacers will have to be withdrawn by 01-01-20 (yippee!)

I think you just have a soft spot for the Mark 2's but don't we all?

 

[Rhydgaled]

All Pacers will have to be withdrawn by 01-01-20 (yippee!)

I've already said that I wouldn't expect the mark2s to remain in use after that either.

I think you just have a soft spot for the Mark 2's but don't we all?

I'd rather have a short rake of mark2s than a 150 on any of the regional express services ATW operate. The Fishguard boat train is always a woefully inapropriate 150, and Cardiff-Holyheads and Manchesters show a 150 from time to time also. I'd prefer to get rid of the mark2s and have 8 or 9 mark3 rakes (we're already getting 2 or 3 rakes for WAG expresses) instead, just I think the mark2s (since ATW own them (except the DBSOs)) woud be a cheaper and more-likely option. I'd also be happy for ATW to drop the mark2s if we could get 12 additional 158s in 2013, but we can't. Mark2s are probably the quickest way of getting additional stock, when they can be replaced with mark3s, or 158s, they should be.

If I was going just on what I have a soft-spot for, I might have suggested that one of the mark 2 + DBSO rakes I've been talking about would be painted in IC swallow (a DBSO already carries that livery I think). I didn't mention that because I'm more concerned about getting extra stock (suitable for long-distance/express work, so not Pacers/150s) in service ASAP.

Also, from the link you gave me it looks like the Cardiff bay unit is just as inaccessible as mark2s, but replaces a 153 which can take a wheelchair user.

 

[merlodlliw]

The WAG express stock was brought in to run new services, not to replace existing vehicles. Eventually the Mark 3's will need doing, possibly they are being done already?

check this page to see the specifications;
http://www.arrivatrainswales.co.uk/TrainFacilities/

All Pacers will have to be withdrawn by 01-01-20 (yippee!)

I think you just have a soft spot for the Mark 2's but don't we all?

I agree the WAGs were new open access services, but will have taken a 175 franchise set out of service for a year in three weeks time, this 175 set is a replacement for unavailable stock in my opinion.

Bob

 

[jones_bangor]

The WAG express stock doesn't have power doors, and I'd be suprised if the new mark3s for it would have power doors either. The ATW DMU fleet isn't exaclly fully accessible itself (no accessible toilets on pacers, and possibly some other units too). Maybe the mark2s would have to be restricted to working additional services though. Perhaps it would be best just to try and get them to keep two rakes available for specials (then you only have to refurbish a few of the stored TSOs, rather than needing DBSOs and perhaps more BSOs too).

We don't know whether or not the mark 3s will have power doors.

It would make a lot of sense to equip them as such.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also, from the link you gave me it looks like the Cardiff bay unit is just as inaccessible as mark2s, but replaces a 153 which can take a wheelchair user.

I wouldn't put much money on the Bubble lasting beyond 2020, or 2012 when I think about it!

 

[junglejames]

I'd only support top & tail if the stock is through-wired so both locos can provide power, the extra power should help sort out the lower acceleration everyone seems to complain about with LHCS. DBSOs can carry passengers, unlike DVTs (and I'd save the DVTs for 110/125mph operation with mark3s). They'd probably need a major refit though, and you need some TDM fitted diesel locos (all the class 43s are on IC125 sets now I think).

A few years back I said 6 mark2 sets with DBSOs (4 or 5 in service, the other(s) spare) should work Holyhead - Birmingam to release valuable 158s, but then found out you can't do that without diverting the Cambrian services away from Birmingham. It'd have the same problem, but another alternative would be putting the LHCS on Manchesters (either Llandudnos or Carmarthens) and cascading 3-car 175s to Holyhead - Birmingham, but is a 3-car 175 enough for that route?

Acceleration wouldnt be much of a problem if you only had 4/5 coaches. Arent the Chiltern LHCS services running on 168 timed diagrams? OK 175s probably have better acceleration than 168s, but I expect LHCS would keep up.
One service which could go over to LHCS is the daytime boat train to Fishguard. Im not sure about run rounds at Manchester, so how many services do you have to/ from South West Wales that only go as far as Cardiff? It would probably require a bit of a rejig of the timetable to take out some Swansea calls and send them via the Swansea district.

 

[Rhydgaled]

We don't know whether or not the mark 3s will have power doors.

It would make a lot of sense to equip them as such.

True, but given how long it is taking to fit Chiltern's, it'll be a long time before we get them if they do have power-doors.

I wouldn't put much money on the Bubble lasting beyond 2020

It wouldn't, I agree. The mark2s shouln't have to last beyond 2020 either, but we need them now. My point is there are examples where ATW have introduced less-accessible stock to provide extra capacity, and hence why can't the same be done with the mark 2s (which could be slightly more accessible than the bubble)?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One service which could go over to LHCS is the daytime boat train to Fishguard. Im not sure about run rounds at Manchester, so how many services do you have to/ from South West Wales that only go as far as Cardiff? It would probably require a bit of a rejig of the timetable to take out some Swansea calls and send them via the Swansea district.

I wouldn't take Swansea calls out of any existing services, but one of the things I want extra stock for is additional services between Pembrokeshire and Cardiff via the Swansea District Line. I was wondering if the boat train could be LHCS, if you can't use the LHCS elsewhere to release a 158 for the boat train. Can a loco arriving at CDF from the west run-round, because you could do Carmarthen - Cardiff without DBSOs then (the daytime boat train could use the push-pull Gerald stock instead of it having a long break)? I expect CDF is too busy for that though.

 

[MCR247]

OK 175s probably have better acceleration than 168s,

Anything has better acceleration than a turbostar :P

 

[PHILIPE]

True, but given how long it is taking to fit Chiltern's, it'll be a long time before we get them if they do have power-doors.

It wouldn't, I agree. The mark2s shouln't have to last beyond 2020 either, but we need them now. My point is there are examples where ATW have introduced less-accessible stock to provide extra capacity, and hence why can't the same be done with the mark 2s (which could be slightly more accessible than the bubble)?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I wouldn't take Swansea calls out of any existing services, but one of the things I want extra stock for is additional services between Pembrokeshire and Cardiff via the Swansea District Line. I was wondering if the boat train could be LHCS, if you can't use the LHCS elsewhere to release a 158 for the boat train. Can a loco arriving at CDF from the west run-round, because you could do Carmarthen - Cardiff without DBSOs then (the daytime boat train could use the push-pull Gerald stock instead of it having a long break)? I expect CDF is too busy for that though.

You can't run any additional trains between Swansea and Cardiff as paths are at an absolute premium as the numerous freights have to be accomodated also. There us a path reserved for an extra half hourly Maesteg service and also Network rail are risk averse to granting too much.
Much of this thinking is I'm afraid pie in the sky and I can't see any more LHCS ever being used for normal run of the mill services.

 

[Greenback]

You can't run any additional trains between Swansea and Cardiff as paths are at an absolute premium as the numerous freights have to be accomodated also. There us a path reserved for an extra half hourly Maesteg service and also Network rail are risk averse to granting too much.
Much of this thinking is I'm afraid pie in the sky and I can't see any more LHCS ever being used for normal run of the mill services.

I have to say that I see little freight on my journeys between Port Talbot and Cardiff. If the line is so busy then i would expect to see freights being held in loops, and a lot of trains passing in the opposite direction. I see little evidence of this.

I think it is more likely that there are paths that are allocated to freight, but not used, like the protected second Maesteg path, and that NR are also reluctant to allow more trains in case they get blamed for delays.

 

[PHILIPE]

I have to say that I see little freight on my journeys between Port Talbot and Cardiff. If the line is so busy then i would expect to see freights being held in loops, and a lot of trains passing in the opposite direction. I see little evidence of this.

I think it is more likely that there are paths that are allocated to freight, but not used, like the protected second Maesteg path, and that NR are also reluctant to allow more trains in case they get blamed for delays.

I think you're right that there are paths reserved for freight whether anything actually runs or not.

 

[Greenback]

I think you're right that there are paths reserved for freight whether anything actually runs or not.

Yes, I now remember reading something in a magazine about unused paths east of Port Talbot. I also seem to recall paths for North of England Eurostars remainign reserved for years afte rit became clear the trains themselves would not run!

 

[Penmorfa]

It wouldn't, I agree. The mark2s shouln't have to last beyond 2020 either, but we need them now. My point is there are examples where ATW have introduced less-accessible stock to provide extra capacity, and hence why can't the same be done with the mark 2s (which could be slightly more accessible than the bubble)?

But for the reasons I have given you cannot use your beloved Mark 2's to replace stock used on existing services. They are not compliant and never will be. Get over it.

 

[tbtc]

I also seem to recall paths for North of England Eurostars remainign reserved for years afte rit became clear the trains themselves would not run!

IIRC there were services delayed due to the need to wait for the "phantom" Eurostar to pass - must have annoyed a few people

 

[sprinterguy]

But for the reasons I have given you cannot use your beloved Mark 2's to replace stock used on existing services. They are not compliant and never will be. Get over it.

That hasn't proved a problem for Scotrail or First Great Western in recent times. I have seen nothing that seems to state, set in stone, that ATW couldn't make use of older slam door stock if they so wished. Principally just corporate hyperbole about improving access for all and other such things. I can't see why ATW would be a special case compared to other franchises.

 

[Rhydgaled]

You can't run any additional trains between Swansea and Cardiff as paths are at an absolute premium as the numerous freights have to be accomodated also. There us a path reserved for an extra half hourly Maesteg service and also Network rail are risk averse to granting too much.
Much of this thinking is I'm afraid pie in the sky and I can't see any more LHCS ever being used for normal run of the mill services.

The map in the Wales RUS says there are 25-48 freights a day between Cardiff and Bridgend, and less than 25 by Port Talbot. The maximum (between Bridgend and halfway between there and Port Talbot) is about 60. 60 divided by 24 = 2.5 trains an hour. 48 divided by 24 is 2 an hour.

Then consider this document which, on page 4, says: On the basis of 4-6 minute headways we can identify at least 6 fast (20 minute) and 4 slow (30 minute) all stations or freight paths between Bridgend and Cardiff.

That is 10tph. Currently there are 1.5 passenger and 2 frieght taking up the slow paths, but only 2 fast passenger services in the 6 fast paths. An hourly express to south-west Wales from Cardiff over the Swansea district line should be possible.

 

[sprinterguy]

I don't think ATW's mark 2's have any form of through wiring. Arriva Trains Northern ran a Harrogate - Leeds- Settle - Carlisle service in 2004 using top and tailed 37's. The through wiring was a cable slung detween the outside of the carriages, not an internal fitting. The Rhymney services were only worked by a single 37/47 with a run round at each journey end.

Some of the ATW mark 2s (The former ATN ones, of course) are still denoted, in the Platform 5 Combined Volume mind you, as being fitted with blue star multiple working cables. As are a few other mark 2 vehicles in fact. Whether the cable was slung between the outside of the carriages or not, it's still in place.

 

[tbtc]

That hasn't proved a problem for Scotrail or First Great Western in recent times. I have seen nothing that seems to state, set in stone, that ATW couldn't make use of older slam door stock if they so wished. Principally just corporate hyperbole about improving access for all and other such things. I can't see why ATW would be a special case compared to other franchises.

IIRC FGW no longer run their loco hauled rake (replaced by LO/LM 150s) but FSR do?

Could the ex-FGW rake (which is apparently in reasonable shape, having been used in service recently) move to Wales - even if the ATW stock is in poor state?

 

[Rhydgaled]

But for the reasons I have given you cannot use your beloved Mark 2's to replace stock used on existing services. They are not compliant and never will be. Get over it.

They are not 'my beloved mark2s' - as I said I prefer mark3s, I just want to see the available stock used to improve services.

 

[sprinterguy]

IIRC FGW no longer run their loco hauled rake (replaced by LO/LM 150s) but FSR do?

Could the ex-FGW rake (which is apparently in reasonable shape, having been used in service recently) move to Wales - even if the ATW stock is in poor state?

Yes the FGW service was discontinued a while back but the Fife Circle service continues to run.

I believe that the stock latterly used on the FGW Cardiff to Taunton turns was Cargo-D stock, some of which I think has since graduated north for work on the Fife Circle run, but there's probably still serviceable stock available.

 

[anthony263]

Wasnt the anglia liveried rake used by DRS on that loco hauled service on the cumbrian coast line?

I agree there is nothing stopping ATW using one of the MK2 rakes that were in use by FGW. Then again FGW could easily use the loco hauled rakes again and free up some class 150's to go elsewhere but the problem is money and would the DFT give permission

 

[Michael.Y]

They are not 'my beloved mark2s' - as I said I prefer mark3s, I just want to see the available stock used to improve services.

But your scenarios are unworkable for any number of reasons which have been spelled out - incompatible locos and wiring, lack of runaround availability etc... plus they are not DDA compliant.

For all the use they are they may as well not exist. They get trotted out for rugexes etc. but for day-to-day working the multiple unit is king, and indeed our passenger railways are nowadays largely shaped for MU working rather than LHCS.

Any hope for LHCS must now rest with ArrivaUK getting hold of the GW franchise, with post-electrification HSTs being truncated GC-stylee and run between Swansea and Cardiff, and possibly up the Marches if the franchise is re-arranged / merged Wessex-stylee.

Apologies for using stylee twice.

 

[Penmorfa]

But your scenarios are unworkable for any number of reasons which have been spelled out - incompatible locos and wiring, lack of runaround availability etc... plus they are not DDA compliant.

For all the use they are they may as well not exist. They get trotted out for rugexes etc. but for day-to-day working the multiple unit is king, and indeed our passenger railways are nowadays largely shaped for MU working rather than LHCS.

All very true. The only loco hauled trains which could be run would have to be in DMU style. But if the D of T will not allow operators to order new DMU's then why do some think they would allow it?

 

[Rhydgaled]

All very true. The only loco hauled trains which could be run would have to be in DMU style. But if the D of T will not allow operators to order new DMU's then why do some think they would allow it?

Well I'm suggesting using the mark2s precisly because more DMUs are not an option until (hopefully) 158s are released from Scotrail in 2015/16.

But your scenarios are unworkable for any number of reasons which have been spelled out - incompatible locos and wiring, lack of runaround availability etc... plus they are not DDA compliant.

Full DDA compliance doesn't really matter until 2020, and I've already said that I expect more modern stock will be available to replace the mark2s before then.

I admit some of my scenarios may be unworkable, the main reason I started this discussion was to try and work out what the cheapest, most realistic scenario that doesn't involve having to wait until 2015 for extra services and capacity would be. tbtc has been trying to help by suggesting some scenarios which could cut the costs of such a project.

As I see it, the options are:

1. • Keep the 6 mark2s ATW actually use fit for operation
   • Make safe 4 of ATW's stored mark2 TSOs, or find 4 already servicable TSOs (which you chose depends on whether the cost of refurbing ATW examples is greater than the cost of leasing others for 6-8 years)
   • Form these into two rakes of 4 TSOs and a BSO
   • Use these to boost capcity for special events. For Cardiff events you might be able have one to Holyhead and one to Carmarthen via the Swansea district line. Carmarthen - Cardiff via the Swansea district line could also be an option to cater for the festival traffic I encounted at Pembrey & Burry Port
2. As above, but form more rakes (same as above) and run daily Carmarthen - Cardiff via Swansea district line services with some of them, perhaps just one (in that case you'd only need to find one extra rake). They could also take over the Fishguard boat train if it is made to avoid Carmarthen both ways instead of only westbound.
3. • Make some TDM-fitted diesel locos
   • Form 3 rakes of BSO - 3x TSO - DBSO and one with an extra TSO replacing the DBSO
   • Use two DBSO sets on Manchesters, with one in reserve and a 'normal' train for special events (if possible the maintenance would be planned so the reverse set should be available to run an extra service for the event also).
   • You could have a DBSO on the 4th set too, if you want, and put 3 on Manchesters with one spare set. In that case, one of these diagrams might revert to a DMU, with the released LHCS set replacing a DMU diagram that will be carrying event traffic instead. The spare would still run an extra if possible.
   • Benifit of this option is two 2-car 175s would be released from Manchesters by 4 coach trains. One would give the 175 fleet some much-needed stack, the other would run Fishguard - Cardiff express services via the Swansea district line (inc. the boat train) in lieu of the 158s we don't have (a 158, being cheaper, would be more appropriate for the SDL service than a 175).
4. As above, but fit a multiple working system to the DBSOs instead of fitting locos with TDM (the problem with this is it destroys the loco's future potential as something to take over from electrics on mark3/4 push-pull rakes beyond the wires).
5. Make use of the blue-star through wiring to top & tail the sets, which could enable use on Manchester - Carmarthen/Llandudno, or (if the 97s have blue star and can keep time) the Holyhead - Birmingham - Cambrian curciut.
6. Use tbtc's idea of running the Manchester trains in a loop, with a second loco waiting at Swansea to take the train back. However, since there would be enough stock to run an hourly Cardiff - Carmarthen service, extending in alternate hours to Milford Haven, this would be losing too many direct Cardiff - Milford/Carmarthen services.

 

[junglejames]

The WAG express stock was brought in to run new services, not to replace existing vehicles. Eventually the Mark 3's will need doing, possibly they are being done already?

check this page to see the specifications;
http://www.arrivatrainswales.co.uk/TrainFacilities/

All Pacers will have to be withdrawn by 01-01-20 (yippee!)

I think you just have a soft spot for the Mark 2's but don't we all?

Actually, I think its you who has a hatred for anything that isnt MU.
Both of your comments about "Your not allowed to replace MUs with non DDA stock" and "ATW will only use disabled friendly stock" has been shown to be wrong.
To counter that you try and bring in a date 8yrs in the future for when pacers will be withdrawn. Is it not allowed to withdraw Mk2s on this date? Or is there some law which says that once you start using Mk2s, you can never ever withdraw them? I cant say ive heard of this law, but perhaps it exists:roll:

There are some routes on which LHCS is not suitable, but there are nowhere near as many problems as you make out. Crikey, the Mk2s are even owned by ATW, so it wouldnt even have lease costs.
Yes LHCS is more expensive to run (mainly because of the unfairly high access charges etc) but if ATW and WAG put their heads together, ive no doubt something could easily be done. But there needs to be the will to do something different. That will doesnt often seem to be there.

 

[merlodlliw]

Well I'm suggesting using the mark2s precisly because more DMUs are not an option until (hopefully) 158s are released from Scotrail in 2015/16.

Full DDA compliance doesn't really matter until 2020, and I've already said that I expect more modern stock will be available to replace the mark2s before then.

Correct, nothing stops ATW from using old build stock it owns, within the equalities regulations there are exclusions,which seem to be forgotten.
Like all Acts & Regulations it is up to the owner or whoever that supplies the service to decide, few read the guidance notes.

plus http://www.arrivatrainswales.co.uk/Timetables/ 14th May is published