Keolis/Amey to take over Wales and Borders

[LNW-GW Joint]

The Loco-hauled Cardiff-Holyhead fleet is being expanded to three Mark IV rakes
Woah! I missed that! What's the formation and what's pulling it around?
Also, will TfW be responsible for the valley lines maintainence?

Three sets, Loco + 4 trailers + DVT, 12 passenger vehicles in all, based at Canton.
Loco type not specified.
Sounds like each set will do 3 legs per day.
The current LHCS Holyhead-Manchester (based at Crewe) will go back to DMUs.

Don't know about VL maintenance. Asset transfer from NR is not till Sept 2019.

 

[gareth950]

The Loco-hauled Cardiff-Holyhead fleet is being expanded to three Mark IV rakes

Woah! I missed that! What's the formation and what's pulling it around?

Also, will TfW be responsible for the valley lines maintainence?

Keilos/Amey, so Amey, will be responsible for upgrades and maintenance on the Valley lines to 2033. Who will control & be responsible for signalling is unclear, as all HR signalling will remain, but it's not been confirmed whether NR will keep control in it's signalling centre at Canton, or the new 'Metro control centre' will take over signalling in Taffs Well.

 

[HH]

Loco type will be Cl68.

 

[craigybagel]

Loco type will be Cl68.

Source? Not that I don't believe you, it makes an awful lot of sense, but I'd not seen it confirmed anywhere.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

2 rakes, 3 services. Not clear what will be pulling it. Also the Manchester service ceases to be LH.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Three sets, Loco + 4 trailers + DVT, 12 passenger vehicles in all, based at Canton.
Loco type not specified.
Sounds like each set will do 3 legs per day.
The current LHCS Holyhead-Manchester (based at Crewe) will go back to DMUs.

Don't know about VL maintenance. Asset transfer from NR is not till Sept 2019.

Surely one will need to be based at Holyhead each night to do the early morning Holyhead - Cardiff?

 

[berneyarms]

Surely one will need to be based at Holyhead each night to do the early morning Holyhead - Cardiff?

They would be maintained at Canton.

Three workings each day would mean that they would overnight alternately at Cardiff and Holyhead.

 

[Gareth Marston]

See also: Circuit of Wales. At least they pulled the plug on that after 'only' losing £9m.

The head of Tramsport for Wales James Price will be able to give you chapter and verse on it.

 

[HH]

Source? Not that I don't believe you, it makes an awful lot of sense, but I'd not seen it confirmed anywhere.....

Source is not publicly available, but I know that was the plan. Of course, plans may change.

 

[Class 170101]

Will Class 68s woerk with Mark IVs? I know Class 67s do.

 

[dgl]

MkIV is a standard locomotive hauled coach and as such can be pulled by any standard locomotive, the only thing that will need modifying is the DVT control system either on the DVT/coaches or on the locomotive itself.

 

[squizzler]

Would there be enough 68's to go round? Although intended as a multipurpose design, it seems to rapidly becoming a de-facto passenger engine.

Also, what of the 67's? They might not have the raw power, but Wales and borders are proposing short formations and I don't think the route requires high power to weight for either high speeds or hill climbing capability like TPE. The 68 would be better employed elsewhere in my opinion. I know the 67's are crude and overweight by comparison with the newer design, but then again so is the mk4 in comparison with the mk5 coach.

 

[craigybagel]

Source is not publicly available, but I know that was the plan. Of course, plans may change.

Fair enough, just thought I'd missed something.

Would there be enough 68's to go round? Although intended as a multipurpose design, it seems to rapidly becoming a de-facto passenger engine.

Also, what of the 67's? They might not have the raw power, but Wales and borders are proposing short formations and I don't think the route requires high power to weight for either high speeds or hill climbing capability like TPE. The 68 would be better employed elsewhere in my opinion. I know the 67's are crude and overweight by comparison with the newer design, but then again so is the mk4 in comparison with the mk5 coach.

There are plenty of hills between Chester and Cardiff; Gresford and Llanvihangel banks are particularly long climbs that certain trains have been known to struggle with, but it's true that a 67 + 5 should be able to cope ok with them. However, reliability and fuel economy alone would be pretty compelling reasons to switch from 67 to 68 I would have thought. If the coaching stock is going to have to be modified anyway, it seems like a sensible time to make the change - if (and as you hinted, it is an if) there are 68s available.

I also wonder as to whether or not they'll bother using the MKIV DVTs, or continue to use the existing MKIIIs.

 

[Roast Veg]

The MK3 DVTs were modified to work with AAR style multiple working for their 67s, which the 68s were also made compatible for upon their entry into service with Chiltern. It would make sense to do something similar to the MK4 DVTs since they are also currently TDM compatible and it would allow the 67s to be interchangeable for the 68s during the transition period. The alternative is conversion to the system the 68s already have, which would mean that whole sets would need to be replaced one by one, which I see as unlikely.

 

[squizzler]

Fair enough, just thought I'd missed something.



There are plenty of hills between Chester and Cardiff; Gresford and Llanvihangel banks are particularly long climbs that certain trains have been known to struggle with, but it's true that a 67 + 5 should be able to cope ok with them. However, reliability and fuel economy alone would be pretty compelling reasons to switch from 67 to 68 I would have thought. If the coaching stock is going to have to be modified anyway, it seems like a sensible time to make the change - if (and as you hinted, it is an if) there are 68s available.

I also wonder as to whether or not they'll bother using the MKIV DVTs, or continue to use the existing MKIIIs.

After I wrote the post I realised the Llanfihangel bank is meant to be notorious, but I suspect the Gerald sets climb fewer metres every day than the TPR ones, and I also imagine the performance amongst other traffic does not have to be so good on the marches which is a less intensively used route.

Regarding fuel economy of the 67's, is it really that bad? I thought that in the US freight scene the EMD 710 lump was being marketed till only a couple of years ago when emissions required them to switch to a newly developed 1010 engine, which suggests to me it wasn't out of the ballpark, as the Americans say.

 

[craigybagel]

The MK3 DVTs were modified to work with AAR style multiple working for their 67s, which the 68s were also made compatible for upon their entry into service with Chiltern. It would make sense to do something similar to the MK4 DVTs since they are also currently TDM compatible and it would allow the 67s to be interchangeable for the 68s during the transition period. The alternative is conversion to the system the 68s already have, which would mean that whole sets would need to be replaced one by one, which I see as unlikely.

This is true. I guess the question is, is it easier to make the W&B 68s AAR compatible (as has already been done with the Chiltern locos, as you mention) and then modify the MKIII DVTs to be able to work with MKIVs (if any modification is even necessary?) and then not even need to worry about the MKIV DVT's, they can just go back into storage?

After I wrote the post I realised the Llanfihangel bank is meant to be notorious, but I suspect the Gerald sets climb fewer metres every day than the TPR ones, and I also imagine the performance amongst other traffic does not have to be so good on the marches which is a less intensively used route.

Regarding fuel economy of the 67's, is it really that bad? I thought that in the US freight scene the EMD 710 lump was being marketed till only a couple of years ago when emissions required them to switch to a newly developed 1010 engine, which suggests to me it wasn't out of the ballpark, as the Americans say.

Indeed, although at least Gerald will be climbing those banks 1.5 times a day under the new franchise, slightly better then the very occasional usage the current set gets.

I don't have the figures for fuel economy, that's not my department (I don't even sign LHCS any more) but anecdotally I've heard that it's pretty poor. It's a big heavy and nearly 20 year old design. Plus you need to ask yourself, would Chiltern have spent so much time and money retraining their staff on 68s if there wasn't some form of financial pay off in return?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

My impression is that the 67+Mk3 DVT is an unreliable combination (Gerald cancellations being not uncommon).
The Mk4 DVTs are a later design and specifically built to work with the passenger vehicles.
You don't hear of IC225 set failures very often.
You'd think that an all-Mk4 combination would work best.
Also, the Mk4s are owned by Eversholt while the Mk3 DVTs are with Porterbrook.
Why would you want to have multiple contracts for your LHCS?

 

[Gareth Marston]

I can remember a couple of years ago waiting at Abergavenny station and a southbound freight behind a 66 came through at a fair old speed I wasn't entirely convinced that the driver was in full control of his train. Llanvihangel is 1 in 82 with the gradient against it for northbound trains from Abergavenny. If you want some decent gradients in Wales then try the Cambrian we have several steeper than that.

 

[craigybagel]

My impression is that the 67+Mk3 DVT is an unreliable combination (Gerald cancellations being not uncommon).
The Mk4 DVTs are a later design and specifically built to work with the passenger vehicles.
You don't hear of IC225 set failures very often.
You'd think that an all-Mk4 combination would work best.
Also, the Mk4s are owned by Eversholt while the Mk3 DVTs are with Porterbrook.
Why would you want to have multiple contracts for your LHCS?

I didn't realise that they had different owners - yes, that reason alone would probably be a good one for using MKIV DVT's.

You are also correct about the reliability - part of which is down to the 67s, another reason why I expected to see them replaced. This morning it's running south with no 1st Class for some reason.

 

[Phil from Mon]

I didn't realise that they had different owners - yes, that reason alone would probably be a good one for using MKIV DVT's.

You are also correct about the reliability - part of which is down to the 67s, another reason why I expected to see them replaced. This morning it's running south with no 1st Class for some reason.

There was no first class Friday night northbound. Don’t know the reason I’m afraid.

 

[PHILIPE]

There was no first class Friday night northbound. Don’t know the reason I’m afraid.

There had been no first class for several days due to a defect with the kitchen vehicle. Trolley service in liue.

 

[43096]

Also, the Mk4s are owned by Eversholt while the Mk3 DVTs are with Porterbrook.
Why would you want to have multiple contracts for your LHCS?

The ATW Mark 3 DVTs are owned by Arriva, not Porterbrook.

I cannot see the solution being anything other than Mark 4 DVTs. Apart from what has already been mentioned, the inner end of a Mark 3 DVT has conventional drop-head buckeye couplers, whereas within the set Mark 4s have Tightlocks. It's only the outer ends of the TOE and DVT that have standard couplers.

 

[squizzler]

Interrupting discussion on the flagship service to consider one of the backwaters, I have a personal interest in the Heart of Wales line and wonder if people managed to glean any specifics from the current announcements:

What frequency is expected for the class 170 service on the Heart of Wales (bi hourly?)
Will all the trains call at all stations or will there be limited stop "expresses"?
Will there be any new infrastructure such as additional passing loops?
Will some trains live at stabling facilities on the route (such as has previously been mooted at Llandovery or in Llandrindod to enable early outbound commuting services)?

 

[craigybagel]

Interrupting discussion on the flagship service to consider one of the backwaters, I have a personal interest in the Heart of Wales line and wonder if people managed to glean any specifics from the current announcements:

What frequency is expected for the class 170 service on the Heart of Wales (bi hourly?)
Will all the trains call at all stations or will there be limited stop "expresses"?
Will there be any new infrastructure such as additional passing loops?
Will some trains live at stabling facilities on the route (such as has previously been mooted at Llandovery or in Llandrindod to enable early outbound commuting services)?

It's going up to 5 a day across the whole length of the line - and that's about as much as we know I'm afraid. I'm not sure if the extra Llandrindod/Llandovery shorts that currently run are on top of that so you'd have 6 trains a day on those sections, or just 5 the whole length.

 

[krus_aragon]

It's going up to 5 a day across the whole length of the line - and that's about as much as we know I'm afraid. I'm not sure if the extra Llandrindod/Llandovery shorts that currently run are on top of that so you'd have 6 trains a day on those sections, or just 5 the whole length.

I recall it's due to be 5 a day plus an additional short shuttle at each end. I can't immediately recall where I read it, but it was from an official published source.

I'm not aware that any of us have looked into what such a service's timetable would look like.

 

[Dai Corner]

I recall it's due to be 5 a day plus an additional short shuttle at each end. I can't immediately recall where I read it, but it was from an official published source.

I'm not aware that any of us have looked into what such a service's timetable would look like.

It's in the presentation given (I believe) to AMs. It's no longer online and too big to upload her but here's a screenshot.



PM your email address if you'd like a copy.

 

[craigybagel]

I'm sure 6 a day (5 in the middle) is probably achievable with the current infrastructure, but it'll be interesting to see if the resulting timetable matches up with the travel patterns of passengers (as I've mentioned before, the current one isn't that good in that respect), and how long the waits at crossing points need to be. Using 170s may knock a few minutes off the journey time - they may even be able to hit the full 90 line speed North of Craven Arms after all, although I don't know if they'll prove any better then the current stock at climbing hills. There is also the issue to be resolved of whether through through running to the Crewe local service, which has actually been surprisingly popular, will continue - but then the any mention of the Crewe - Shrewsbury local has been notably absent in official media, other then unsubstantiated rumours of a (in my mind completely pointless and self defeating) transfer to WMT.

 

[squizzler]

PM your email address if you'd like a copy.

Thanks. I think your screenshot is enough to satisfy me for now.

I'm sure 6 a day (5 in the middle) is probably achievable with the current infrastructure, but it'll be interesting to see if the resulting timetable matches up with the travel patterns of passengers (as I've mentioned before, the current one isn't that good in that respect), and how long the waits at crossing points need to be. Using 170s may knock a few minutes off the journey time - they may even be able to hit the full 90 line speed North of Craven Arms after all, although I don't know if they'll prove any better then the current stock at climbing hills. There is also the issue to be resolved of whether through through running to the Crewe local service, which has actually been surprisingly popular, will continue - but then the any mention of the Crewe - Shrewsbury local has been notably absent in official media, other then unsubstantiated rumours of a (in my mind completely pointless and self defeating) transfer to WMT.

Agreed, it should be possible, and I see no reason why, with a dedicated fleet to the line, the timings should not be tailored to suit local demand (given that it is mainly the chronic shortage of stock that dictates our current, dreadful, timetable)

However without additional passing loops (I think one was mooted between Llandrindod and Llanwrtwd) the benefits of a clock face regular interval timetable will not be realisable.

Also agree with your point regarding onward running to Crewe (and to a lesser extent Cardiff): makes no sense to give up these extensions just at the time the line gets rolling stock with the legs for mainline speeds.

 

[craigybagel]

Thanks. I think your screenshot is enough to satisfy me for now.



Agreed, it should be possible, and I see no reason why, with a dedicated fleet to the line, the timings should not be tailored to suit local demand (given that it is mainly the chronic shortage of stock that dictates our current, dreadful, timetable)

However without additional passing loops (I think one was mooted between Llandrindod and Llanwrtwd) the benefits of a clock face regular interval timetable will not be realisable.

Also agree with your point regarding onward running to Crewe (and to a lesser extent Cardiff): makes no sense to give up these extensions just at the time the line gets rolling stock with the legs for mainline speeds.

A loop at Llanbyster Road or Dolau would permit a 2 hourly service at the North end of the line (these would balance with Llandrindod or Llanwrtyd respectively) but I doubt they'd go to expense of doing that just to allow 1 more train per day.

I doubt we'll see any through running to Cardiff - with only 4 units arriving I don't see the stock for that, but Crewe may be possible still, especially if there is a plan to stable stock overnight there (as is done at present for 1 of the units).

It would also make a lot more sense to use the 170s on the Crewe-Chester shuttle, over the barmy idea of using 230s, and maybe that could be tied into the plan for the HOWL as well - but it remains to be seen if sense will prevail here.

 

[krus_aragon]

Use of 230s on Crewe-Shrewsbury* would only be short term (if done) until all the units are needed for the 2tph to Bidston.

*(Only seen this idea discussed here: Crewe-Chester is the one mentioned in official press releases)