Bustitution on Cambrian to accommodate private charter

[Starmill]

The purpose of the Cambrian trial was to trial ETCS. ETCS comes in various forms, that on the Cambrian is level 2. This requires train detection by track-circuit or axle-counter, which effectively form block sections, with only one train allowed in each section at a time. To get trains travelling closely together, you need lots of short track-circuits or axle-counters, which costs a lot of money. I understand that this is what they have done on the core Thameslink section, but no way could such expenditure have been justified on the Cambrian! I understand that some of the Cambrian sections have been split into two (e.g. Mach-Dovey junction has been split into two, with intermediate stop boards), but not sure if all sections have been.

Level 3 is where the train reports its position by radio, and so trains can run closely together. The train needs to be able to report the position of both its front and back. Proving where the back of the train is has been problematic, particularly where trains are made up of variable numbers of wagons or coaches. I am not aware of any mixed traffic passenger railway that has currently implemented level 3 due to this problem.

Allegedly the class 197 is compatible with 3.6 in the sense that it can report itself "complete" electronically i.e. no need for tail lamp cameras or windows by the side of the track, as in the 'boxes of old, or to wait for a track circuit to be broken, or to count number of axles in vs number of axles out. However, precisely how that could ever work for a charter service I do not know.

 

[The Planner]

The newer-model ETCS Network Rail wanted to install would have made it easily possible for the two services to follow one another on a tight headway, assuming that charter is planned a touch slower than the TfW to balance out the TfW making the stops.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood but I thought the whole point of the signalling system on the Cambrian was to trial and roll out a system that would allow trains to run faster and much closer together based on a GPS type of system?
On that basis why can 1 train not follow 10 minutes behind the other? Particularly if splitting off in different directions
(Forgive me if I’ve not used correct technical terms but hopefully its understood)

The purpose of the Cambrian trial was to trial ETCS. ETCS comes in various forms, that on the Cambrian is level 2. This requires train detection by track-circuit or axle-counter, which effectively form block sections, with only one train allowed in each section at a time. To get trains travelling closely together, you need lots of short track-circuits or axle-counters, which costs a lot of money. I understand that this is what they have done on the core Thameslink section, but no way could such expenditure have been justified on the Cambrian! I understand that some of the Cambrian sections have been split into two (e.g. Mach-Dovey junction has been split into two, with intermediate stop boards), but not sure if all sections have been.

Level 3 is where the train reports its position by radio, and so trains can run closely together. The train needs to be able to report the position of both its front and back. Proving where the back of the train is has been problematic, particularly where trains are made up of variable numbers of wagons or coaches. I am not aware of any mixed traffic passenger railway that has currently implemented level 3 due to this problem.

The block markers are effectively at each loop, some can split the section such as at Westbury between Sutton Bridge and Welshpool, and further up past Dovey at Pant y Peron and Llanbadarn. Apart from that, there isn't a huge amount of capacity, it was all based on trains passing on the loops.

 

[Llandudno]

Wetherspoons in Pwllheli, opposite the station, appreciated the business I'm sure. I would say at least 100 people from the train all crossed the road and went in there shortly after it arrived. I can't imagine they would normally be that busy at that time on a Thursday.

So probably Tim Martin gained the most from the Charter Train rather than local independent Welsh businesses….!

 

[yorkie]

Unacceptable to who?

If you are suggesting that the timetable shouldn't be confirmed until 5 weeks prior, then we can agree to disagree on that point.

As I said I've heard no complaints about this excursion from passengers locally.

I don't think many people are 'complaining about the excursion'; per se; I've seen one person clearly say they don't think charters should run on this line, and perhaps one or two others appear to be in agreement with them, and that's about it, based on my reading of the thread.

Most people are happy for charters to run, but sufficient notice should be given.

Seems to me the people who are moaning most loudly about this aren't actually affected.

Who is moaning the most loudly?

As stated above, there are two issues here, and the one asking for the timetable to be confirmed a suitable time period in advance is not a "loud moan" but a reasonable point; such people are not complaining about the concept of charters running. The two are not mutually exclusive.

So probably Tim Martin gained the most from the Charter Train rather than local independent Welsh businesses….!

There were only 100 people on this tour? I'm no fan of Tim Martin by any means (but let's try not to go down that road), but the amount he would have got personally would be miniscule.

Excluding Aberystwyth as a destination for charters isn't going to help the local economy; yes, it won't be a game changer, but every little helps.

 

[Belperpete]

Most people are happy for charters to run, but sufficient notice should be given.

Agreed, the issue is not the running of excursion trains per se, but running them at the expense of ordinary fare-paying passengers. Particularly as in this case, a bus was a very poor substitute for the Aber to Shrewsbury service in particular, and would have resulted in serious inconvenience for passengers making onward connections beyond Shrewsbury.

Most reasonable people will understand that trains get cancelled for things like engineering works and shortage of resources due to sickness or failure. However, this deliberate inconveniencing of ordinary fare-paying passengers is less easy to understand.

 

[Krokodil]

Quite different yes. Any engineering access agreed at five weeks would be for an emergency only, not able to be fixed in any other way. Otherwise the request should be rejected. This isn't an emergency, it's been known about for almost ten years since the first track access application for the extra services.

I was replying to a comment about the general principle of removing the train, rather than the notice given.

If you are suggesting that the timetable shouldn't be confirmed until 5 weeks prior, then we can agree to disagree on that point.

To be fair, it's quite a bit more notice than passengers often get these days. Not that it's a race to the bottom.

 

[30907]

In practical terms, assuming Machynlleth could rustle up a 158 and a crew, the 1029 could run pretty much to time as far as Newtown arriving c.1135, forward after the Up train arrives, and restart from Mach close to booked time.
Whether it's worth doing midweek is another matter! Simpler to block the train for Advances?

 

[Llanigraham]

Agreed, the issue is not the running of excursion trains per se, but running them at the expense of ordinary fare-paying passengers. Particularly as in this case, a bus was a very poor substitute for the Aber to Shrewsbury service in particular, and would have resulted in serious inconvenience for passengers making onward connections beyond Shrewsbury.

Most reasonable people will understand that trains get cancelled for things like engineering works and shortage of resources due to sickness or failure. However, this deliberate inconveniencing of ordinary fare-paying passengers is less easy to understand.

But as I have repeatedly stated, I have heard NO complaints by any local that their train was cancelled in favour of the excursion.
I saw the westbound bus in Welshpool and I think there were 3 passengers on it.
The two trains that were cancelled are some of the lightest loaded on the line at the moment.

In practical terms, assuming Machynlleth could rustle up a 158 and a crew, the 1029 could run pretty much to time as far as Newtown arriving c.1135, forward after the Up train arrives, and restart from Mach close to booked time.
Whether it's worth doing midweek is another matter! Simpler to block the train for Advances?

At the moment all trains are using the Down platform at Newtown, whilst construction work is being undertaken to build a new pedestrian bridge and lift, and to restore the station building, which will be taken over by MenShed. Therefore trains currently cannot cross there.

 

[Watershed]

I saw the westbound bus in Welshpool and I think there were 3 passengers on it.

It's well-known that most people are put off by replacement buses. Given that other trains were still running, the majority of people woud have taken an earlier or later train. Still, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have been inconvenienced.

 

[geoffk]

Out of interest, how does this situation compare with Scotrail’s Edinburgh-Tweedbank timetable, where I seem to remember they have to withdraw selected booked passenger trains to allow a charter to run? I do recall there is a note in the public timetable to that effect however I’m not sure how accurate it is (possibly just stating ‘this train may not run on selected dates’?)

Several weekday steam specials ran on the Borders Railway soon after it reopened, requiring a pair of Scotrail trains to be cancelled. Others may have run on Sundays when the service is only hourly so there would be no impact on other trains. A special ran to Okehampton in March 2022 but the GWR service was then only every two hours. Now it's hourly there are no spare paths.

 

[TUC]

Happening four more times later in the year as well.


In practice you would just get the train an hour later, rather than a bus. In a way, how different is it to the situation where a train is cancelled due to lack of train crew?

Because one is a regular service that passengers have a right to rely on, and the other is an optional extra. In the 'nice to have but not essential' box.

The TfW train was never planned to run today. There was nothing to remove.

Do you expect regular passengers to have to check timetables before they set out every day? That's not how to grow use of public transport.

 

[topydre]

At the moment all trains are using the Down platform at Newtown, whilst construction work is being undertaken to build a new pedestrian bridge and lift, and to restore the station building, which will be taken over by MenShed. Therefore trains currently cannot cross there.

That's certainly the aspiration, however I happened to be on the 15:51 ex-Welshpool on Sunday and we called at the down platform at Newtown. At the up platform, away from the area where there construction works, the late-running unit that should have passed us at Fron was standing. So it is possible to use that part of the platform
See: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:P64510/2024-03-31/detailed

 

[JonathanH]

Do you expect regular passengers to have to check timetables before they set out every day? That's not how to grow use of public transport.

Most passengers these days do check timetables before they travel, such is the reliance on smartphone applications to buy e-tickets.

There is so much hyperbole in this thread about a train being cancelled as if they themselves had been inconvenienced when in practice it has been and gone with little effect.

 

[Starmill]

I was replying to a comment about the general principle of removing the train, rather than the notice given.

Fair enough yes. I personally think the notice being appropriate is central to the arrangement. If it's not done right, and it's pretty darn clear it wasn't on this occasion, either the TfW or the Charter can run on a given day of the week, but never one or the other.

There is so much hyperbole in this thread about a train being cancelled as if they themselves had been inconvenienced when in practice it has been and gone with little effect.

Can you point me to an example of hyperbole because I've not seen anything?

Most passengers these days do check timetables before they travel, such is the reliance on smartphone applications to buy e-tickets.

Quite so and if someone had bought a ticket on their phone for this service no message would have been displayed at six weeks out... I think that's a sensible thing to call for, and I think you know that.

It's well-known that most people are put off by replacement buses. Given that other trains were still running, the majority of people woud have taken an earlier or later train. Still, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have been inconvenienced.

Indeed. And it's beyond a doubt most people would be put off using a bus that doesn't meet their connection as planned at Shrewsbury.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Level 3 is where the train reports its position by radio, and so trains can run closely together. The train needs to be able to report the position of both its front and back. Proving where the back of the train is has been problematic, particularly where trains are made up of variable numbers of wagons or coaches. I am not aware of any mixed traffic passenger railway that has currently implemented level 3 due to this problem.

Really? On the face of it, that doesn't sound like much of a problem to solve to get the back of a train to report its location - particularly considering that these days the back of almost any passenger train is likely to be another driving cab, which therefore would already contain the equipment to report location if the train is ETCS Level 3 enabled.

If it's not possible to know the location of the back of a train, is it not possible to simply impose a regulation limiting the length of the train allowed on that track, and then for signalling purposes presume that all trains are that length? Since the length of even the longest trains on a line like the Cambrian is going to be tiny compared to the likely length of most block sections, you'd expect that would still give a massive uplift in capacity, allowing a charter train to follow a normal passenger one.

 

[krus_aragon]

If it's not possible to know the location of the back of a train, is it not possible to simply impose a regulation limiting the length of the train allowed on that track, and then for signalling purposes presume that all trains are that length? Since the length of even the longest trains on a line like the Cambrian is going to be tiny compared to the likely length of most block sections, you'd expect that would still give a massive uplift in capacity, allowing a charter train to follow a normal passenger one.

The one other thing you'd need is proof that the train (of whatever length) has not become separated. That's what putting a tail lamp on the rear of a freight train (and nowhere else) achieves.

 

[Krokodil]

Really? On the face of it, that doesn't sound like much of a problem to solve to get the back of a train to report its location - particularly considering that these days the back of almost any passenger train is likely to be another driving cab, which therefore would already contain the equipment to report location if the train is ETCS Level 3 enabled.

The charter isn't such a multiple unit though.

 

[Belperpete]

Really? On the face of it, that doesn't sound like much of a problem to solve to get the back of a train to report its location - particularly considering that these days the back of almost any passenger train is likely to be another driving cab, which therefore would already contain the equipment to report location if the train is ETCS Level 3 enabled.

If it's not possible to know the location of the back of a train, is it not possible to simply impose a regulation limiting the length of the train allowed on that track, and then for signalling purposes presume that all trains are that length? Since the length of even the longest trains on a line like the Cambrian is going to be tiny compared to the likely length of most block sections, you'd expect that would still give a massive uplift in capacity, allowing a charter train to follow a normal passenger one.

It didn't seem like much of a problem to those who wrote the ETCS specs either, until they came to consider the detail of exactly how to implement it. A bit like the idea of the portable ETCS unit that was promised for charter trains ever since ETCS was first put on the Cambrian.

Remember that it is the train that is talking to the control centre - not both ends of the train. If both ends were talking separately, that would double the numbers of radio messages needed for every train. If trains are running closely together, you are already going to need a lot of messages to keep the second train running smoothly, without doubling it. You would also need some method of correlating the two units, particularly when joining and dividing.

Getting the position of the rear of the train right is safety critical. If a train thinks that it is 4 carrs long when in fact it is now 8 carrs could result in another train running into the back of it, or a set of points being moved under it. Getting the length of the train too long could also have operational impacts, if you can't move a set of points because the system thinks the rear of the train is still standing on them, or if you can't open a level crossing behind a stationary train.

Incidentally, ETCS does not use GPS,as suggested by a previous poster. There are proposals to use GPS as one of the location systems, but it is never going to be the sole method. Not only is it problematic in mountainous areas and in tunnels, but the resolution isn't really good enough in multi-track areas. It is also relatively easy to interfere with it, as we have seen recently. Living at the foot of a small mountain, my GPS regularly thinks I am 5 miles or so from my true location.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

The story appears to have made the Shropshire Star, though it’s behind a paywall so I can’t quote from it: https://www.shropshirestar.com/news...led-to-allow-private-charter-services-to-run/

 

[Gaelan]

Do we know how far ahead TfW have been issuing Advances for?

TfW advertises an advance booking horizon of only 6 weeks, so I suspect advances were never sold for this train.

 

[Llandudno]

Because one is a regular service that passengers have a right to rely on, and the other is an optional extra. In the 'nice to have but not essential' box.


Do you expect regular passengers to have to check timetables before they set out every day? That's not how to grow use of public transport.

Sadly in north Wales and across swathes of northern England you do have to check rail timetables every day before you set out…

 

[Lurcheroo]

Some thoughts as a user and train crew on the Cambrian.
Whilst in principal I disagree with timetabled passenger services being cancelled to run a charter, as @Llanigraham has said above, these 2 services are very very quite for the majority of the year. Neither connect with a portion to or from Pwllheli. The 12:30 from Aber would do very well to have 10 passengers.
On that merit I can appreciate why it was done. There are other paths in the timetable but 8:30 or 12:30 from Shrewsbury are just the wrong time for the charter.
The Cambrian runs at a substantial loss every year and there has been a conjoined effort between TFW, NR and the Cambrian partnership to reduce e the loss it runs at. I’m sure they’d love it to break even but I’d be surprised if it does.
From this we effort have the log train, the 4 car on the 10:55 to Pwllheli during summer and these rail tours, plus maybe some other things that I don’t know about.

So TFW will benefit, NR will benefit and local business at Barmouth, Porthmadog, Pwllheli will benefit with increased tourism (specifically they will benefit outside of the already very busy peak summer period).

So I do think it’s a good call, if they’re successful and want to do them very year going forward, an extra passing loop at Westbury (along with the current one at Newtown) should be put back in and then that should allow a charter to run along side a fully hourly timetable.

As for ERTMS it’s Level 2 but version 3.6 which isn’t Level 3 and likely never will be on the Cambrian. It’s already reduced possible headway compared to token working that it used to be.

At the moment all trains are using the Down platform at Newtown, whilst construction work is being undertaken to build a new pedestrian bridge and lift, and to restore the station building, which will be taken over by MenShed. Therefore trains currently cannot cross there.

The Up platform can be used but is only used for an ‘emergency crossover’ during disruption and delay.

 

[Horizon22]

Charters are planned at T6 which might be why the tfw train wasn't removed until T5.

This is the primary reason. TFW are working with the constraints they have. Not ideal, but not everything is. Do we know how well loaded this train is? Do we know how many people were planning to take this train or bought advances for it? No.

This might all be a storm in a teacup for a very niche case with a limited passenger impact.

The alternative would be to not put the services into the timetable for those dates and add them as “additional” trains if they do run, but that has its own disadvantages too.

 

[Watershed]

This is the primary reason. TFW are working with the constraints they have. Not ideal, but not everything is. Do we know how well loaded this train is? Do we know how many people were planning to take this train or bought advances for it? No.

This might all be a storm in a teacup for a very niche case with a limited passenger impact.

The alternative would be to not put the services into the timetable for those dates and add them as “additional” trains if they do run, but that has its own disadvantages too.

With respect, that is an arbitrary timescale imposed by the industry upon itself. There is no reason why the above-described partnership between TfW and NR couldn't involve greater advance notice for amendments to services due to charters. It's just more operationally convenient to treat it the same as any other line.

Yet again, operational convenience takes priority over customer convenience. But then that's the prevailing attitude in British rail so it's hardly surprising.

 

[Starmill]

This might all be a storm in a teacup for a very niche case with a limited passenger impact.

I haven't seen any evidence of a storm in this thread personally. Indeed I've only seen one post actually stating that their opinion is no charters should be permitted on any of the route west of Shrewsbury. Even that's a perfectly valid position. I happen not to agree with it so I obviously couldn't defend it but it's still not really a "storm" and only one person has said it from what I can see.

The alternative would be to not put the services into the timetable for those dates and add them as “additional” trains if they do run, but that has its own disadvantages too.

Indeed. It would make more sense to run them normally but withdraw them in a customer-focused way.

With respect, that is an arbitrary timescale imposed by the industry upon itself. There is no reason why the above-described partnership between TfW and NR couldn't involve greater advance notice for amendments to services due to charters. It's just more operationally convenient to treat it the same as any other line.

Yet again, operational convenience takes priority over customer convenience. But then that's the prevailing attitude in British rail so it's hardly surprising.

Exactly. The amount of extra work involved in planning it in advance is very small. Literally a few person hours editing a PDF would be a good start, and then adding on setting out posters for stations would take perhaps one and a half to two staff days of time in total. Generating posters for the station cases and checking and verifying timetable PDFs is something all TOCs have already got proper process for doing anyway, they're hardly reinventing the wheel here.

If both the Charter operators abd TfW have a position of "can't be bothered" then I might agree with the voice calling for a de factor ban on charters, but I'm sure that's not the case and there's no reason it can't be done properly next time...

 

[Belperpete]

Some thoughts as a user and train crew on the Cambrian.
Whilst in principal I disagree with timetabled passenger services being cancelled to run a charter, as @Llanigraham has said above, these 2 services are very very quite for the majority of the year. Neither connect with a portion to or from Pwllheli. The 12:30 from Aber would do very well to have 10 passengers.
On that merit I can appreciate why it was done. There are other paths in the timetable but 8:30 or 12:30 from Shrewsbury are just the wrong time for the charter.
The Cambrian runs at a substantial loss every year and there has been a conjoined effort between TFW, NR and the Cambrian partnership to reduce e the loss it runs at. I’m sure they’d love it to break even but I’d be surprised if it does.
From this we effort have the log train, the 4 car on the 10:55 to Pwllheli during summer and these rail tours, plus maybe some other things that I don’t know about.

So TFW will benefit, NR will benefit and local business at Barmouth, Porthmadog, Pwllheli will benefit with increased tourism (specifically they will benefit outside of the already very busy peak summer period).

I agree that it was done for "the greater good". I am just concerned about the appalling way in which ordinary passengers seem to have been treated. And that it could be the thin end of the wedge - it may only have affected very few passengers in this case, but is that always going to the case? What happens when another operator wants to run a charter that conflicts with a more popular service, and quotes this as precedent?

If the ex-Aber service carries so few passengers, surely they could have been accommodated on the charter? I suspect that they may not have wanted to set a precedent for this, if more such charters are being planned for later in the year, when the services may be more heavily loaded.

Incidentally, a previous poster mentioned that there are other such charters planned - does anyone know the dates of these?

Most passengers these days do check timetables before they travel, such is the reliance on smartphone applications to buy e-tickets.

As a quick estimate, I would say that less than half of the passengers on the Cambrian are using e-tickets. Not everybody has fixed travel times and buys advance tickets for travel on a set train. For example, there are a significant number of passengers who buy their tickets from the guard. There are quite a lot of regular users going for shopping or a day out, who will know the times of the out and return trains, and so not bother checking the timetable, anymore than they would bother checking their bus timetable every day. Plus all the spur of the moment "what shall we do today" day-trippers and tourists without a fixed itinerary.

As a regular traveller on the Cambrian, I very rarely buy advance tickets as I value the ability to change my travel plans on a whim - plus they rarely offer any saving for the journeys that I make (usually they cost more). In fact, for most of my journeys it is not even possible to buy my ticket in advance (or even on the train come to that!), so why would I bother using the travel planner? I do refer to TfW's journey check whenever I travel, but I don't recall these cancellations being mentioned that day. Nor were they on the printed notice of service alterations that are displayed at every station, along with the printed timetables showing these trains (TfW seem to have given up making this information available on the internet). These are the very least that should have been done.

 

[JonathanH]

If the ex-Aber service carries so few passengers, surely they could have been accommodated on the charter?

That isn't practical for obvious reasons related to the cost of ordinary train fares, and the cost of putting on the charter.

It costs £23.80 for a return from Shrewsbury to Machynlleth, yet £129 to travel on the charter, even if you only board in Shrewsbury.

Incidentally, a previous poster mentioned that there are other such charters planned - does anyone know the dates of these?

Thursday 18 April
Thursday 16 May
Thursday 5 September
Thursday 12 September

 

[Watershed]

That isn't practical for obvious reasons related to the cost of ordinary train fares, and the cost of putting on the charter.

Sorry, I don't follow. What do the cost of ordinary train fares have to do with anything? Surely you would agree that, as a minimum, it should be a condition of charter operators being allowed to 'steal' the paths of passenger services that they must accept ordinary National Rail tickets (albeit possibly subject to compulsory reservations on practical grounds)?

Very few people intending to travel on the railtour would 'split' at Shrewsbury. If the revenue is reduced slightly through those that do - or from reduced 'part fare' income from Shrewsbury - so be it. The railway receives millions of public subsidy a year and it doesn't seem reasonable for a private charter to benefit from this where it (literally) comes at the expense of services for local residents.

 

[JonathanH]

What do the cost of ordinary train fares have to do with anything?

The previous poster was suggesting that passengers with normal tickets should be allowed to travel on the charter between Shrewsbury and Machynlleth. How many seats should the charter provider leave available? Should that threaten the viability of being able to fill out the train with charter passengers?

(I appreciate that charter operators allow people to travel for 'part fares' between pick up stops but that is on the basis that it doesn't affect the viability of filling the train for the main part of the tour at the full advertised price.)

 

[Starmill]

The previous poster was suggesting that passengers with normal tickets should be allowed to travel on the charter between Shrewsbury and Machynlleth. How many seats should the charter provider leave available? Should that threaten the viability of being able to fill out the train with charter passengers?

Come on, are these questions really being asked in good faith? You're clearly not stupid, I think you know the answers. Two carriages, same as the usual services, which can be locked out of use or detached as necessary until Shrewsbury and after Aberystwyth.

To prevent abuse, it could be perfectly feasible to charge say £1 for reserving a seat and making reservations mandatory. This may be the only option given that charters are often prohibited from carrying more passengers than seats.

(I appreciate that charter operators allow people to travel for 'part fares' between pick up stops but that is on the basis that it doesn't affect the viability of filling the train for the main part of the tour at the full advertised price.)

This wouldn't either, given it doesn't allow travel in the other areas of the train, so you can't sit with full tour passengers, and also you can't book "split" because part fares to Shrewsbury haven't been offered.