Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Traction & Rolling Stock' started by ATW158Xpress, 25 Jun 2018.
They fit the Rhymney line. Just north of Radyr is the restriction
So 158's and 175's, as well as the expected cascaded 170's definitely a no-go North of Radyr too - all with cars over 23 m long? 769's will have shorter cars so could work North of Radyr but are destined for the Rhymney line - does not look good for core valley lines North of Radyr if pacers all go end of December 2019 and only about 10 150's are PRM modified by then, even if the additional 4 769's arrive before year end.
I heard the 88 out figure - 29 2 car pacers go plus 15(?) mk 3 carriages = 73 carriages. Where does the 88 come from - more dodgy maths? - others are obviously having some difficulty trying to reconcile the figures quoted to the committee on Wednesday.
Ok if we are going to be precise, in the meeting to which I refer (and I think you know which it is as you, I believe, have responded to a post about it previously -page 18 on this thread 5 Dec. last) Ken Skates said the no-growth franchise let in 2003 was "dire" - he used that term. He obviously knew that it was his own party who were in power then as did other AM's present and anyone with political awareness would have known too. The only direct quote I included was the word "dire" which he used - I inserted the emphasised allusion to his own party to show I was aware it was labour in charge at Westminster at the time -I did not present that phrase in quotes to imply that Skates actually said that bit. In my post to which you respond here I was careful to point the finger at successive Westminster governments, labour and coalition/Tory, for failing Wales and Borders rail over the years, as they have failed rail in other regions of the UK.
I actually feel that during 13 years of power in Westminster Labour regrettably failed to tackle the flaws in the structure and organisation of the privatised railway they inherited, but I certainly am not one of those clamouring for re-nationalisation.
This might sound daft, but with the new 387's and 769's that are going to GWR, wouldn't that free up some of their 150's and maybe even some of the 165's/166's that could be used in Wales for a couple of years?
Do GWR need all those Sprinters and Turbos for the West of England?
Couldn't they get a few more 769's for Thames Valley branch lines and do away with diesel in the Paddington/Reading section of the network?
When Tony Blair came to power in 1997 he said the Railways would be re-nationalised but that was the last we heard of it.
Indeed, and as I stated Labour failed the railways in Wales and Borders and elsewhere. I personally am not convinced that wholesale re-nationalisation would have been the answer then or will be now, but I agree with those who say the system, as it is, is far from delivering what the public expect. I read a recent article by someone who claims that the UK's railways operated better immediately prior to privatisation when it was divided up into three publicly owned arms-length sectors - Inter City, Network South East and Regional Railways. No clear data were offered and I was left unclear as to what arguments there were to support a return to a similar system
Maybe the 150's will get only temporary re-branding stickers rather than wholesale repaints/vinyls? Maybe none at all? At least 2 pacers have been treated in this way, though the 150's will be in service longer depending on what happens with their PRM mods this year. With a couple of pacers carrying partial TFW branding and a small number of 175's fully vinyl-wrapped, maybe TFW are waiting for feedback, or maybe they are reluctant to roll out large-scale re-branding in the wake of the negative impression attached to the brand following the horrendous Autumn disruption?
In his submission to the Welsh Assembly Economy and Transport inquiry into Autumn rail chaos on TFW (http://record.assembly.wales/Committee/5151), the former managing director of ATW Wales gave the most professional, smooth, polished and flawless performance of the three organisations called to be questioned (Network Rail and TFW were the others). Plenty of "that was before my time", "I was not made aware of that" "That question should be addressed to [Network Rail, TFW]" etc. However he tacitly implied while outlining his pride in ATW's record of investment/enhancement (implied credit to ATW by careful and clever use of phrases like "before ATW came along there was no ....") that several key enhancements to the W and B network were due to incentives by his company.
1) Re-introduction of passenger services on the Vale of Glamorgan Line. In fact, the initiative for this came from Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan local councils (not ATW) who put the case to the then Welsh Assembly Government, who later approved it. Stations at Llantwit Major and Rhoose international airport were the responsibility of V of G council, who spent £2m, and track, signals and civil engineering works were carried out by Network Rail at a cost of £15m. ATW were then involved by providing some extra rolling stock/staff above what they were contracted for, but don't tacitly claim credit for it as an ATW initiative e.g. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vale_of_Glamorgan_Line#Reopening_to_passengers)
2) Re-introduction of passenger services to Ebbw Vale - an initiative again by 3 local councils, Caerffili, Blaenau Gwent and Newport, put to Welsh Government and delivered as a joint venture between the 3 councils, Network Rail, Welsh Government and ATW with some funds coming from the EU- so ATW have no right to tacitly claim full credit for that e.g.(https://web.archive.org/web/20100225090723/http://www.blaenau-gwent.gov.uk/ebbwvalleyrailway/).
While ATW deserve credit for doing more than contractually required in many ways and for responding positively to such initiatives, it is misleading to tacitly imply or claim full credit for major enhancements and re-openings where the initiative (and much of the finance) has come form other bodies.
I haven't watched the video, and the transcript definitely reads "88" , but is it possible that he actually said "80-odd"? 116 - 80-odd would give " roughly a gain of 35" .
Eighty withdrawals is a lot easier to work out: 60 pacer carriages and 12 MkIII carriages (per Wikipedia) gets us to 72 easily. 8 153s would round that out (though the original rolling stock plan showed the ATW 153s sticking around for longer.
My favourite part of that session was when James Price assured the commitee that all would be well between TfW and Network Rail because he and Andrew Haines, NR CEO, were neighbours 20 years ago.
No its 100% that 116 in & 88 out was said. The 8 x 153's are not being withdrawn to anyone's knowledge.
Ive asked the Chair of the Committee Russel George whose my AM to get some clarification.
That people from Wales know each other- its hardly a shock!
Did Tim James from NR flag he use to be a WG civil servant?
You can always write to the Committee pointing this out - if you feel that strongly about it!
I doubt looking at the Committee that any of them were even AM's when these things were done. Tom Joyner pitched his answers for the audience he had.....that's the problem with a lot of UK rail in general the underpinning decisions that we are living with are now more often than not out of the collective memory of experience of those in charge now. Its easy for all parties to 'mildly rewrite history' as the people with the knowledge to challenge are not there.
I worked for the Rail Passengers Council Wales in the early 2000's - no one from the railway scene in Wales then is around it now.
I'm sure if it was a Welsh Labour Minister giving this speech and then outlining there plan to address rolling stock shortages in the franchise in December 2008 not December 2018 people wouldn't be so critical and cynical (read the tfW Twitter feeds comments section on online new articles etc etc). Whilst up to 2011 the Assembly helped acquire 12 extra carriages ( 2 x 158 's in 2006 , 2 x 150's in 2008 & Gerald) on top of what the franchise started with in 2003. From 2011 to 2018 the total sum was zero. What intervention they did do after that was actually a contributory factor in the autumn crisis - the extra services on the Heart of Wales and Cambrian introduced in May 15 were all sourced by cutting back on maintenance on the 15x fleets.
Which 158s are the 2 you said were acquired in 2006...? I thought Arriva Trains Wales inherited 40 158s (158-815 to 158-854) from Wales & Borders Trains in December 2003, and then at the end of 2006 when they fully acquired all 27 175s, 16 158s (158-815 to 158-817 and 158-842 to 158-854) were sent off-lease (I think the lower numbered ones are with Northern and the higher numbered ones are with East Midlands Trains), creating the 24-strong "158-818 to 158-841" batch...? Also, the 150/2s were the most significant fleet acquired by ATW - they started with only 6 and ended with 36!
I cant find any links directly to any announcements however the SARPA Newsletter from the time seems to have printed the official release.
Thanks for that! There was never an increase in 158s, actually a decrease, but there was a significant increase in 150/2s which "freed up" 158s...
Were having a short form day on the Cambrian - not seen a 4 car service yet.
0733 SHR to BHI was 2 car this morning, quite a lot of adverse comment as you can imagine.
This guy was giving it a go on the TfW Twitter feed.
Interesting that James Price again said to the Economy, Infrastructure & Skills committee last week that "we are looking at bringing extra trains in to 'plug the gap' that we have from May for around 10 months". Presumable that's the 'gap' TfW will have thanks to 150s going away on mass for PRM mods. Of course 10 months from May takes us to February 2020 which brings PRM mods on the extra trains into the mix.
In the same evidence he said that passengers on the Valley lines should see more capacity from 'the end of March'.
Add to that his 116 trains in and 88 trains out figure, not much in that evidence joins up.
http://record.assembly.wales/Committee/5151#A47798 Comments at 12:06
TfW Rail Twitter feed is saying 769's in May..............
From the New Rolling Stock thread:
One 150 displaced down south would be enough to start claiming that there's more capacity. (Though they'll need more than one unit for many passengers to notice the difference.)
I have no doubt that if Northern had started releasing it's 144s on schedule before Christmas that they'd be getting ready to operate on the Valley lines by now
Advancing age means that the early 2000's seem very recent to me! So I tend to forget that turnover in AM's over the years, as you correctly point out, means that most of those at the meeting would not remember some of the line re-openings, major upgrades etc. I refer to.
On today's twitter feed https://twitter.com/tfwrail/with_replies
Nice to hear it from the horse's mouth, so to say. Thanks.
As TfW have now withdrawn it from the public domain i can no longer confirm that a figure of "** carriages" is being talked off.
The latest issue of RAIL magazine suggests that TfW are looking to get Northern's 144s once they are surplus to requirements (p. 25). I can't see Northern's 142s being an acceptable standard to take on and that tweet specifically mentioning 142s has disappeared.
Typo perhaps they ment class 144s
Whoops a daisy from TfW's twitter folk- to be fair i bet there desperate beyond to give folk some positive news it must be quite soul destroying given the comments that come in to them.