Arriva Trains Wales Query

[Penmorfa]

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.

Quite the opposite, I love loco hauled trains, one of life's little joys for me is to find a drop down window and watch the world going past. However out in the real world every single franchise runs on the muliple unit principle. 'Gerald' will soon go this way. So it figures that any new/replacement trains will also have to be units or unit clones. The days of running round trains in stations or changing locos went years ago and will never return.

As far as i'm aware the only Mark 2's currently in use on the national network are 10 reseated brake vehicles on the Scotrail sleepers and two sets on short term hire to Scotrail for Fife Circle peak hour trains.

So any use of Mark 2's by Arriva would have to conform to the multiple unit principle. That means a huge amount of investment would be required to bring this stock into service. Some have even suggested a new fleet of locos!

You cannot dismiss the Disabilty regulations. All new rolling stock must conform to it, that means all replacement rolling stock would have to conform.

What is being proposed is to replace a fleet of fully accessible trains on a major route between South Wales and Manchester with trains which would only have disabled access to one vehicle. The Dept of Transport would not agree to it and the Disability Commissioners and special interest groups would have a field day. Imagine the press headlines: "Arriva plans to banish the disabled to the guards van as it brings back 40 year old trains"

The whole idea is a total non starter. Arriva's mark 2's are destined for scrap or maybe a charter operator. A great shame but there you are.

 

[junglejames]

Quite the opposite, I love loco hauled trains, one of life's little joys for me is to find a drop down window and watch the world going past. However out in the real world every single franchise runs on the muliple unit principle. 'Gerald' will soon go this way. So it figures that any new/replacement trains will also have to be units or unit clones. The days of running round trains in stations or changing locos went years ago and will never return.

As far as i'm aware the only Mark 2's currently in use on the national network are 10 reseated brake vehicles on the Scotrail sleepers and two sets on short term hire to Scotrail for Fife Circle peak hour trains.

So any use of Mark 2's by Arriva would have to conform to the multiple unit principle. That means a huge amount of investment would be required to bring this stock into service. Some have even suggested a new fleet of locos!

You cannot dismiss the Disabilty regulations. All new rolling stock must conform to it, that means all replacement rolling stock would have to conform.

What is being proposed is to replace a fleet of fully accessible trains on a major route between South Wales and Manchester with trains which would only have disabled access to one vehicle. The Dept of Transport would not agree to it and the Disability Commissioners and special interest groups would have a field day. Imagine the press headlines: "Arriva plans to banish the disabled to the guards van as it brings back 40 year old trains"

The whole idea is a total non starter. Arriva's mark 2's are destined for scrap or maybe a charter operator. A great shame but there you are.

There is absolutely nothing stopping ATW introducing non DDA compliant vehicles right now. I agree they wont be used, but they could be. You just have to decide how you want to operate them, and then decide on the best routes.
If you keep them long enough, then you could easily make a wheelchair space in one of the coaches. That makes them pretty well DDA compliant. Not perfect for the less able bodies who cant open slam doors, but there will always be help around.

Im pretty sure as long as they were on certain trains, which were advertised in the timetable, it wouldnt be a major problem. If Scotrail can do it, so can ATW. You obviously would make every train on a certain route LHCS, so any complaints would have to be exagerated.

Its not perfect, but it is the best solution available to ATW right now.

Oh, and running locos round is still very possible in certain stations. Just dont do it enroute. So no Cardiff to Holyhead. Admittedly top n tail (one loco running) is a lot easier though. As for this term, multiple unit principle. LHCS even with DVTs is not fixed formation. So is still LHCS principle. Just with an extra driving cab. I know what you mean though, just dont like the term.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There is absolutely nothing stopping ATW introducing non DDA compliant vehicles right now. I agree they wont be used, but they could be. You just have to decide how you want to operate them, and then decide on the best routes.
If you keep them long enough, then you could easily make a wheelchair space in one of the coaches. That makes them pretty well DDA compliant. Not perfect for the less able bodies who cant open slam doors, but there will always be help around.

Im pretty sure as long as they were on certain trains, which were advertised in the timetable, it wouldnt be a major problem. If Scotrail can do it, so can ATW. You obviously would make every train on a certain route LHCS, so any complaints would have to be exagerated.

Its not perfect, but it is the best solution available to ATW right now.

Northern wanted to introduce a regular loco-hauled service from Crewe-Carlisle, but were prevented by the DfT for the reasons Penmorfa says.
At the levels of subsidy already thrown at NT and ATW, nobody will underwrite the Mk2 conversion costs.
Added to which they have hopeless electrics, aircon and toilets to be maintained, plus 40-year corrosion.
If you go for a ride in Gerald you soon realise the minuses as well as the pluses.

 

[jones_bangor]

Northern wanted to introduce a regular loco-hauled service from Crewe-Carlisle, but were prevented by the DfT for the reasons Penmorfa says.
At the levels of subsidy already thrown at NT and ATW, nobody will underwrite the Mk2 conversion costs.
Added to which they have hopeless electrics, aircon and toilets to be maintained, plus 40-year corrosion.
If you go for a ride in Gerald you soon realise the minuses as well as the pluses.

Sat in Gerald now, almost at Crewe. Beats a 175 or 158 anytime!

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Sat in Gerald now, almost at Crewe. Beats a 175 or 158 anytime!

Couldn't agree more!

 

[Penmorfa]

Sat in Gerald now, almost at Crewe. Beats a 175 or 158 anytime!

Great train, enjoy it while you can

 

[Rhydgaled]

Sat in Gerald now, almost at Crewe. Beats a 175 or 158 anytime!

I think I agree. I'm not sure everyone would though, but for a long-distance/regional express service a rake of mark2s beats a 150 hands down. With all the 158s about to be swallowed up, the ONLY way we can get rid of 150s on all such services is introducing some LHCS. 150s have accommodation for 1 wheelchair user and no accessible toilet. A mark 2 BSO should be able take a wheelchair user or two. A mark 2 rake wouldn't have an accessible toilet, I doubt you could make the case for one on stock with a life of 8-years max. However, apart from the doors not being power operated they can be just as accessible as a 150, which isn't very accessible but good enough for ATW at the moment it would seem.

Now, the passenger numbers involved mean it would seem more sensible to put the long trains (LHCS) on the Manchesters to cascade 2-car 175s to the quieter regional express services currently worked by the woefully inappropriate 150s. That does mean accessible stock (175s) being replaced by the far less accessible mark2s, but the Manchester route would gain capcity. For the Manchester route, it is either a short accessible train or a long inaccessible one. For the Swansea district line, if you won't have mark2s on Manchesters, it is a mark2 rake or no train at all.

any use of Mark 2's by Arriva would have to conform to the multiple unit principle. That means a huge amount of investment would be required to bring this stock into service. Some have even suggested a new fleet of locos!

New locos would only be an option if they were going to be useful after the mark2's 5-8 years service. In my opinion, they would since TDM fitted locos are required to maintain the Pembroke Dock - Paddington service without running diesels under the wires. You have a push-pull electric rake, like an Intercity 225, and exchange the electric locomotive for one of the new TDM-fitted diesels at Swansea. I agree that loco-swapping is just about dead because of the time it takes, but Intercity services have a long reversal at Swansea anyway so in this one case that doesn't matter and it would work.

Imagine the press headlines: "Arriva plans to banish the disabled to the guards van as it brings back 40 year old trains"

But you can add to that "and effectivly re-open express route to cut journey times from Carmarthen to Cardiff by at least 15 minutes". No mark2s = no reopenings, no extra capacity, nothing.

Seems we have to go for dirt cheap as well, so the DBSO options are probably out. That's a choice of a very restrictive route set or top & tail with 37s using the blue-star through-wiring. Personally I think top&tail with 97s and put them on the Cambrian would be great, but might not be possible as they might not keep time or have blue-star.

 

[Penmorfa]

There is absolutely nothing stopping ATW introducing non DDA compliant vehicles right now. I agree they wont be used, but they could be. You just have to decide how you want to operate them, and then decide on the best routes.
If you keep them long enough, then you could easily make a wheelchair space in one of the coaches. That makes them pretty well DDA compliant. Not perfect for the less able bodies who cant open slam doors, but there will always be help around.

Im pretty sure as long as they were on certain trains, which were advertised in the timetable, it wouldnt be a major problem. If Scotrail can do it, so can ATW. You obviously would make every train on a certain route LHCS, so any complaints would have to be exagerated.

Its not perfect, but it is the best solution available to ATW right now.

Oh, and running locos round is still very possible in certain stations. Just dont do it enroute. So no Cardiff to Holyhead. Admittedly top n tail (one loco running) is a lot easier though. As for this term, multiple unit principle. LHCS even with DVTs is not fixed formation. So is still LHCS principle. Just with an extra driving cab. I know what you mean though, just dont like the term.

There are lots of things stopping ATW introducing non DDA compliant vehicles. When you take over a franchise you have to state what trains will be used on what services. If the, say, 16.50 Cardiff to Rhymney is to be 2 class 150's then that is what it must be. If you wish to change this then you have to approach the relevant authorities to get a change in your network licence. You can't just change it because you feel like it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Seems we have to go for dirt cheap as well, so the DBSO options are probably out. That's a choice of a very restrictive route set or top & tail with 37s using the blue-star through-wiring. Personally I think top&tail with 97s and put them on the Cambrian would be great, but might not be possible as they might not keep time or have blue-star.

There are four class 97/3's, of which three I think have ERTMS. These are Network Rail departmental locos and are used all over the country on test trains, etc. They are not for the exclusive use of the Cambrian. Network Rail would not agree to their use on passenger trains on a daily basis. You would also force passengers to change at Mach from stations beyond Dyfi Jct

 

[Michael.Y]

This thread is hilarious for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Rhydgaled]

This thread is hilarious for all the wrong reasons.

Hilarious why?

Anyway, I've got another one. I've already asked whether CDF is too busy for run-round of a loco arriving from the west (from the east Gerald can run into Canton to do that). It probably is too busy, so I've been looking for a run-round point east of there. Abergaveny looks like being no help on Google Earth, but Hereford, Shreswbury and Cheltenham Spa look like they may be possibilities. Any joy there?

 

[Michael.Y]

Hilarious why?

Anyway, I've got another one. I've already asked whether CDF is too busy for run-round of a loco arriving from the west (from the east Gerald can run into Canton to do that). It probably is too busy, so I've been looking for a run-round point east of there. Abergaveny looks like being no help on Google Earth, but Hereford, Shreswbury and Cheltenham Spa look like they may be possibilities. Any joy there?

You've just answered your own question.

 

[anthony263]

Hilarious why?

Anyway, I've got another one. I've already asked whether CDF is too busy for run-round of a loco arriving from the west (from the east Gerald can run into Canton to do that). It probably is too busy, so I've been looking for a run-round point east of there. Abergaveny looks like being no help on Google Earth, but Hereford, Shreswbury and Cheltenham Spa look like they may be possibilities. Any joy there?

No chance of running round at Cheltenham, Gloucester perhaps and Shrewsbury it could be possible perhaps the same with Hereford although I am happy to be corrected.

 

[Rhydgaled]

No chance of running round at Cheltenham, Gloucester perhaps and Shrewsbury it could be possible perhaps the same with Hereford although I am happy to be corrected.

Why not at Cheltenham?

 

[anthony263]

Why not at Cheltenham?

I dont think there are run round facilties to do so unless you could use the sidings the Birmingham end of the station which are used by ATW and FGW services from Maesteg/Cardiff & London Paddington to reverse

 

[Rhydgaled]

I dont think there are run round facilties to do so unless you could use the sidings the Birmingham end of the station which are used by ATW and FGW services from Maesteg/Cardiff & London Paddington to reverse

Using those sidings to reverse loco-hauled ATW services from Cardiff/Fishguard/Carmarthen is exactly what I was thinking. If the 158s disapear up north as I expect, then the LHCS would only be replacing 150s on the route, so not such an accessiblity problem as replacing 175s on Manchesters. Cardiff - Cheltenham is perhaps not an ideal route for LHCS, but you aren't replacing ATW's newest stock with old LHCS trains.

 

[PHILIPE]

Using those sidings to reverse loco-hauled ATW services from Cardiff/Fishguard/Carmarthen is exactly what I was thinking. If the 158s disapear up north as I expect, then the LHCS would only be replacing 150s on the route, so not such an accessiblity problem as replacing 175s on Manchesters. Cardiff - Cheltenham is perhaps not an ideal route for LHCS, but you aren't replacing ATW's newest stock with old LHCS trains.

Can you not realise that any more LHCS trains are a dead duck apart from Charters.

 

[Penmorfa]

Can you not realise that any more LHCS trains are a dead duck apart from Charters.

Don't spoil the fun. Now putting the cat firmly among the pigeons, Network Rail 31's and 37's push mark 2 DTSO's all over the country.

Here are a couple of photos of the only attempt to fit a power operated door to a mark 2;

http://www.flickr.com/photos/penmorfas/7081589579/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/penmorfas/7081588393/in/photostream

that should keep it going

 

[Pacerpilot]

Why not at Cheltenham?

The Alstone sidings at Cheltenham are just a block end road now with no facility to run-round.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Couldn't agree more!

Not quite - I'm a large individual 6'3" and pushing 20 stone since my rugby playing days are over due to a knee injury I've put on a bit of weight as I don't exercise as much as i use to. i tend to be stuck to desk or sat on a train for hours on end these days.

The molded arm rests of the ATW MK2's are not of a very generous dimension width wise I actually prefer the seats on a 175 = there's more space as you can move the arm rests out the way same goes for the refurbished 158's.

Sat on FGW MK3 "airline" seat last week bloody awful barely got legs in and the high seat backs ... aaargh though the young lady of about 5'4" opposite me fitted quite well and was busy building a bag barrier on the isle seat.

 

[jones_bangor]

Sat on FGW MK3 "airline" seat last week bloody awful barely got legs in and the high seat backs ... aaargh though the young lady of about 5'4" opposite me fitted quite well and was busy building a bag barrier on the isle seat.

The FGW Mk3s are a travesty.

 

[Penmorfa]

The FGW Mk3s are a travesty.

Are'nt the new 158 seats about the same height?

 

[Michael.Y]

Are'nt the new 158 seats about the same height?

They are identical, but spaced further apart.

 

[Penmorfa]

They are identical, but spaced further apart.

That is quite probably the height for all new train seats then :cry:

 

[Michael.Y]

That is quite probably the height for all new train seats then :cry:

Well the old 158 seats have found lovely comfy new homes in the 153s.

The new 158 seats are comfy, if a little claustrophobic.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The Alstone sidings at Cheltenham are just a block end road now with no facility to run-round.

What is a block-end row? How long have they been so? The Google Earth imagery appears to show the attached track layout, my guess is run-round would be possible using the lines marked blue.

Can you not realise that any more LHCS trains are a dead duck apart from Charters.

I don't agree that LHCS is a dead duck. Modern LHCS trains can be more suitable than EMUs, but only in a very small number of cases. However, LHCS is more suitable than DMUs in far more cases. Mark2s aren't modern LHCS, I'm only making an argument for using them in day-to-day scheduled service in Wales because they are more suitable than 150s and Pacers on long-distance and regional express services, and additional 158s for Wales are probably out of the question for now. If you have a reasonable suggestion of how Wales can gain 4 to 8 additional class 158s by the end of 2013 and that happens I'd be happy for the mark2s to be special event stock only. Speaking of which, when a class 50 was used on the Royal Welsh Show train, was it able to run round in Cardiff Central or did it have to head further east because CDF is too busy for loco-run-rounds?

Don't spoil the fun. Now putting the cat firmly among the pigeons, Network Rail 31's and 37's push mark 2 DTSO's all over the country.

I did think about using NR's use of DBSOs as a reason why the others shouldn't be too hard to restore to use, but if the cost of putting them into service can be avoided by finding where there are run-round facilites than that would be more helpful.

 

[junglejames]

Northern wanted to introduce a regular loco-hauled service from Crewe-Carlisle, but were prevented by the DfT for the reasons Penmorfa says.
At the levels of subsidy already thrown at NT and ATW, nobody will underwrite the Mk2 conversion costs.
Added to which they have hopeless electrics, aircon and toilets to be maintained, plus 40-year corrosion.
If you go for a ride in Gerald you soon realise the minuses as well as the pluses.

Crewe to Carlisle? That would have been refused on more grounds than just the stock not being DDA compliant.
Ive been on plenty of Mk2s all over the country. As for Gerald. Minus- Age makes them a bit more difficult to maintain. Plus- Everything else. Double minus- Its not a 47 at the front

As I said. Put a bit of thought into it, and it could be done. Rewrite the timetable, introducing a handful of Cardiff to South West services, bypassing Swansea, operated by LHCS. Keep handful of slow services from Swansea to the South West, and terminate some of the Manchesters at Cardiff or Swansea.
Pros- Fast services at long last bypassing Swansea. Extra capacity on South West services. 158s and 175s freed up allowing Manchesters to all be doubled.
Cons- Some Manchesters wouldnt go all the way through to the South West (but is this really a major problem?). Some people will have to open an extra door during their lifetime (I really do feel sorry for them, and hope it wont cause them to break a finger nail). It requires a bit of thinking.

Ok I admit the possible breaking of finger nails is not perfect, and it requires a bit of thinking (an extra nail salon somewhere?) but it is a short to medium term solution as extra capacity is needed.

The problem is nobody will fund it because it will cost a little bit extra and may not benefit an important MP. Instead they would rather fund an Anglesey to Cardiff airline.
The lack of DDA compliant stock is a small problem which Im sure could be overcome. FGW have done it. Scotrail do it.
Its not as if all trains will be operated by this stock, and its not as if all stock on that line is much good for wheelchairs anyway. I have no doubt this could be overcome.

It just requires people to want to really get to grips with capacity, and not pay lip service to it.

 

[jones_bangor]

They are identical, but spaced further apart.

It's the "high density" spacing that's the issue on FGW, not the seat themselves as such.

 

[merlodlliw]

Sat in Gerald now, almost at Crewe. Beats a 175 or 158 anytime!

I fully agree much more comfort than a DMU in my opinion plus a buffet

 

[Penmorfa]

Crewe to Carlisle? That would have been refused on more grounds than just the stock not being DDA compliant.
Ive been on plenty of Mk2s all over the country. As for Gerald. Minus- Age makes them a bit more difficult to maintain. Plus- Everything else. Double minus- Its not a 47 at the front

As I said. Put a bit of thought into it, and it could be done.

It is not thought which is the issue. It's throwing huge amounts of money at obsolete rolling stock. There is no money - it is'nt going to happen.

Your comments about fingernails are just too childish to respond to.

 

[jones_bangor]

It is not thought which is the issue. It's throwing huge amounts of money at obsolete rolling stock. There is no money - it is'nt going to happen.

Your comments about fingernails are just too childish to respond to.

There'll soon be plenty of stock cascaded by electrification which will be newer, better and cheaper to refurbish (if required) than the Mark 2s.

There is a future for Mark 3 DVT - Mark 3 coaches - Class 67 operations, particularly with "plug-power-doors".

Wanting to rebuild a 1960s locomotive, "to make it modern", rather than buying a new Eurolight etc, is a bit like buying a second hand Morris Marina and putting a new engine in it, rather than just getting a new Ford Focus.