Five Class 319/769s for the Welsh Network

[pemma]

There are no additional peak services in the Cardiff Valleys, merely the standard pattern throughout the day but which tails off later in the evening.

Just checked and that isn't correct in the case of Rhymney. Cardiff bound trains depart Rhymney at 06:08, 06:32, 07:00, 07:24, 07:42, 08:32 and then go an hourly service departing at xx:27. In the reverse direction arrivals are at xx:18 until 17:18 then the service goes roughly half-hourly for 2 hours, before going back to hourly with arrivals at xx:36.

There do also seem to be some arrivals at Cardiff Central which don't have a return passenger working e.g. http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P71690/2017/08/01/advanced

 

[PHILIPE]

Diagrams could be reworked. When Northern subleased 180s they ran a morning Blackpool North to Hazel Grove service. In the timetable in operation before they got the 180s that service didn't exist - it took the place of a St-Annes-on-Sea to Greenbank service which was part of the same diagram as Blackpool to Liverpool services but they changed the diagrams so 180s were used on as few lines as possible.

Diagrams could be revamped if necessary. Since May, there have been some alterations to increase capacity in the morning but by squeezing any down time mostly in Main Line diagrams and some interchanging. The first two from Rhymney run as 4 cars to Cardiff Central then detach the rear unit which forms what was previously the start of a days diagram. There are a couple of trips, 1 to Penarth and 1 to Barry Island, missed early afternoon to get units back into place to pick up the normal pattern again. All this has been facilitated by the introduction of the additional Platform 8 at Cardiff Central and Platform 6 being converted to bi-directional working. Apart from a Down from Rhymney in the morning and a return at night which is booked for 2 x 150s, trains are usually formed by 2x2 Pacers or 1x150. These double 150s do not stand idle through the day as one continues with the pattern and the other runs to Swansea and back.

 

[pemma]

Considering that part of the reason for them coming is to increase capacity this would mean 2 cars being wasted if used on a 2 Car service. There is the possibility that with some adjustment to diagrams to make use of down time of Pacers and 150s they could be used in the peaks. The easiest solution would be to use 4 sets to replace doubled up Pacers through the day, utilising them as singles to juggle with to cover for 150s.

Do you have some very quiet off-peak services on the Valley lines then? A 2 car Pacer provides a very noticeable capacity reduction when one fills in on a 2 car Sprinter diagram up here and your Pacers all have 2+2 seating so have even fewer seats.

 

[PHILIPE]

Do you have some very quiet off-peak services on the Valley lines then? A 2 car Pacer provides a very noticeable capacity reduction when one fills in on a 2 car Sprinter diagram up here and your Pacers all have 2+2 seating so have even fewer seats.

Yes. There are some quiet during the day but the practice has been to keep them together for performance reasons by avoiding attaching and detaching..
It is not beyond the ability of Planning to absorb the 319s, taking advantage of 4 cars being loaded once a decision has been made how and where to deploy them. People have been talking of the Rhymney Valley Line and if this is the case could they provide a source for the information.
i

 

[pemma]

Yes. There are some quiet during the day but the practice has been to keep them together for performance reasons by avoiding attaching and detaching..
It is not beyond the ability of Planning to absorb the 319s, taking advantage of 4 cars being loaded once a decision has been made how and where to deploy them. People have been talking of the Rhymney Valley Line and if this is the case could they provide a source for the information.
i

Apparently it's come from a Facebook group set up by Cardiff rail passengers and then been mentioned on wnxx (which requires an account to see the posts.)

 

[DelW]

So they will be used as DMUs, not bi-modes at all?
It's a bit like expensively building 221s with tilt capability and then locking it out of use like XC does.

But in this case they're not being built new, their electrical kit has had decades of use in which to pay for itself. In the 769s it will effectively provide the transmission for the diesel motor(s), with the possibility of using OHLE just an incidental benefit (assuming pans etc. are retained).

 

[craigybagel]

Given how no official statements have been made even internally within ATW I would take anything on Facebook/WNXX with a massive pinch of salt.

However

For reasons discussed above, the most likely destination for these trains was always going to be the Cardiff network. There aren't enough 4 car diagrams on the mainline services to justify using them there,so they're probably best used in the Valleys - but there are only certain diagrams on there you can use them on. The City line and Cardiff Bay can neither fit 4 cars nor need them anyway, the Merthyr/Aberdare - Barry Island/Bridgend services are no good because it involves training both Valleys and Mainline crews (Mainline crews from Cardiff and Carmarthen work all the Bridgend services west of Cardiff) so that leaves you with Treherbert or Rhymney-Penarth, and of those two the latter option would appear to be the busier and have the more double unit formations.

So at a quick glance the Rhymney line would seem the most obvious, but I'm sure the powers that be will have much more than a quick glance at it.....

 

[gareth950]

Cue the usual twitter outrage from passengers on the platforms at Cardiff Queen St and Central, when a 'new' 4 car 769 turns up to work a peak time service to Penarth almost empty, followed by a 2 car Pacer turning up to work a rammed / crush loaded peak time service to Bridgend via Barry, or Barry Island.

 

[PHILIPE]

Just checked and that isn't correct in the case of Rhymney. Cardiff bound trains depart Rhymney at 06:08, 06:32, 07:00, 07:24, 07:42, 08:32 and then go an hourly service departing at xx:27. In the reverse direction arrivals are at xx:18 until 17:18 then the service goes roughly half-hourly for 2 hours, before going back to hourly with arrivals at xx:36.

There do also seem to be some arrivals at Cardiff Central which don't have a return passenger working e.g. http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P71690/2017/08/01/advanced

This is the next working off 0850 ex Treherbert:-

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P73067/2017/08/01/advanced

It would appear the crossover move from 7 to 6 seems to be an omission from systems. This is the pattern of trains from Treherbert half hourly through the day but with one or two exceptions which are the result of a freight path through Queen St.
The Rhymneys are erratic first thing in the morning as you point out but then settle into the the pattern, 3 Bargoeds and 1 Rhymney an hour.

 

[gareth950]

It seems the default response to a twitter compliant re: overcrowding for ATW now is to immediately direct passengers to the joint Welsh Govt/ATW press release for the 5 x 769s.

However, firstly ATW twitter (and presumably any email compliants re: overcrowding) are describing these as 'new' trains. How are intensively worked 30 year old trains 'new' exactly?

Second, as these trains will be replacing trains being sent away for mods, there will be no net increase in capacity before the end of the franchise, if it ends next October as planned. And it's only 5 trains!

Many tweets from people on sardine packed 158s on borders services atm, and these 'extra' trains will have very little impact there. In fact, temporarily crowding on those routes could get worse when 150s cover for 158s.

Nothing like being economical with the truth when dealing with irate passengers, who all want these 'new, extra' trains on their routes, right now! It could be next summer before 769s arrive in Wales. I don't envy ATW customer relations and the barrage of compliants they get, but I hate outright lying.

 

[PaulHarding150]

It seems the default response to a twitter compliant re: overcrowding for ATW now is to immediately direct passengers to the joint Welsh Govt/ATW press release for the 5 x 769s.

However, firstly ATW twitter (and presumably any email compliants re: overcrowding) are describing these as 'new' trains. How are intensively worked 30 year old trains 'new' exactly?

Fresh, I believe is the phrase

Second, as these trains will be replacing trains being sent away for mods, there will be no net increase in capacity before the end of the franchise, if it ends next October as planned. And it's only 5 trains!

Many tweets from people on sardine packed 158s on borders services atm, and these 'extra' trains will have very little impact there. In fact, temporarily crowding on those routes could get worse when 150s cover for 158s.

Nothing like being economical with the truth when dealing with irate passengers, who all want these 'new, extra' trains on their routes, right now! It could be next summer before 769s arrive in Wales. I don't envy ATW customer relations and the barrage of compliants they get, but I hate outright lying.

It'll be Nov/Dec 2018 before capacity is really increased.
I'll also bet money that they end up being painted white, with the red/orange strip and that bizarre bunny from day 1 regardless of who is running/set up to run the franchise.

Odds are these trains won't arrive in one go and when one comes in one will leave, yes there will be more seats on each unit, but an extra 50 seats added to the network in May another 50 in June etc sin't going to be felt by many passengers.

 

[pemma]

It seems the default response to a twitter compliant re: overcrowding for ATW now is to immediately direct passengers to the joint Welsh Govt/ATW press release for the 5 x 769s.

It's the same with other TOCs. Northern made a big fuss about the 319s first arriving adding capacity in response to any tweet about overcrowding, yet in the end they didn't really do anything to add capacity to non-Chat Moss routes due to Northern having to loan the 156s to TPE. In fact many services on other routes saw a downgrade in stock and a reduction in capacity e.g. where a 142 replaced a 150 so that the 150 could replace a loaned out 156.

 

[sjoh]

First I've heard of TPE running 156's.

 

[pemma]

First I've heard of TPE running 156's.

The old TPE franchise required 170s alongside it's 185s. However, Chiltern agreed to deal with Porterbrook to take on the 170s, so when they started to transfer to Chiltern, TPE loaned 156s from Northern to use on some of their North West services so that there were 185s available to replace the 170s on the Hull and Cleethorpes routes. Now the North West routes have transferred to Northern so Northern are loaning 185s to operate them alongside their own Sprinters.

 

[Rhydgaled]

It'll be Nov/Dec 2018 before capacity is really increased.

Assuming all five 769s arrive by, to pluck a date out of the air, 15th July 2018 then there might be a small increase in capacity then. Or there may not, it all depends on how ATW use the 769s. If 4 out of the 5 units are diagrammed and all replace 4-car diagrams (150+Pacer or double 150) that's 8 units released. They don't need 8 units in for PRM mods at once, so in that case there would be a unit or two available to add capacity.

It won't be a big increase in capacity, but there won't be a big increase in December 2018 either unless the new operator is decided quickly and orders more 769s in early 2018 or is willing to introduce several micro-fleets or an interim fleet of non-PRM units. I believe the sum total of DMUs due off lease elsewhere by December 2018 (excluding 153s and Pacers, which don't look likely for PRM) is 18, comprised of:
8x class 172 (from London Overground)
5x class 156 (from ScotRail, and probably in need of PRM mods)
5x class 170 (from ScotRail)

 

[MML]

I'm not sure why Class 153 are so out of favour with operators who are desperate for extra capacity.
Admittedly, making them PRM compliant is expensive and there will be little remaining seating if a universal toilet were fitted.
But the single Class 153 unit could still be operated with or without it's existing toilet, if it were coupled to a PRM converted 2-car Class 15x unit. Thereby giving a 3-car unit (c156+c153).

Extra capacity and minimum extra cost.

 

[a_c_skinner]

But the single Class 153 unit could still be operated with or without it's existing toilet, if it were coupled to a PRM converted 2-car Class 15x unit. Thereby giving a 3-car unit (c156+c153).

I've wondered the same. Is it some Alice in Wonderland financing and managing of franchising and rolling stock leasing, whereby (I suspect) rolling stock that would otherwise have only scrap value does not have that reflected in low lease costs. I'd love to be told that is completely wrong.

 

[pemma]

I believe the sum total of DMUs due off lease elsewhere by December 2018 (excluding 153s and Pacers, which don't look likely for PRM) is 18, comprised of:
8x class 172 (from London Overground)
5x class 156 (from ScotRail, and probably in need of PRM mods)
5x class 170 (from ScotRail)

It's rumoured those 172s have been secured by Abellio for the new London Midland franchise. There's also been conflicting rumours about whether Govia will want those 5 remaining 170s for Southern.

To throw another spanner in the works it also appears that the Angel Trains have made a bit of a mess of their class 150 leasing agreements with Northern and GWR, which is likely to mean GWR keeping more 150s than envisaged and Northern needing something else in lieu.

 

[pemma]

I'm not sure why Class 153 are so out of favour with operators who are desperate for extra capacity.
Admittedly, making them PRM compliant is expensive and there will be little remaining seating if a universal toilet were fitted.
But the single Class 153 unit could still be operated with or without it's existing toilet, if it were coupled to a PRM converted 2-car Class 15x unit. Thereby giving a 3-car unit (c156+c153).

Extra capacity and minimum extra cost.

It should be noted a Northern 155 needed a lot of work doing to it, while away from refurbishment which meant it spent a significant amount of time out of service. It might well be that trying to convert the 153s in to PRM compliant 155s by December 2019 is unrealistic.

 

[Gareth Marston]

It seems the default response to a twitter compliant re: overcrowding for ATW now is to immediately direct passengers to the joint Welsh Govt/ATW press release for the 5 x 769s.

However, firstly ATW twitter (and presumably any email compliants re: overcrowding) are describing these as 'new' trains. How are intensively worked 30 year old trains 'new' exactly?

Second, as these trains will be replacing trains being sent away for mods, there will be no net increase in capacity before the end of the franchise, if it ends next October as planned. And it's only 5 trains!

Many tweets from people on sardine packed 158s on borders services atm, and these 'extra' trains will have very little impact there. In fact, temporarily crowding on those routes could get worse when 150s cover for 158s.

Nothing like being economical with the truth when dealing with irate passengers, who all want these 'new, extra' trains on their routes, right now! It could be next summer before 769s arrive in Wales. I don't envy ATW customer relations and the barrage of compliants they get, but I hate outright lying.

"look the Welsh Governments doing something" and when people are still scratching there head in overcrowded Pacers 12 months down the line......

BTW Arrivas original bid had 25 2 car 170's in it as Pacer replacements- even had it been accepted we'd still be struggling now.

 

[pemma]

BTW Arrivas original bid had 25 2 car 170's in it as Pacer replacements- even had it been accepted we'd still be struggling now.

If it was included in the bid why wasn't it implemented? Could it have been like old Northern's proposal to use brand new CSRE DMUs as Pacer replacements which was an option they wanted to implement (at the time) but it wasn't included in the franchise agreement?

 

[Gareth Marston]

If it was included in the bid why wasn't it implemented? Could it have been like old Northern's proposal to use brand new CSRE DMUs as Pacer replacements which was an option they wanted to implement (at the time) but it was included in the franchise agreement?

Rejected by the SRA - and quite frankly it was one of the poorer options offered by the original 9 bidders some of which were quite expansionist and imaginative.

 

[gareth950]

I'm not sure why Class 153 are so out of favour with operators who are desperate for extra capacity.
Admittedly, making them PRM compliant is expensive and there will be little remaining seating if a universal toilet were fitted.
But the single Class 153 unit could still be operated with or without it's existing toilet, if it were coupled to a PRM converted 2-car Class 15x unit. Thereby giving a 3-car unit (c156+c153).

Extra capacity and minimum extra cost.

I agree. A 153 permanently coupled to a 150 or 158 with gangways permanently open so it's possible to walk through the entire train, would effectively give Wales much needed 3 car DMUs on some routes. No PRM toilet mods to the 153s needed, as 153s permanently coupled to another 15x would effectively create a new train? By permanently coupled, I mean 153s are not allowed to work alone post 31/12/2019, as PRM toilets are just not worth it. Better than scrapping them.

If it's not possible to PRM modify 155s, split them into 153s and permanently couple them to other 15x units.
ALL options to provide extra DMU capacity until the mid 2020s using the 15x fleet needs to be on the table, not just providing extra capacity on current DMU routes using converted EMUs.

Wales desperately needs clean, green, electric trains, but until that happens, the 15x fleet needs to be fully utilised until the end of it's working life.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can PRM modify anything. The problem with 153s is primarily the low seating capacity. No reason a 155 can't be done (or indeed one created out of two 153s).

Scrapping 153s would seem a waste. Forming them into 3-car units (one bog) would probably make most sense.

 

[IanXC]

If it's not possible to PRM modify 155s, split them into 153s and permanently couple them to other 15x units.

Not sure why you say 'if it's not possible'... One of them has been completed!

 

[Rhydgaled]

I'm not sure why Class 153 are so out of favour with operators who are desperate for extra capacity.
Admittedly, making them PRM compliant is expensive and there will be little remaining seating if a universal toilet were fitted.
But the single Class 153 unit could still be operated with or without it's existing toilet, if it were coupled to a PRM converted 2-car Class 15x unit. Thereby giving a 3-car unit (c156+c153).

Extra capacity and minimum extra cost.

I did find it a little supprising that both the GWR and Northern franchise agreements involved elimination of the 153s; I can only guess that removal of the small cab and convertion into back into 155s was too expensive and if the small cabs were kept perhaps there would be no guarantee that they would only be used in multiple with another unit. Alternatively, the DfT (or the TOCs themselves) in an effort to keep costs down may have avoided plans for additional capacity. Yet a third possibility is that Network Rail, who appear (understandably) to have had enough of human waste on the track, are insisting that retention toilets be fitted, which would probably be an expensive job.

It's rumoured those 172s have been secured by Abellio for the new London Midland franchise.

Unless the DfT confidentially advised the bidders that they could take the 172s, I believe the Invitation To Tender for the franchise did not allow the new TOC to take any existing DMUs from other operators (other than the ex-GWR units the incumbant Govia London Midland operation already expected to take on) without releasing equivilent units. In other words, unless the DfT agreed to it, the new Abellio LM would have to release 8x 2-car 170s if they took on 8x additional 2-car 172s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I did find it a little supprising that both the GWR and Northern franchise agreements involved elimination of the 153s; I can only guess that removal of the small cab and convertion into back into 155s was too expensive and if the small cabs were kept perhaps there would be no guarantee that they would only be used in multiple with another unit. Alternatively, the DfT (or the TOCs themselves) in an effort to keep costs down may have avoided plans for additional capacity. Yet a third possibility is that Network Rail, who appear (understandably) to have had enough of human waste on the track, are insisting that retention toilets be fitted, which would probably be an expensive job.

The cheap answer is simply to remove the bog and plate over the door. Then the unit is fully compliant; there is no rule requiring the provision of a bog, just that if there is one it is accessible.

 

[pemma]

Unless the DfT confidentially advised the bidders that they could take the 172s

That is possible, especially considering when the ITT was written the fact that Anglia were planning to release all their DMUs wasn't known, so if DfT were reserving the LO 172s as an option for one future franchise there's now a better set of 170s available instead.

Although, I think the wording was slight ambiguous

To that end, only the following rolling stock may be proposed by Bidders
for inclusion within the West Midlands franchise Train Fleet:
..
Any rolling stock that is not leased or operated at the date of issuing
this ITT by any Relevant Operator;
...
For the avoidance of doubt, the Department’s intention in the above
instructions is that Bidders may not propose any inward cascade of rolling
stock ... from the Great Western franchise (where future
rolling stock requirements in light of changes to the planned completion
dates for electrification are currently being assessed), with the exception
of the six Class 153 vehicles mentioned in subsection 5.6.15 (b) above.

If not being leased or operated at the date of the issuing the ITT meant trains which were already off-lease rather than trains which will become off-lease and surplus to requirements, why include an additional exclusion for GWR sets?

 

[tomuk]

Reading the DFT PRM assessments at seems that as well as the toilet the other big issue with the 153s is the doorway at the small cab end. The cab rear wall extends into the vestibule making the doorway too narrow for a wheelchair.

This makes turning a 153 back into a 155 more complicated than just coupling them together and locking the cabs out.

See https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/heavy-rail-fleets-2020-targeted-compliance

 

[pemma]

Reading the DFT PRM assessments at seems that as well as the toilet the other big issue with the 153s is the doorway at the small cab end. The cab rear wall extends into the vestibule making the doorway too narrow for a wheelchair.

This makes turning a 153 back into a 155 more complicated than just coupling them together and locking the cabs out.

See https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/heavy-rail-fleets-2020-targeted-compliance

Quick glance through that shows even ignoring the toilet there's a lot of work to do like changing door controls, replacing handrails (ones fitted are too slippery), fitting PIS, fitting a call to aid, allowing a larger wheelchair to board than the 670mm maximum the 153 allows for, providing space for a second wheelchair, internal repaint etc. are all changes which would need to be done, ignoring those where a partial non-compliance will be seen as acceptable. One such one relates to the width of the priority seat - 440mm is seen as slightly non-compliant!