Ex LNER (and Grand Central) Mark 4 sets for TfW

[Caaardiff]

Are 67's just not suitable anymore with all the modifications they've needed to have? Are TFW just scraping the barrel of the small selection of possible loco's that would work? Ultimately, is loco & stock that matches TFW's requirements a sensible option?

 

[twpsaesneg]

What other subcontractor of diesel locomotives was available at the time DB were given the contract?

No idea. I suspect you're going to tell me that DB were the only provider available. It doesn't however take the responsibility for the poor performance of the subcontractor away from TfW. I have every sympathy with staff in the company, and indeed I have personal friends who work for TfW. However to a passenger buying a service from a TOC, saying "it's not our fault, the locos that we hire in are broken" isn't an answer - their contract is with the TOC.

If there was only a single source of suitable motive power available you could well argue that the decision to continue to use LHCS rather than order additional new build trains was a poor one, however this is a different topic.

 

[Steveswan10]

This only ment as tongue in cheek.....but surely it would've been easier to get someone like West Coast and supply class 47s they would proberly be more reliable

 

[craigybagel]

No idea. I suspect you're going to tell me that DB were the only provider available.

Correct

It doesn't however take the responsibility for the poor performance of the subcontractor away from TfW. I have every sympathy with staff in the company, and indeed I have personal friends who work for TfW. However to a passenger buying a service from a TOC, saying "it's not our fault, the locos that we hire in are broken" isn't an answer - their contract is with the TOC.

I'm not aware of the company having stated that anywhere. Publicly they are apologising for the trains not working and they have made it known that they are taking steps to rectify this. Privately I'm sure there are plenty of discussions going on between DB and TfW about how to improve things. There may well be contractual compensation in place but we'll never hear about that.

If there was only a single source of suitable motive power available you could well argue that the decision to continue to use LHCS rather than order additional new build trains was a poor one, however this is a different topic.

The use of a small amount of loco hauled stock was a franchise requirement for the original Keolis Amey TfW contract. At the time, DB 67s were pretty much the only suitable loco available, and also gave the advantage of low training requirements (the existing loco drivers only needed to do a 3 course for conversion from MKIII to MKIV DVT).

When the decision was taken to expand the amount of loco sets, the reasons above still applied.

It's also worth pointing out that by and large, the 67s performed pretty well on the MKIIIs (most of the issues of poor reliability on those sets was down to the stock rather than the loco in my experience). Now that the locos are being used much more intensively, and more of them are in use (meaning some locos have had to be brought out of storage), they're not performing anywhere near as well as they did before.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it's easy to see how we got where we are.

The question now is, what comes next? When the MKIVs were first introduced their reliability was also appalling but they're doing a lot better now, after a degree of time and effort was put in to fixing them. Hopefully the same can be done for the 67s - or an alternative can be found.

 

[twpsaesneg]

The use of a small amount of loco hauled stock was a franchise requirement for the original Keolis Amey TfW contract. At the time, DB 67s were pretty much the only suitable loco available, and also gave the advantage of low training requirements (the existing loco drivers only needed to do a 3 course for conversion from MKIII to MKIV DVT).

When the decision was taken to expand the amount of loco sets, the reasons above still applied.

It's also worth pointing out that by and large, the 67s performed pretty well on the MKIIIs (most of the issues of poor reliability on those sets was down to the stock rather than the loco in my experience). Now that the locos are being used much more intensively, and more of them are in use (meaning some locos have had to be brought out of storage), they're not performing anywhere near as well as they did before.

I think when it was limited to a small number of trains a day, the risk of reputational damage and passenger inconvenience was worth taking. We seem to have had "mission creep" though, going from a couple of runs a day to effectively half the main South Wales to Manchester service relying upon the fleet of now quite old, niche locomotives that the owning company unfortunately seems to take little interest in, who have a captive market (at least for the time being).

The question now is, what comes next? When the MKIVs were first introduced their reliability was also appalling but they're doing a lot better now, after a degree of time and effort was put in to fixing them. Hopefully the same can be done for the 67s - or an alternative can be found.

Indeed. My concern is the medium to long term plan - is there actually a plan with what do in say 5 years time when the 67's will be knocking at the door of 30 years old and the Mk4's are 40? Because given the length of time it takes to procure and bring into operation new rolling stock it at least needs to be thought about now. If there is a plan to replace then there's no way that DBS or anyone else will commit to properly refurbishing the Class 67's they retain. If the plan is to retain long term then a mid-life refurbishment of the locos is sorely needed. It is a conundrum.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The question now is, what comes next? When the MKIVs were first introduced their reliability was also appalling but they're doing a lot better now, after a degree of time and effort was put in to fixing them. Hopefully the same can be done for the 67s - or an alternative can be found.

Plenty of 175s sat in the sidings

 

[craigybagel]

I think when it was limited to a small number of trains a day, the risk of reputational damage and passenger inconvenience was worth taking. We seem to have had "mission creep" though, going from a couple of runs a day to effectively half the main South Wales to Manchester service relying upon the fleet of now quite old, niche locomotives that the owning company unfortunately seems to take little interest in, who have a captive market (at least for the time being).

True. It also doesn't help that those extra diagrams are a lot more intense. It's one thing covering one limited stop round trip every day; now most sets are diagrammed for two round trips every day, often with more stops. It's unfortunate that we haven't got the full 2tph service on the Marches yet - with that in place the 67s might not need to stop and start so often. As I've mentioned before, they do require a good degree of thrashing to keep to time which can't be helping things.

Indeed. My concern is the medium to long term plan - is there actually a plan with what do in say 5 years time when the 67's will be knocking at the door of 30 years old and the Mk4's are 40? Because given the length of time it takes to procure and bring into operation new rolling stock it at least needs to be thought about now. If there is a plan to replace then there's no way that DBS or anyone else will commit to properly refurbishing the Class 67's they retain. If the plan is to retain long term then a mid-life refurbishment of the locos is sorely needed. It is a conundrum.

There almost certainly is a plan, though it probably keeps evolving. Even the original franchise bid mentioned replacing the planned 3 locos with 68s in the medium term. Whether that's still the plan, or they're holding out for bi-modes powerful enough to tackle the marches on diesel, time will tell - but it's probably very secret.

Plenty of 175s sat in the sidings

Don't get me started on that mystery All I can do is trust that there's a very good reason for why they had to be withdrawn.

 

[anthony263]

Think DB need to give the 67s a good overhaul and have a dedicated depot for them if TFW take them in house. Pity they couldn't be based at Landore

 

[Lurcheroo]

However members of the public/customers are entitled to complain and as far as we are concerned TFW is where the buck stops for us

Have you written to TFW themselves ?

However 2 things that come immediately to mind was the promise of 5 carriages on all Swansea/Cardiff-Manchester from Dec 2023 and no more sprinters on the marches from Spring 2023 (obviously the massive issues with the 175s from March 2023 delayed that but the 175s are gone now and would have been regardless of the issues they had last March). We are into 2024 now and these things are still happening unfortunately. Perhaps they shouldn't promise things so far in advance unless they can definitely deliver them.

When you say promise, was it a promise or them saying that was the plan / what they were trying to do ? (I genuinely don’t know, a source would be good).
If that’s the case then they would just never commit to improving anything ?

I share the frustration with the poor performance of the 67 fleet, however, ultimately TfW are to blame as they have chosen to appoint a subcontractor that has not performed adequately. I wonder what penalty clauses are in the contract between TfW and DB for the failure of a loco; I would hope that it covers the cost of providing alternative rolling stock provision and / or delay repay claimed.

It doesn't however take the responsibility for the poor performance of the subcontractor away from TfW

However to a passenger buying a service from a TOC, saying "it's not our fault, the locos that we hire in are broken" isn't an answer - their contract is with the TOC.

Interestingly not only are TFW not mentioning DB to the public but you’ve also taken it a step beyond being just a passenger by (of your own free will) coming to a rail forum where it will be discussed what is actually the cause and not just blaming the top level toc for all the issues. So no, actually TFW ARE NOT to blame, for anyone interested enough to come here and look for reasoning as to why the loco hauled fleets are suffering so much.

 

[Jez]

When you say promise, was it a promise or them saying that was the plan / what they were trying to do ? (I genuinely don’t know, a source would be good).
If that’s the case then they would just never commit to improving anything ?

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tfw-december-2023-timetable-changes.240896/

I believe this is the thread where it was reported/discussed that they would have 5 cars on all Swansea to Manchester from Dec 2023 among other improvements to the timetablen such as hourly swanline, most of these planned improvements havent happened yet. There was a draft timetable on the website which was later removed.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tfw-december-2023-timetable-changes.240896/

I believe this is the thread where it was reported/discussed that they would have 5 cars on all Swansea to Manchester from Dec 2023 among other improvements to the timetablen such as hourly swanline, most of these planned improvements havent happened yet. There was a draft timetable on the website which was later removed.

Join the club, as I was saying in another thread the other day, I walk into Queen Street to catch my 150 every day and see "All trains will be brand new by 2023"

 

[sd0733]

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tfw-december-2023-timetable-changes.240896/

I believe this is the thread where it was reported/discussed that they would have 5 cars on all Swansea to Manchester from Dec 2023 among other improvements to the timetablen such as hourly swanline, most of these planned improvements havent happened yet. There was a draft timetable on the website which was later removed.

It was but like you say it's been removed. There's all sorts of reasons including far slower introduction of 197s than originally intended. Things are progressing but obviously a long way behind where they should be at this point.

Join the club, as I was saying in another thread the other day, I walk into Queen Street to catch my 150 every day and see "All trains will be brand new by 2023"

Those are something of an own goal leaving things like that up! Even if the implementation doesn't go to plan, splashing ot about then leaving it up is never going to be a good look!

To bring a little positivity into the doom and gloom of this thread-

67010 is repaired at Crewe so can now act as Rescue loco in the north this allows 67008+HD06 to enter service tomorrow.

67022 should be handed back to TFW after attention by DB at Canton this should allow HD02 back out on Thursday.

67014 planned to be released by DB off C exam ready for Thursday enabling a loco-less set to have a loco.

67015 is having a power unit change and should be released back to TfW on Friday.

 

[Lurcheroo]

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tfw-december-2023-timetable-changes.240896/

I believe this is the thread where it was reported/discussed that they would have 5 cars on all Swansea to Manchester from Dec 2023 among other improvements to the timetablen such as hourly swanline, most of these planned improvements havent happened yet. There was a draft timetable on the website which was later removed.

Ahh ok, not official from TFW but just us lot sprouting the usual. That’s fair enough.
Even when it was up it was clearly stated as not the official timetable and just a draft. Largely filled with hope, it had 6 car 197’s going to Birmingham from the Cambrian which even when it was first posted was going to be physically impossible. But it was nice to see what they had planned for the future. I’ve wished to be able to view it since but alas.

Join the club, as I was saying in another thread the other day, I walk into Queen Street to catch my 150 every day and see "All trains will be brand new by 2023"

Lol that’s give me a chuckle
As SD said. Quite the ‘own goal’ haha.

It was but like you say it's been removed. There's all sorts of reasons including far slower introduction of 197s than originally intended. Things are progressing but obviously a long way behind where they should be at this point.


Those are something of an own goal leaving things like that up! Even if the implementation doesn't go to plan, splashing ot about then leaving it up is never going to be a good look!

To bring a little positivity into the doom and gloom of this thread-

67010 is repaired at Crewe so can now act as Rescue loco in the north this allows 67008+HD06 to enter service tomorrow.

67022 should be handed back to TFW after attention by DB at Canton this should allow HD02 back out on Thursday.

67014 planned to be released by DB off C exam ready for Thursday enabling a loco-less set to have a loco.

67015 is having a power unit change and should be released back to TfW on Friday.

Thank god for a bit of something good haha.

 

[Diedinium]

It was but like you say it's been removed. There's all sorts of reasons including far slower introduction of 197s than originally intended. Things are progressing but obviously a long way behind where they should be at this point.


Those are something of an own goal leaving things like that up! Even if the implementation doesn't go to plan, splashing ot about then leaving it up is never going to be a good look!

To bring a little positivity into the doom and gloom of this thread-

67010 is repaired at Crewe so can now act as Rescue loco in the north this allows 67008+HD06 to enter service tomorrow.

67022 should be handed back to TFW after attention by DB at Canton this should allow HD02 back out on Thursday.

67014 planned to be released by DB off C exam ready for Thursday enabling a loco-less set to have a loco.

67015 is having a power unit change and should be released back to TfW on Friday.

So for all the doom and gloom from others here it certainly seems that DB are trying to get on with getting the 67 fleet sorted again.

 

[Lurcheroo]

So for all the doom and gloom from others here it certainly seems that DB are trying to get on with getting the 67 fleet sorted again.

If only it would last :’(

 

[Rhydgaled]

Even when it was up it was clearly stated as not the official timetable and just a draft. Largely filled with hope, it had 6 car 197’s going to Birmingham from the Cambrian which even when it was first posted was going to be physically impossible. But it was nice to see what they had planned for the future. I’ve wished to be able to view it since but alas.

I think I still have a copy on my PC - hopefully it's uploaded and attached to this post.

 

[Lurcheroo]

I think I still have a copy on my PC - hopefully it's uploaded and attached to this post.

They certainly have ! You’re an absolute gent. Thank you very much!!

 

[Bikeman78]

Indeed. My concern is the medium to long term plan - is there actually a plan with what do in say 5 years time when the 67's will be knocking at the door of 30 years old and the Mk4's are 40?

What is wrong with the 67s? GM locos are normally pretty reliable. The Belgian class 62 were 42 years old when they finished. Never had one fail on me. They were flogged on stopping trains. Hardly an easy life.

 

[craigybagel]

67010 is repaired at Crewe so can now act as Rescue loco in the north this allows 67008+HD06 to enter service tomorrow.

Should be on 0454 Crewe - Cardiff all being well.

So for all the doom and gloom from others here it certainly seems that DB are trying to get on with getting the 67 fleet sorted again.

If only it would last :’(

To be fair I think they've always been trying. Just some times more successfully than others. It's not like DB have lots of other suitors lined up for the 67s, it's in their own best interests for this to work.

What is wrong with the 67s? GM locos are normally pretty reliable. The Belgian class 62 were 42 years old when they finished. Never had one fail on me. They were flogged on stopping trains. Hardly an easy life.

I don't know for certain, but my suspicion is it's a similar issue to the 180s, albeit not as extreme. A fleet that's long been unloved and struggling to justify it's existence, and rarely worked to the most of its abilities. After years of sitting around underused they're suddenly working some very intensive diagrams, climbing up some very stiff gradients and reaching top speeds of 110mph - and they're expected to do this all day every day. It's no wonder it's a shock to the system.

I'm sure they're well up to the task - as you say, GMs tend to be fairly bullet proof. It just might take a bit of tinkering to get them there.

 

[Jez]

Things look much improved today with both the 0830 and 1230 Manchester departures MK4 plus several other Manchester to South Wales are 3 car, plus a pair of 2 car 197s on the 1730.

 

[sd0733]

Things look much improved today with both the 0830 and 1230 Manchester departures MK4 plus several other Manchester to South Wales are 3 car, plus a pair of 2 car 197s on the 1730.

Yes back to 3 diagrams, somewhat unexpectedly! Only one missing today is the one that starts in Manchester and does the PM Swansea which is covered by a 3 car 197.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Things look much improved today with both the 0830 and 1230 Manchester departures MK4 plus several other Manchester to South Wales are 3 car, plus a pair of 2 car 197s on the 1730.

A pair on the 17:30 is very welcome indeed.

 

[T74]

Anyone know which 67 is on the 1230 from Manchester . Thanks

 

[sd0733]

Anyone know which 67 is on the 1230 from Manchester . Thanks

Booked for 67008

 

[GWVillager]

These 67s are fickle beasts - just when you think they’ve completely given up for the week they spring back to life!

A speculation thread might be in order, but are the 68s still an impossibility? There are now plenty of ex-TPE engines spare, and I struggle to believe that the mods to the Mk4s required would be more extensive than whatever needs to be done to the 67s.

 

[craigybagel]

These 67s are fickle beasts - just when you think they’ve completely given up for the week they spring back to life!

A speculation thread might be in order, but are the 68s still an impossibility? There are now plenty of ex-TPE engines spare, and I struggle to believe that the mods to the Mk4s required would be more extensive than whatever needs to be done to the 67s.

Impossible? Absolutely not. If the 67s could be modded it's hard to see why the 68s couldn't.

Finding the time and money to modify some locos and retrain about 140 drivers? That might be more challenging.

 

[sd0733]

There are now plenty of ex-TPE engines spare,

Are there though? Elsewhere its been said DRS are using them to replace their older locos so they may not even all be available anyway.

Either way, it's an option that's not being furthered at the moment for a variety of reasons, many of which Craigybagel mentions. Also depending how the contract is written, there's no guarantee you could just pull out of the 67 lease so could be paying twice on top of all the other costs.

 

[Richard Scott]

Impossible? Absolutely not. If the 67s could be modded it's hard to see why the 68s couldn't.

Finding the time and money to modify some locos and retrain about 140 drivers? That might be more challenging.

At risk of speculation are 68s TDM fitted? If so then would be a relatively straight forward modification as that's how Mk4s worked with 91s?

 

[43096]

At risk of speculation are 68s TDM fitted? If so then would be a relatively straight forward modification as that's how Mk4s worked with 91s?

68s are not TDM fitted, and neither are 67s.

 

[Richard Scott]

68s are not TDM fitted, and neither are 67s.

Ok, thanks. Knew 67s weren't, wasn't sure if 68s were as being newer and seems standard European multiple working system, which thought they may have?