Mk4 or more 197s for TfW

[Philip]

Do you think TfW should scrap the mk4 idea and instead place an additional order for extra 197s, enough to cover current mk4 diagrams?

It does seem like a vanity project and whilst it might provide a better passenger experience (comfier seating, 'intercity' ambience, good food), it goes against nearly all other precedents for a reliable railway. They have had a lot of reliability issues; this seems to have improved recently but not by a lot and the last couple of weeks haven't been good enough. At best you could describe the reliability as inconsistent - even if things improve further I can't see the reliability figures going up to the expected level for modern DMU trains. Also the locos are mid-life and more polluting than the new and 'greener' 197s.

The 197s haven't been without problems, but in anything from 3 to 6 coach configurations, they seem to be ideal trains for both the Marches & North Wales to Manchester services; plenty of flexibility through joining up trains and retaining end-gangway connections. They're clean and offer a good compromise between being reasonably comfy and helping to reduce station dwell times with quick passenger turnover because of the position of the doors.

The mk4 is an intercity train, but their TfW routes are not really intercity, rather a long distance service with plenty of stops, which suits the 197s more. Should most of the mk4s be handed back and an order for more 197s be placed, with perhaps a couple of mk4 sets retained to work a token return service from Holyhead to Cardiff?

 

[skyhigh]

TfW purchased the Mk4s, so they have no lease costs. In contrast, they'd only be worth scrap value if sold on.

Who is going to fund this order of additional brand new diesel only trains?

 

[Philip]

TfW purchased the Mk4s, so they have no lease costs. In contrast, they'd only be worth scrap value if sold on.

Who is going to fund this order of additional brand new diesel only trains?

The Welsh Government, since they control the franchise.

To counter the argument against leasing costs, the 2-hourly mk4 Manchester service is much less practical & reliable than having a full 197 service would be. The 67-mk4s will need replacing within the next decade or so anyway, whereas 197s probably have 30-40 years.

 

[rjames87]

Should have been more 197s from the start, a simplistic fleet is what is needed.

 

[Chester1]

TfW would need to buy 197s themselves because no Rosco will touch DMUs now. The time between the order for the current 197 fleet and any additional order has eaten up too much of the remaining time before 2050 and the net zero target. There is no chance a Labour government in Cardiff will sign a deal financed on basis of running DMUs into the 2050s.

TfWs best option is to keep Mark IVs for now and replace them with regional bimodes or trimodes in the medium term. The Mark IVs were reportedly bought for little more than their scrap value and buy time for the bimode / trimode regional options to improve and become cheaper.

 

[Topological]

More 197s, the Mk4 are a vanity project that is too unreliable and creates too many delays when the trains fail.

The fact that this is a discussion of the cost of 10 more 197s (assuming the 5 diagrams get a 197/1 and 197/0 each) shows just how bad things have become. Had the Mk4s been rightly dismissed at the start the differential would have been much smaller too.

Yes, it is nice to get on a Mk4, but they are messing up the Marches.

And that is before you remember that they had to split half the trains between Manchester and West Wales to create extra terminators because 67s do not have big enough fuel tanks. Meanwhile, there are delays at Cardiff because of how poorly it copes with terminating trains.

 

[Bayum]

Some lovely top and tail 68s and ex-TPE stock hanging about...

 

[Neptune]

Some lovely top and tail 68s and ex-TPE stock hanging about...

Why do you need top and tail when the mk 5’s have a DT at one end?

 

[Bayum]

Why do you need top and tail when the mk 5’s have a DT at one end?

Is a DT not classed as top and tail?

 

[HSTEd]

Is a DT not classed as top and tail?

Traditionally no, it would be classified as "push pull"

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd say 197s, because TfW really needs to simplify their service into a fully standardised hourly clockface pattern throughout their network, and the Mk4s make that awkward as there aren't enough of them for any given service to be wholly run using them.

 

[Philip]

I'd also suggest completely abolishing the first class/standard upgrade on all the 197s; the North West/Wales & South Wales routes have managed without it for decades and I don't think there is a pressing need for it now, particularly now that the market for first class travel is smaller than a decade ago, with a lot of business meetings done over zoom. It'll also reduce the flexibility of the fleet once the standard premium is introduced, because different units will be confined to specific routes and inevitably there'll be times when a non-premium unit ends up on an upgrade route, and vice versa. If they insist on having the premium section then it'd be better to not advertise it in advance on booking systems, but rather for the guard or station announcer to inform passengers that "an upgrade is available on the next train to Carmarthen, Llandudno, Holyhead" etc.

 

[Philip]

I think the priority on all the mainstay TfW routes should be to provide as much standard seating capacity as possible, whilst also making the transfer of passengers on & off the train as easy as possible.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Mk4s make that awkward as there aren't enough of them for any given service to be wholly run using them.

Six is more than enough to run the Conwy valley.

I'll get my coat!

I'd also suggest completely abolishing the first class/standard upgrade on all the 197s; the North West/Wales & South Wales routes have managed without it for decades and I don't think there is a pressing need for it now, particularly now that the market for first class travel is smaller than a decade ago, with a lot of business meetings done over zoom. It'll also reduce the flexibility of the fleet once the standard premium is introduced, because different units will be confined to specific routes and inevitably there'll be times when a non-premium unit ends up on an upgrade route, and vice versa. If they insist on having the premium section then it'd be better to not advertise it in advance on booking systems, but rather for the guard or station announcer to inform passengers that "an upgrade is available on the next train to Carmarthen, Llandudno, Holyhead" etc.

I have a belief part of it is to cover the withdrawal of the flight to Valley although I could be wrong.

Personally, I they lose 14 seats, which isn't awful and if it increases the revenue enough and when operating 5 cars the capacity is fine, I have no issue with it. The question for me is: Is the upgrade worth it? That's a different debate

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have a belief part of it is to cover the withdrawal of the flight to Valley although I could be wrong.

Personally, I they lose 14 seats, which isn't awful and if it increases the revenue enough and when operating 5 cars the capacity is fine, I have no issue with it. The question for me is: Is the upgrade worth it? That's a different debate

TBH I'd have provided it on all units or none so every 197 operated service would have it - it'd be better use of space than that stupid catering cupboard. TBH I would pay for it on e.g. Birmingham-Tywyn which I do once a year, it's a long journey and it'd be nice to have improved comfort for it.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Do you think TfW should scrap the mk4 idea and instead place an additional order for extra 197s, enough to cover current mk4 diagrams?

It does seem like a vanity project and whilst it might provide a better passenger experience (comfier seating, 'intercity' ambience, good food), it goes against nearly all other precedents for a reliable railway. They have had a lot of reliability issues; this seems to have improved recently but not by a lot and the last couple of weeks haven't been good enough. At best you could describe the reliability as inconsistent - even if things improve further I can't see the reliability figures going up to the expected level for modern DMU trains. Also the locos are mid-life and more polluting than the new and 'greener' 197s.

The 197s haven't been without problems, but in anything from 3 to 6 coach configurations, they seem to be ideal trains for both the Marches & North Wales to Manchester services; plenty of flexibility through joining up trains and retaining end-gangway connections. They're clean and offer a good compromise between being reasonably comfy and helping to reduce station dwell times with quick passenger turnover because of the position of the doors.

The mk4 is an intercity train, but their TfW routes are not really intercity, rather a long distance service with plenty of stops, which suits the 197s more. Should most of the mk4s be handed back and an order for more 197s be placed, with perhaps a couple of mk4 sets retained to work a token return service from Holyhead to Cardiff?

Reliability may be an issue currently, but as maintenance depots gain experience with units, reliability typically improves.

Using something like a 197 would be unsuitable for long distance journey like e.g. Manchester to South Wales, seating is OK but not comparable to the Mk4 experience, and the Welsh Government are trying very hard to encourage modal shift away from the M4 in particular following cancellation of the M4 Relief Road.

Other loco-hauled carriages are a possibility if performance continues to be a problem, but where is the funding going to come from in the short to medium term while TfW is making cutbacks just to reduce the overspend?

 

[Topological]

Reliability may be an issue currently, but as maintenance depots gain experience with units, reliability typically improves.

Using something like a 197 would be unsuitable for long distance journey like e.g. Manchester to South Wales, seating is OK but not comparable to the Mk4 experience, and the Welsh Government are trying very hard to encourage modal shift away from the M4 in particular following cancellation of the M4 Relief Road.

Other loco-hauled carriages are a possibility if performance continues to be a problem, but where is the funding going to come from in the short to medium term while TfW is making cutbacks just to reduce the overspend?

Aside from the fact that the Mk4 sets are not "new" any more, and the Mk4 do not provide for the longest journeys from Manchester to South Wales...

The 197 is perfectly OK for the 4 hours from Swansea to Manchester, nevermind the 3 hours from Cardiff to Manchester.

What creates modal shift is reliability and capacity, where the Mk4 is ok for capacity it fails reliability and does not operate on many of the services anyway. Hence if you are thinking whether to ditch the car then a 2-hourly* Mk4. is not going to be enough incentive.

Then you have to remember that the car journey from Manchester to South Wales involves the M6/M5 at Birmingham and that there is no motorway for part of it (being the M50 then A48 then into Newport) so the train already starts from a strong point. If your argument is about the M4 then cutting through journeys that parallel the M4 across Cardiff (as the current TfW timetable does to accommodate Mk4) is actually the opposite of what is needed.

In short, it is really only enthusiasts who would be sad to see 5 car 197s on the Mk4 diagrams.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Aside from the fact that the Mk4 sets are not "new" any more, and the Mk4 do not provide for the longest journeys from Manchester to South Wales...

The 197 is perfectly OK for the 4 hours from Swansea to Manchester, nevermind the 3 hours from Cardiff to Manchester.

What creates modal shift is reliability and capacity, where the Mk4 is ok for capacity it fails reliability and does not operate on many of the services anyway. Hence if you are thinking whether to ditch the car then a 2-hourly* Mk4. is not going to be enough incentive.

Then you have to remember that the car journey from Manchester to South Wales involves the M6/M5 at Birmingham and that there is no motorway for part of it (being the M50 then A48 then into Newport) so the train already starts from a strong point. If your argument is about the M4 then cutting through journeys that parallel the M4 across Cardiff (as the current TfW timetable does to accommodate Mk4) is actually the opposite of what is needed.

In short, it is really only enthusiasts who would be sad to see 5 car 197s on the Mk4 diagrams.

Perfectly OK they may be, but not desirable enough to actually encourage modal shift away from cars.
The 175s were nice for DMUs, but didn't make a huge impact on attracting motorists to long-distance rail travel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perfectly OK they may be, but not desirable enough to actually encourage modal shift away from cars.
The 175s were nice for DMUs, but didn't make a huge impact on attracting motorists to long-distance rail travel.

Both of them are perfectly fine as units. They're no ICE, but they are both comfortable enough, indeed the 197 has better seats than the 80x (same frame, thicker cushion).

If you want to get people out of their cars you need to make rail affordable and reliable enough and have enough capacity - at the moment it's neither. You don't see people shouting all over the place about how bad the seats are on a given unit (other than the rock-hard basic Comrail ironing boards), but you do hear them shouting about the price and how it took them 5 hours because 3 successive trains were cancelled, and how they stood all the way from Cardiff to Manchester despite having reserved a seat, because yet again the booked Mk4 set failed and a couple of 153s had to substitute.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Both of them are perfectly fine as units. They're no ICE, but they are both comfortable enough, indeed the 197 has better seats than the 80x (same frame, thicker cushion).

If you want to get people out of their cars you need to make rail affordable and reliable enough and have enough capacity - at the moment it's neither. You don't see people shouting all over the place about how bad the seats are on a given unit (other than the rock-hard basic Comrail ironing boards), but you do hear them shouting about the price and how it took them 5 hours because 3 successive trains were cancelled, and how they stood all the way from Cardiff to Manchester despite having reserved a seat, because yet again the booked Mk4 set failed and a couple of 153s had to substitute.

Affordable, yes - TfW is already one of the more affordable TOCs.
For reliability, as I said - the Mk4s haven't really had time to bed down with TfW mechanics yet.
If those are your 2 main criteria for rail growth, the Mk4s can certainly satisfy them compared to the 197s (which are fine for some of the roles, but the few genuine long distance TfW routes need a flagship).

 

[Topological]

Affordable, yes - TfW is already one of the more affordable TOCs.
For reliability, as I said - the Mk4s haven't really had time to bed down with TfW mechanics yet.
If those are your 2 main criteria for rail growth, the Mk4s can certainly satisfy them compared to the 197s (which are fine for some of the roles, but the few genuine long distance TfW routes need a flagship).

How long do you think the TfW mechanics need?

Link: https://news.tfw.wales/news/transport-for-wales-introduce-premium-trains

07 Jun 2021​

Transport for Wales has introduced an improved rail service between Cardiff and Holyhead with greater capacity and fully refurbished intercity carriages.

The first intercity train left Holyhead at 5.34am on 7 June, and arrived in Cardiff at 9.58am, providing an essential link between north and south Wales.

The article goes on to say:

Transport of Wales also announced that they have successfully purchased a further 30 Mark 4 intercity carriages that are fully refurbished to a high standard. This will include four trains of five carriages which will enter service on the Swansea to Manchester route from December 2022.

Three years later there is still no WEEKDAY Mk4 service from Swansea TO Manchester (and only 1 the other way).

People are so desparate to defend the Mk4, but aside from being a nicer train (When they run and only for people on the sections of the route they serve) they are simply not getting any more reliable.

 

[Caaardiff]

Reliability may be an issue currently, but as maintenance depots gain experience with units, reliability typically improves.

Using something like a 197 would be unsuitable for long distance journey like e.g. Manchester to South Wales, seating is OK but not comparable to the Mk4 experience, and the Welsh Government are trying very hard to encourage modal shift away from the M4 in particular following cancellation of the M4 Relief Road.

Other loco-hauled carriages are a possibility if performance continues to be a problem, but where is the funding going to come from in the short to medium term while TfW is making cutbacks just to reduce the overspend?

Class 67's are not designed for this kind of passenger work and there's has been and continues to be modifications to get them working with Mk4's.
The only things that makes 197's unsuitable for long distance is the door layout, but don't forget that they serve many regional parts of the country along that long distance journey to Manchester. So for many parts the door layouts are ideal.
The only thing that will reduce M4 traffic is more frequent and reliable local services to reduce short journeys. The M4 issue is much bigger than however many people are travelling North. The M50 is the main route North and is rarely busy.

On that basis the same should be said for GWR's stock. As they use 165's which are much more aimed at Commuter traffic and IETs with god awful seats on long distance services. Many more people are probably driving along the M4 to London and M5 to Bristol/South that could be catching the train than up the M50 and M5 heading North.

 

[AlastairFraser]

How long do you think the TfW mechanics need?

Link: https://news.tfw.wales/news/transport-for-wales-introduce-premium-trains



The article goes on to say:



Three years later there is still no WEEKDAY Mk4 service from Swansea TO Manchester (and only 1 the other way).

People are so desparate to defend the Mk4, but aside from being a nicer train (When they run and only for people on the sections of the route they serve) they are simply not getting any more reliable.

How long was it before the 180s were whipped into shape?
I appreciate that it was a while, but it's by no means the worst stock on the UK rail network for performance. Just look at the 701s!

 

[Topological]

How long was it before the 180s were whipped into shape?
I appreciate that it was a while, but it's by no means the worst stock on the UK rail network for performance. Just look at the 701s!

But the point of this thread is that the Mk4 is simply unnecessary for TfW.

They should have concentrated entirely on the transition from 175 to 197 and not got distracted with a vanity project like the Mk4.

The existence of worse introductions is no excuse for what the Mk4 do to the Marches.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Class 67's are not designed for this kind of passenger work and there's has been and continues to be modifications to get them working with Mk4's.
The only things that makes 197's unsuitable for long distance is the door layout, but don't forget that they serve many regional parts of the country along that long distance journey to Manchester. So for many parts the door layouts are ideal.
The only thing that will reduce M4 traffic is more frequent and reliable local services to reduce short journeys. The M4 issue is much bigger than however many people are travelling North. The M50 is the main route North and is rarely busy.

On that basis the same should be said for GWR's stock. As they use 165's which are much more aimed at Commuter traffic and IETs with god awful seats on long distance services. Many more people are probably driving along the M4 to London and M5 to Bristol/South that could be catching the train than up the M50 and M5 heading North.

Perhaps a loco change would help with the Mk4 reliability then in future.
I agree with your point re GWR 165s - the 175s would be much more suitable for their regional (as opposed to short distance) services.

 

[Topological]

Perhaps a loco change would help with the Mk4 reliability then in future.
I agree with your point re GWR 165s - the 175s would be much more suitable for their regional (as opposed to short distance) services.

Did you not just say new trains need time to bed in?

Surely any change would have to be to 197s?

I get that this is a rail enthusiasts forum, but 197s can rescue each other and one of the many disadvantages of the Mk4 system is that whatever hauls them cannot rescue / or be rescued by a 197.

Then there is the other point that 197s have multiple engines and can limp home if one fails, see the thread on loco hauled versus multiple units. (Link to thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/locomotive-haulage-vs-multiple-units.267371/ )

 

[AlastairFraser]

But the point of this thread is that the Mk4 is simply unnecessary for TfW.

They should have concentrated entirely on the transition from 175 to 197 and not got distracted with a vanity project like the Mk4.

The existence of worse introductions is no excuse for what the Mk4 do to the Marches.

I would tentatively agree with Mk4s if some more bimodes from another manufacturer were ordered - the CAF standard is just not an attractive proposition for journeys of more than 2 hours.

Did you not just say new trains need time to bed in?

Surely any change would have to be to 197s?

I get that this is a rail enthusiasts forum, but 197s can rescue each other and one of the many disadvantages of the Mk4 system is that whatever hauls them cannot rescue / or be rescued by a 197.

Then there is the other point that 197s have multiple engines and can limp home if one fails, see the thread on loco hauled versus multiple units. (Link to thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/locomotive-haulage-vs-multiple-units.267371/ )

Why would it have to be 197s? If you were going to order anything, it would be a new bi-mode unit with any sort of cascade potential.

 

[Kite159]

More 197s, creating a more standardised fleet. Short term cost penalty but potentially long term cost savings as the depots won't have to carry spare parts for the Mk4 fleet. Bi-Modes would be wasted on TfW considering that for Manchester - Cardiff the only wires they run under are Cardiff - Newport & Crewe - Manchester which is low.

Also, would mean the Manchester - Cardiff & Cardiff - Milford Haven trains can go back to being one service without the risk of a long connection at Cardiff due to a poor timetable or late running meaning the connection is missed for any passengers not heading to Cardiff.

(Also more 197s to allow the remaining 153s to get retired)

 

[Topological]

I would tentatively agree with Mk4s if some more bimodes from another manufacturer were ordered - the CAF standard is just not an attractive proposition for journeys of more than 2 hours.


Why would it have to be 197s? If you were going to order anything, it would be a new bi-mode unit with any sort of cascade potential.

Because as you said it takes time for TOCs to get used to new stock. You would need training for crews etc. After all that you still do not have rescue capability.

The 197s are perfectly OK for the journeys most people make on the Marches, and for those of us who do 4 hours on one I can assure you they are fine,

 

[AlastairFraser]

Because as you said it takes time for TOCs to get used to new stock. You would need training for crews etc. After all that you still do not have rescue capability.

The 197s are perfectly OK for the journeys most people make on the Marches, and for those of us who do 4 hours on one I can assure you they are fine,

More Stadlers would make sense if you were looking for fleet homogeneity - more cascade opportunity, potential for progressive conversion to OHLE/battery as electrification progresses (better journey times + potentially unit utilisation).

Rescue capability is a case of standardising couplers which *should* be possible.

197s may be decent for now, but are they really suitable for growth?