TfW Long-Distance Fleet Replacement

[Rhydgaled]

Be interesting to see a DMU with a restaurant car. It has been done before, so why not a 197?

A DMU with a restaurant car? There have certainly been buffet cars on plenty of EMUs, and possibly the kitchen/shop on class 22x DEMUs counts, but I'm not sure about DMUs. The 197s do have the catering cupboard so it's kinda one step on the way to a buffet already, but the only place I want to see the 197s going is back to the CAF works at Llanwern to be rebuilt with a pantograph for bi-mode operation on the South East Wales Metro (starting a cascade to release the tram-trains needed to operate the planned extension beyond Cardiff Bay).

Although probably costly, and I know they're not the most liked trains, but the better fit would be IETs.
A bi-mode train set up for future electrification and using infrastructure already in place, 5 car sets that also come with a kitchen, and would mean could at least be sent to Carmarthen for a decent West Wales - Manchester service.
The mk4s won't last forever and I can't see an alternative option that would cover all the requirements.

Bi-mode yes, but if you're building new (rather than making good use of cascaded stock, as was the case with the mark 4s) then TfW has no need of 125mph stock and therefore no need for pointy noses. A bi-mode Civity or Aventra with the class 196/197 or class 730 gangwayed cabs would be the way to go I reckon, with a 5-car version (with buffet) for the Swansea-Manchester and (odd Cardiff-Holyhead) workings and shorter formations (ideally a mix of 2-car and 3-car formations) for other routes if possible.

Re. Carmarthen, I don't think a (south-)west Wales to Manchester service is needed at all. Swansea-Manchester, hourly, should be the aim in my view. The ideal base service pattern west of Swansea is, in my view:

• Hourly semi-fast Swansea - Clarbeston Road* calling at Gowerton, Llanelli, Pembrey & Burry Port, Carmarthen, Whitland and Clunderwen
• Hourly stopper Swansea-Carmarthen-Whitland calling at all stations (including St. Clears)
• Hourly express Cardiff Central - Carmarthen* calling at Port Talbot Parkway, Morriston Tawe Valley Parkway (M4 j45 for Ynysforgan/A4067) and Llanelli only
• Hourly stopper Whitland - Pembroke Dock calling at all stations (this could either be a portion detached from the Clarbeston Road service at Whitland or an extension of the Swansea-Whitland stopper)
• Hourly service Milford Haven - Clarbeston Road* calling at all stations (except possibly Johnston on Cardiff services - if all trains are to call then make it a mandatory stop for all services not a request stop)
• One train per ferry (so 2 per day at present) each way Fishguard Harbour - Carmarthen calling at Fishguard & Goodwick and Whitland only (extensions of Cardiff Central - Carmarthen express service listed above) connecting with ferries
• various Fishguard Harbour - Clarbeston Road* calling at all stations (see note below)

Sadly, now that the 175s have gone (and the 158s being needed on the Cambrian), TfW don't have anything appropriate to work any of that, apart from the Swansea-Carmarthen stoppers if you use the portion option for the Pembroke Dock services.

* no services should actually terminate at Clarbeston Road - the hourly Milford Haven service should comprise extensions of the Cardiff-Carmarthen express (these would not call at Clarbeston Road, the only calling point between Haverfordwest and Carmarthen on these runs should be Whitland) every two hours (Fishguard boat trains permitting) and extensions of the Swansea - Clarbeston Road semi-fast in the other hours. The remaining Swansea - Clarbeston Road semi-fasts would be extended to Fishguard & Goodwick and Fishguard Harbour, comprising the majority of the Fishguard service (due to the boat trains and the need to provide suitable times for commuters etc. the Fishguard service would probably have the odd 3 hour gap in it, but mostly (including the boat trains) it would be a train every 2 hours).

As I understand it, IETs are pretty slow on diesel, especially when there's a hill involved (and the Marches has a lot of them). They're super quick on electric - but only a small portion of the route is electrified.

Performance wise you want something closer to a Stadler - near electric levels of acceleration even when running on diesel, max speed 100mph. Stadler famously will build pretty much anything - I'm sure they'd happily cook up an 8 x 15m car bi-mode set with a kitchen.

I wonder what the performance of LNER's new Class 897 units will be like away from the wires? I've long thought a bi-mode version of the class 397 (minus pointy noses and Sophia seats) would have been a much better choice for TfW than the class 197s if TfW were always going to go with CAF for their new stock.

As for Stadler, the one thing they don't seem to have done is unit end gangways, although the class 777s have an escape door on the ends (although that is from the Metro platform rather than the FLIRT platform). If they can move the escape door to the middle of the cab and fit it to a FLIRT they'd be a good chunk of the way there.

But this is all very hypothetical. We are where we are and I doubt there's the money for a full replacement of the MKIVs any time soon.

The mark 4s will be 40 years in 2030 and presumably close to life-expiry. Personally, I would set a target to eliminate diesel-under-the-wires on TfW by 2035** and build a new fleet of long-distance bi-modes (eg. the gangwayed 397 variant discussed above) to take over first the Cambrian and then the Swansea-Manchester route and relieving the mark 4s to/from Holyhead.

**that might sound crazy given the huge fleet of relatively new diesel-only 197s, but it's not all that far off the previous UK Government's target for removal of all diesel-only trains UK wide by 2040 - it's the 197s (and 195s) that are crazy not the targets.

Wouldn't be hugely suprised if some 197 replacement was factored in too with a then consistent product offering 1st and kitchen on every service, the displaced 197s can cause an internal cascade seeing off the 153s and 230s and capacity enhancement elsewhere. Heading firmly into speculation territory there though!!

As noted above, I'd send the 197s back to the CAF works for a major rebuild. Make them into electro-diesels if at all possible (I appreicate this won't be easy, if it's even possible, hence why I suggest they go back to Llanwern for the work as it'll probably require them to be stripped right back to the bare bodyshell) and have them do Swansea - Cheltenham, Maesteg - Ebbw Vale and Cardiff - Bristol Temple Meads services (all of these calling at all stations). Put pantographs onto the 231s (hopefully a straightforward job, though this is unconfirmed) too and have them help out the 756s to ensure all 4 heads of the valleys (plus at least the through trains to Bridgend via Barry at the southern end of the Cardiff metro) are served by FLIRTs (or have 197s as electro-diesels helping out on Rhymney if the 35 FLIRTs are insufficent to cover it all by themselves).

It would be a shame to go back on the First product idea for Manchester. TFW are in a position where reliability is improving and once all the new fleet is in they can really work on rebuilding reputation, which has been destroyed over recent years under TFW and Arriva.
How much life is left in the Mk4 coaches? Aren't they over 30 years old?
How much work would be required to get the coaches compatible with any new loco? If that isn't worth the time and investment, what other coaches would be available?

It's not worthy getting new locos in my opinion. As you imply, the mark 4s will need replacing anyway (around 2030-35 probably) and I would really want to take the opportunity to rid long-distance routes of the 197s anyway and just bring in a load of units to replace the lot. The limited electrification will presumably also make life difficult for any loco option*** to deliver what is really needed - a full hourly service between Swansea and Manchester formed of 5 carriage trains of at least regional express standard (single width doors, at least 1 toilet per carriage, lots of legroom and tables, zero emphasis on space for standees etc. - in other words a worthy successor to the 175s).

*** see the fuel range issue with the 67s, although how did BR manage when nearly all intercity services were loco-hauled? I suppose they had to swap the loco a few times over the course of a day's diagram for each set of coaches.

 

[Topological]

A comprehensive thread, raising some valid points.

It was on the Mk4 thread, but there I argued that the Marches is not an Intercity route. Whilst Swansea, Cardiff and Manchester are cities with big demands, and places like Newport, Hereford, Shrewsbury, Crewe, Wilmslow and Stockport command stops, the trains cannot only serve those places. There need to be a lot more stops and I actually think that it is good TfW serve more places with these trains.

Once you get into stops every 10 minutes then the focus needs to be on quick dwells and capacity for people getting on and off. That is where the 197s are much better than the Mk4.

As I mentioned in the quoted post, if there is really a big demand for a restaurant car then one could be fitted to a 197. I really don't think it is though. People may be trying the new first-class offering, but I would be shocked if the majority are not upgrades and/or advances. It is a brave soul who commits to a first-class ticket when the options are so few (2-hourly if they run, with a gap for the missing diagram).

If there could be 80x on the route then that would be brilliant, especially as they support interworking with GWR (as is possible under GBR). The current timetable would permit the arrival from London at xx32 to split and form half to Carmarthen and half to Manchester. The arrivals from Manchester are quite well-timed for one to stay in Swansea and wait for the half from Carmarthen. Note this is just an example of flexibility that could exist.

However, the chances of new stock are limited and I do believe that the best answer is just more 197s (add the order for the final 15x replacements too) and then have a fully flexible fleet*

* There would presumably be 197s with first class constrained to the longer distance routes

 

[Nick Ashwell]

If there could be 80x on the route then that would be brilliant, especially as they support interworking with GWR (as is possible under GBR). The current timetable would permit the arrival from London at xx32 to split and form half to Carmarthen and half to Manchester. The arrivals from Manchester are quite well-timed for one to stay in Swansea and wait for the half from Carmarthen. Note this is just an example of flexibility that could exist.

That level of flexibility can't exist without reducing the amount of devolution, something that is not going to be palletable

 

[6Gman]

*** see the fuel range issue with the 67s, although how did BR manage when nearly all intercity services were loco-hauled? I suppose they had to swap the loco a few times over the course of a day's diagram for each set of coaches.

Fuel range was generally 400+ miles which covered most journeys; of course since DVTs weren't yet in use locos had to be released at termini which allowed fuelling if needed.

Have to say fuel range was rarely an issue in my days as a diagrammer.

 

[Rhydgaled]

A comprehensive thread, raising some valid points.

It was on the Mk4 thread, but there I argued that the Marches is not an Intercity route. Whilst Swansea, Cardiff and Manchester are cities with big demands, and places like Newport, Hereford, Shrewsbury, Crewe, Wilmslow and Stockport command stops, the trains cannot only serve those places. There need to be a lot more stops and I actually think that it is good TfW serve more places with these trains.

Once you get into stops every 10 minutes then the focus needs to be on quick dwells and capacity for people getting on and off. That is where the 197s are much better than the Mk4.

While I agree that the Swansea-Manchester does need to make a few stops at smaller places, I don't think it actually needs to stop all that much more than those you suggest 'command stops'. Personally, I think the calling patterns for the Marches should be as follows (yes, I know it probably won't all fit with current infrustructure):

• Newport, Caerleon, Cwmbran, Pontypool & New Inn, Abergavenny and Hereford (every 30 minutes)
• Swansea, Neath, Port Talbot Parkway, Bridgend, Cardiff Central, Newport, Hereford, Leominster, Ludlow, Shrewsbury, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly (hourly)
• Cardiff Central, Newport, Cwmbran, Pontypool & New Inn, Abergavenny, Hereford, Leominster, Ludlow, Craven Arms, Church Stretton, Shrewsbury, Gobowen, Chirk, Ruabon, Wrexham General and Chester (hourly)
• Cardiff Central, Newport, Hereford, Shrewsbury, Wrexham General, Chester, Flint, Rhyl, Llandudno Junction, Bangor and Holyhead (three each way Mon-Sat, 2 each way SUN)
• Shrewsbury, Yorton, Wem, Prees, Whitchurch, Wrenbury, Nantwich and Crewe (every two hours)
• Craven Arms, Church Stretton, Shrewsbury, Wem, Whitchurch, Nantwich and Crewe (every two hours)
• Heart Of Wales Line, Craven Arms, Church Stretton and Shrewsbury (irregular service)

This way, the only stations seeing less than an hourly service would be Yorton, Prees and Wrenbury and most of the others would see at least two trains per hour. However, even the Cardiff-Chester semi-fast is what I would call a 'primary fast service' - passengers doing a long journey (such as Cardiff to Wrexham) would find it rather impractical to do by rail without using that service. It's not 'INTERCITY' but it is a long-distance service that some passengers will be on for a long time. I therefore completely disagree that the focus on such services should be quick dwells. While there are quite a lot of intermedaite stops there (14 in fact), most of the places that aren't served by the Manchester are unlikely to be busy enough to cause a dwell time of more than two minutes even if you used 158s on it (provided that each train was formed of a sufficient number of 158s to avoid standees). The Shrewsbury-Crewe and Newport-Hereford stoppers are the only ones on my list where I could understand dwell times being prioritised to the extent that something like a 197 is needed.

 

[Topological]

From a very nice standard seat on a 197, I can confirm that this is perfectly adequate for 4 hours. Maybe I got corrupted in my judgement by the number of 150s that were suffered, but this is perfectly adequate. If the train saves 1 minute per dwell, then 14 minutes over the journey would be significant. Plus, the improved acceleration of these trains means that there is scope to shave more off the journey time. As an end-to-end user, I would be happier with that than a Mk4.

I think that the proposed stopping pattern you come up with is good, and meets most of the criteria, but I would worry it needs many more trains than simply letting all the Marches trains serve all the stations (with the possible exception of a local train on the Newport-Abergavenny part, which I think is a really needed train and can relieve the long-distance slightly)

Once the 197s are 5-car then they will offer an excellent service. Would just need more ordering to cover the extra (if the Mk4 were dropped, which this speculative thread almost presumes they would be as soon as they suffer too much).

 

[Harpo]

Logically, mk4s or similar on limited stop fast regional services, and carts with suitable doors and good acceleration on all-shacks or semi-fast seems right.

Reducing journey times will grow the market even more. The road alternatives of A49, M5 through Brum, M6 in Cheshire won’t improve.

The real joy is seeing a favourite line, which was once hard to do with only 5 (??) Cardiff-Crewe services a day, thriving and still using small Bo-Bos on short trains!

 

[liamf656]

A DMU with a restaurant car? There have certainly been buffet cars on plenty of EMUs, and possibly the kitchen/shop on class 22x DEMUs counts, but I'm not sure about DMUs. The 197s do have the catering cupboard so it's kinda one step on the way to a buffet already, but the only place I want to see the 197s going is back to the CAF works at Llanwern to be rebuilt with a pantograph for bi-mode operation on the South East Wales Metro (starting a cascade to release the tram-trains needed to operate the planned extension beyond Cardiff Bay).

The Midland Mainline/Hull Trains 170s came new with buffet bars so it is definitely possible

 

[Meerkat]

What are the flows to/from the Marches Line intermediate stops?
ie would they miss the through trains if they lost them in return for local trains such as Cardiff-Abergavenny, Hereford-Crewe.

 

[Topological]

What are the flows to/from the Marches Line intermediate stops?
ie would they miss the through trains if they lost them in return for local trains such as Cardiff-Abergavenny, Hereford-Crewe.

The problem will be where split tickets ruin the data.

Anecdotally, most flows seem to be to the nearest bigger city, so there will be a lot get on at Abergavenny for Hereford, but then it goes a little quieter until the passengers to Shrewsbury get on. Ludlow always seems popular. Most stations have a few get on and go to Crewe / Manchester (Crewe is popular as an interchange)

I cant see that there is sufficient demand to double the number of services, just so one can use longer dwell stock and still keep the same overall time.

If anyone has better data than the tickets then that would be useful.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I've always thought a Hereford–Crewe stopper would be an excellent idea. It speeds up the long-distance services and frees up seats on them. It could potentially be operated by WMR or its nationalised successor, getting round TfW's pretty obvious lack of interest in the smaller English stations. My anecdotal experience is roughly the same as @Topological's, which is that most flows from Church Stretton, Craven Arms, Ludlow etc. are to the nearest city (or large town - hello, Shrewsbury).

(checks we're in the Speculative board)

You could even take the 2tph West Midlands service from Birmingham to Shrewsbury. Extend one all-stations to Hereford, another all-stations to Crewe. It's roughly an hour all-stations from Shrewsbury to Hereford, and similar (bit less) from Shrewsbury to Crewe, so you'd need four extra units assuming the turnarounds are the same. Plus there's the option to interwork Birmingham–Shrewsbury–Hereford with Hereford–Worcester–Birmingham, which may be useful. Or it may not.

 

[sprinterguy]

*** see the fuel range issue with the 67s, although how did BR manage when nearly all intercity services were loco-hauled? I suppose they had to swap the loco a few times over the course of a day's diagram for each set of coaches.

Typical fuel ranges for diesel passenger locos in BR days were generally around 500 - 600 miles, depending on the nature of duties. As suggested by 6Gman above, this would generally be sufficient for a full day's duties, perhaps two on slower secondary routes. The fitting of dual tanks to classes 37 and 47 in particular during the 1980s further extended their useful range.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The Midland Mainline/Hull Trains 170s came new with buffet bars so it is definitely possible

I had no doubt that it was possible, I just wasn't aware of any examples of it actually having been done.

I would worry it needs many more trains than simply letting all the Marches trains serve all the stations (with the possible exception of a local train on the Newport-Abergavenny part, which I think is a really needed train and can relieve the long-distance slightly)

I cant see that there is sufficient demand to double the number of services, just so one can use longer dwell stock and still keep the same overall time.

If and when the Liverpool-Cardiff service promised when KeolisAmey won the Wales & Borders franchise off Arriva is delivered (providing an hourly service between Chester and Cardiff via Wrexham) my suggestion above actually only adds the following:

• 0.5tph between Crewe and Craven Arms (this being the only one that I added primarily to shift stops out of the Manchester, but that was more to make things more clockface than for dwell reasons - I would still use something like a 175 over a 197 on the Cardiff-Wrexham-Chester services despite the fact that I listed these as stopping at every station which currently exists* (in September 2024) on that route)
• 2tph between Cardiff/Newport and Hereford (primarily to serve new Caerleon station - this is just the Newport-Abergavenny local you suggested but extended to Hereford**, and maybe to Cardiff at the other end)
• 3 express services per day between Holyhead and Cardiff (replacing the current Holyhead-Cardiff workings which I would cut back to Chester)

* it would not serve Caerleon or any other possible future local stations
** terminating the local at Abergavenny would mean passengers going between Caerleon and Birmingham would have two changes (Abergavenny and Hereford or Shrewsbury) rather than just a single change at Hereford

What are the flows to/from the Marches Line intermediate stops?
ie would they miss the through trains if they lost them in return for local trains such as Cardiff-Abergavenny, Hereford-Crewe.

Not knowing the answer to this is the reason I retained the Pontypool & New Inn, Abergavenny and Cwmbran stops on my version of the Cardiff-Chester service. If they would be happy to change at Hereford to get to Shrewsbury, Wrexham and Chester you could take those stops out of my Cardiff-Chester.

if the Mk4 were dropped, which this speculative thread almost presumes they would be as soon as they suffer too much

Not really; just that the typical lifespan for rolling stock given by ROSCOs etc. is 35-40 years and TfW's remaining long-distance stock (158s and mark 4s) will be life-expired around 2030.

Fuel range was generally 400+ miles which covered most journeys; of course since DVTs weren't yet in use locos had to be released at termini which allowed fuelling if needed.

Have to say fuel range was rarely an issue in my days as a diagrammer.

Typical fuel ranges for diesel passenger locos in BR days were generally around 500 - 600 miles, depending on the nature of duties. As suggested by 6Gman above, this would generally be sufficient for a full day's duties, perhaps two on slower secondary routes. The fitting of dual tanks to classes 37 and 47 in particular during the 1980s further extended their useful range.

So the fuel range was similar to TfW's mark 4 sets today then, but the need to swap locos at termini meant slightly less miles per loco diagram over the course of a day?

 

[sprinterguy]

I had no doubt that it was possible, I just wasn't aware of any examples of it actually having been done.

So the fuel range was similar to TfW's mark 4 sets today then, but the need to swap locos at termini meant slightly less miles per loco diagram over the course of a day?

Yeah, loco hauled diagrams were generally less intensive in daily mileage than unit diagrams today, though locos might not need to be replaced at termini depending on available infrastructure: Locos could work "out and back" passenger diagrams without refuelling or replacement.

The Transpennine class 124 DMUs were renowned, in their early incarnation, for their griddle car that could serve up a hot Aberdeen Angus beef roll; Other of the inter-city DMU designs had buffets to some extent, right down to the Met-Camm DMU sets ordered for Newcastle - Carlisle services.

 

[Harpo]

Yeah, loco hauled diagrams were generally less intensive in daily mileage than unit diagrams today, though locos might not need to be replaced at termini depending on available infrastructure: Locos could work "out and back" passenger diagrams without refuelling or replacement..

Planning loco diagrams needed lots of work around fuelling, especially on long distance work and at peak times where you could be out of locos on paper and borrowing an 08 to do the first release (i.e. ECS to OOC) at Paddington for example.

47s, (pre-47/8) for example, couldn’t do Padd to Penzance and back on a single tank and some diagrams would run out of fuel inside the normal range due to heavy loads/grades and needed breaking up.

When HSTs first arrived, they were far simpler to diagram as they had more than double the range of the locos they replaced and (unlike locos) rarely stabled away from a fuel point.

 

[daodao]

Personally, I think the calling patterns for the Marches should be as follows (yes, I know it probably won't all fit with current infrustructure):

• Newport, Caerleon, Cwmbran, Pontypool & New Inn, Abergavenny and Hereford (every 30 minutes)
• Swansea, Neath, Port Talbot Parkway, Bridgend, Cardiff Central, Newport, Hereford, Leominster, Ludlow, Shrewsbury, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly (hourly)
• Cardiff Central, Newport, Cwmbran, Pontypool & New Inn, Abergavenny, Hereford, Leominster, Ludlow, Craven Arms, Church Stretton, Shrewsbury, Gobowen, Chirk, Ruabon, Wrexham General and Chester (hourly)
• Cardiff Central, Newport, Hereford, Shrewsbury, Wrexham General, Chester, Flint, Rhyl, Llandudno Junction, Bangor and Holyhead (three each way Mon-Sat, 2 each way SUN)
• Shrewsbury, Yorton, Wem, Prees, Whitchurch, Wrenbury, Nantwich and Crewe (every two hours)
• Craven Arms, Church Stretton, Shrewsbury, Wem, Whitchurch, Nantwich and Crewe (every two hours)
• Heart Of Wales Line, Craven Arms, Church Stretton and Shrewsbury (irregular service)

IMO, that is overprovision. I suggest, including all TfW services calling at Shrewsbury:

• Swansea, Neath, Port Talbot Parkway, Bridgend, Cardiff Central, Newport, Abergavenny, Hereford, Leominster, Ludlow, Shrewsbury, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly (hourly) with some catering
• Cardiff Central, Newport, Hereford, Shrewsbury, Wrexham General, Chester, Flint, Rhyl, Colwyn Bay, Llandudno Junction, Bangor and Holyhead (three each way Mon-Sat, 2 each way SUN) with some catering
• Cardiff Central, Newport, Caerleon, Cwmbran, Pontypool & New Inn and Abergavenny (hourly) [connecting there into the Manchester train]
• Cardiff Central, Newport, Caerleon, Cwmbran, Pontypool & New Inn, Abergavenny, Hereford, Leominster, Ludlow, Craven Arms, Church Stretton, Shrewsbury, Gobowen, Chirk, Ruabon, Wrexham General, Chester and then all stations to Liverpool South Parkway, Liverpool Lime St (2-hourly)
• Cardiff Central, Newport, Caerleon, Cwmbran, Pontypool & New Inn, Abergavenny, Hereford, Leominster, Ludlow, Craven Arms, Church Stretton, Shrewsbury, Wem, Whitchurch, Nantwich and Crewe (2-hourly)
• Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street, Wolverhampton, Telford Central, Shrewsbury, Gobowen, Chirk, Ruabon, Wrexham General and Chester, then all stations to Llandudno (2-hourly)
• Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street, Wolverhampton, Telford Central, Shrewsbury, then all stations to Aberystwyth, with a portion detached at Machynlleth for Pwllheli (2-hourly)
• Aberystwyth and all stations to Shrewsbury, then Yorton, Wem, Prees, Whitchurch, Wrenbury, Nantwich and Crewe (2-hourly)
• Heart Of Wales Line, Craven Arms, Church Stretton and Shrewsbury (irregular service)

All these trains should be operated by dmus, with only the Cardiff to Abergavenny local run using "commuter stock". There are only relatively short sections currently "under the wires", but if electrification was extended to routes such as Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury and Cardiff-Swansea, bimodes would be desirable for certain of the above services. It is also desirable to retain through trains from Birmingham to stations between Gobowen and Wrexham, and to the Cambrian lines.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Thanks sprinterguy and Harpo for the additional details on loco fuel ranges.

I suggest, including all TfW services calling at Shrewsbury:
[snip]
It is also desirable to retain through trains from Birmingham to stations between Gobowen and Wrexham, and to the Cambrian lines.

I agree regarding the need for Birmingham services to the Cambrian and Wrexham. My list was focused on the Crewe to Newport corridor and did not include everything I would have running through Shrewsbury. If I had included all TfW services calling at Shrewsbury, I would have also had an hourly Birmingham-Aberystwyth train on there (with a portion for Pwllheli every two hours) and a portion for Wrexham (or Chester via Wrexham) either hourly or every 2 hours.

IMO, that is overprovision.

As far as I can tell, the points of difference between your list and mine (if I had included the Cambrian and Birmingham services) are:

• Birmingham-Wrexham/Chester frequency and extension to Llandudno
• Cardiff-Chester/Liverpool frequency and Caerleon stop
• Cardiff/Newport-Abergavenny/Hereford Metro frequency and endpoints, with the following mitigations:
  • Abergavenny stop on Swansea-Manchester service
  • Caerleon stop on Cardiff-Chester/Liverpool service
  • Crewe - Craven Arms semi-fast extended to Cardiff all-stations (including Caerleon)
• Colwyn Bay stop on Holyhead expresses
• Shrewsbury-Crewe stopper extension to Aberystwyth
• Birmingham-Aberystwyth through frequency

In terms of 'overprovision', would I be correct in saying the difference in frequency between our lists is as follows, or have I missed something?:

• 0.5 or 1tph between Shrewsbury and Wrexham/Chester (depending on the result of my indecision over whether Birmingham-Wrexham should be hourly or 2-hourly)
• 2tph between Hereford and Abergavenny
• 1tph south of Abergavenny
• no difference everywhere else

All these trains should be operated by dmus, with only the Cardiff to Abergavenny local run using "commuter stock".

For my list, only the Newport-Hereford 'Metro' services, the Crewe-Shrewsbury locals and possibly the Crewe - Craven Arms semi-fasts (if interworking with the Crewe-Shrewsbury services) would be run using suburban/commuter stock. As far as the rest is concerned, I wouldn't mind DMUs provided that the DMUs in question were class 158s/159s or 175s/180s (with 158s/159s for anything involving portion working), but having enough of these available to provide the required capacity is extremely unlikely. As I put in the first post, I think bi-mode Civity (with single-width doors as per 397s) or Aventra (with single-width doors as per the bi-mode offered to EMR but lost out to the Hitachi class 810) with the class 196/197 or class 730 gangwayed cabs should be the basis of any new build.

 

[Caaardiff]

IMO, that is overprovision. I suggest, including all TfW services calling at Shrewsbury:

• Swansea, Neath, Port Talbot Parkway, Bridgend, Cardiff Central, Newport, Abergavenny, Hereford, Leominster, Ludlow, Shrewsbury, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly (hourly) with some catering
• Cardiff Central, Newport, Hereford, Shrewsbury, Wrexham General, Chester, Flint, Rhyl, Colwyn Bay, Llandudno Junction, Bangor and Holyhead (three each way Mon-Sat, 2 each way SUN) with some catering
• Cardiff Central, Newport, Caerleon, Cwmbran, Pontypool & New Inn and Abergavenny (hourly) [connecting there into the Manchester train]
• Cardiff Central, Newport, Caerleon, Cwmbran, Pontypool & New Inn, Abergavenny, Hereford, Leominster, Ludlow, Craven Arms, Church Stretton, Shrewsbury, Gobowen, Chirk, Ruabon, Wrexham General, Chester and then all stations to Liverpool South Parkway, Liverpool Lime St (2-hourly)
• Cardiff Central, Newport, Caerleon, Cwmbran, Pontypool & New Inn, Abergavenny, Hereford, Leominster, Ludlow, Craven Arms, Church Stretton, Shrewsbury, Wem, Whitchurch, Nantwich and Crewe (2-hourly)
• Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street, Wolverhampton, Telford Central, Shrewsbury, Gobowen, Chirk, Ruabon, Wrexham General and Chester, then all stations to Llandudno (2-hourly)
• Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street, Wolverhampton, Telford Central, Shrewsbury, then all stations to Aberystwyth, with a portion detached at Machynlleth for Pwllheli (2-hourly)
• Aberystwyth and all stations to Shrewsbury, then Yorton, Wem, Prees, Whitchurch, Wrenbury, Nantwich and Crewe (2-hourly)
• Heart Of Wales Line, Craven Arms, Church Stretton and Shrewsbury (irregular service)

All these trains should be operated by dmus, with only the Cardiff to Abergavenny local run using "commuter stock". There are only relatively short sections currently "under the wires", but if electrification was extended to routes such as Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury and Cardiff-Swansea, bimodes would be desirable for certain of the above services. It is also desirable to retain through trains from Birmingham to stations between Gobowen and Wrexham, and to the Cambrian lines.

I agree with most of those, but I'd throw a a few suggestions in:
- Use the Ebbw Vale - Newport trains to continue to Abergavenny/Hereford. Almost as a "Newport Metro".

- I'd also delve into the customer usage of South Wales - North Wales trains. I would say demand would be higher to for long distance travel South Wales to/from Liverpool rather than North Wales/Holyhead. So i'd treat the Cardiff - Holyhead trains as stopper trains, ensuring the long distance services with higher demand (Manchester/Liverpool) have fewer stops and therefore shorter journey times.

- I'd also have TFW extend the Crewe - Shrewsbury local to a Crewe - Hereford service, great serving the Shropshire area.

 

[Philip]

- I'd also have TFW extend the Crewe - Shrewsbury local to a Crewe - Hereford service, great serving the Shropshire area.

The 2-hourly 'semi-fast' Crewe-Shrewsbury local in this proposal will serve Hereford as the idea is to start it from Cardiff. Doubt there will be much demand for stations beyond Shrewsbury from Wrenbury, Prees & Yorton.

Realistically the Welsh Government won't accept a reduction in Cardiff-Holyhead services from the current level, even though it's an over-provision.

Staying with the South Wales-Hereford idea mentioned above, I'd then go with:

• Hourly Cardiff-Chester, then 2-hourly to Holyhead and Liverpool. Holyhead all-stops to Chester and semi-fast along the coast, Liverpool goes semi-fast to Shrewsbury, then all-stops to Chester & Liverpool South Parkway.
• Hourly Hereford-Crewe; all-stops to Shrewsbury, then Wem, Whitchurch & Nantwich, with the request stops remaining 2-hourly.
• Hourly South Wales-Manchester, semi-fast to Crewe (as described above), but with 2 northbound morning peak and 2 southbound evening peak trains stopping at Whitchurch & Nantwich.
• Hourly Birmingham Intl to Aberystwyth, with Pwllheli service level as it is now.
• Hourly Birmingham Intl to Chester, then 2-hourly extension to Llandudno, alternating with a 2-hourly Liverpool-Llandudno (both all-stops along the coast)
• Hourly Manchester to Bangor, all of them serving Flint, Prestatyn, Rhyl, Colwyn Bay & Llandudno Junction, with extensions to Holyhead every 2 hours also calling at Conwy. New 2-hourly all-stops (retaining the request stops) Llandudno Jn-Holyhead to alternate with the Manchester.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I agree with most of those, but I'd throw a a few suggestions in:
- Use the Ebbw Vale - Newport trains to continue to Abergavenny/Hereford. Almost as a "Newport Metro".

Indecision over this is the reason my version of the list had the SE Wales Metro service to Hereford as a Newport-Hereford service (every 30 minutes in my version). I'm simply not sure whether it would be better for them to run through to Cardiff or the Ebbw Vale / Abertillery / Machen-Caerphilly route.

- I'd also delve into the customer usage of South Wales - North Wales trains. I would say demand would be higher to for long distance travel South Wales to/from Liverpool rather than North Wales/Holyhead.

I agree; that's a large part of the reason I reduced the provision of Holyhead-Cardiff through services from the current (roughly 2-hourly plus Gerald) to just 3 per day (each way) in my list. While I had the hourly service terminating at Chester, this is another 'indecision' over whether it would be better for the Liverpools to run to Cardiff or to Llandudno (since I'm assuming TfW only have rights to one path per hour into Liverpool). Also, by only running between Cardiff and Chester, rather than continuing into Liverpool, it is more likely that it could be timed to provide (closer to) regular 30 minute intervals at the stations also served by the Birmingham-Wrexham/Chester and Swansea-Manchester services.

Realistically the Welsh Government won't accept a reduction in Cardiff-Holyhead services from the current level, even though it's an over-provision.

I did have an hourly (+ 3 per day) Cardiff to Wrexham service, with the 3 per day being the Holyheads as premier expresses; partly to try and make it more palatable to the Welsh Government. Yes it reduces the number of through trains between Cardiff and Holyhead significantly, but the 3 that remain would be faster and Wrexham-Cardiff provision would be increased.

 

[daodao]

@Caaardiff @Philip @Rhydgaled

Your proposals require fleet enhancement, rather than mere fleet replacement, which is unaffordable. I'm not convinced that more than 2 tph is needed between Abergavenny and Crewe, and even that is more than current provision and much more than historical provision. Shropshire (excluding Telford) and Herefordshire have a low population density and higher frequency services for local traffic aren't warranted.

 

[Topological]

Seeing these grand plans is good in a speculative section, but it only serves to make me believe that trains designed for quicker dwells can make more stops. With more stops in services, there is no need for additional "stoppers". The proposed calling pattern would be faster operated with a 197 than a Mk4 (which I believe holds even if more stops are taken out).

I would like to see a local service from Abergavenny to Cardiff, that would allow better use of things like the Pontypool and New Inn Car Park.

However, I am perfectly ok with Manchester trains [From at least Swansea] stopping at Cardiff Central, Newport, Cwmbran, Pontypool and New Inn*, Abergavenny, Hereford, Leominster, Ludlow, Craven Arms*, Church Stretton*, Shrewsbury, Whitchurch^, Wem^, Nantwich^, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport, Manchester Piccadilly

* These would be the calls of 1tp2h ^ These would be the calls in the other hours. All trains have 15 stops Cardiff to Manchester inclusive.

Where Craven Arms and Church Stretton are missed by the Manchester in a given hour, I would call that hours Cardiff-Chester there. Like others, I think the core pattern is Cardiff -Chester with some trains going to Holyhead and others to Liverpool.

Yes my proposals are not "Intercity", and they are not designed for Mk4s. Sorry to Mk4 fans out there. IF the Mk4s have to be used then they would be on the Cardiff to Holyheads.

 

[HSTEd]

I would be interested to see what the performance of a Class 231 would be on these routes, as I don't think they have run out to Manchester.

Assuming the FLIRT is as modular as its Stadler heritage would suggest, something along those lines could potentially combine a suitable interior with enough performance to merge a "stopper" into a long distance train without too much issue. FLIRTs also have the potent advantage of actual level boarding.

Of course, to match the Mark 4 rake in capacity you'd probably need a unit with two generator vehicles.

 

[daodao]

Seeing these grand plans is good in a speculative section, but it only serves to make me believe that trains designed for quicker dwells can make more stops. With more stops in services, there is no need for additional "stoppers". The proposed calling pattern would be faster operated with a 197 than a Mk4 (which I believe holds even if more stops are taken out).

I would like to see a local service from Abergavenny to Cardiff, that would allow better use of things like the Pontypool and New Inn Car Park.

However, I am perfectly ok with Manchester trains [From at least Swansea] stopping at Cardiff Central, Newport, Cwmbran, Pontypool and New Inn*, Abergavenny, Hereford, Leominster, Ludlow, Craven Arms*, Church Stretton*, Shrewsbury, Whitchurch^, Wem^, Nantwich^, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport, Manchester Piccadilly

* These would be the calls of 1tp2h ^ These would be the calls in the other hours. All trains have 15 stops Cardiff to Manchester inclusive.

Where Craven Arms and Church Stretton are missed by the Manchester in a given hour, I would call that hours Cardiff-Chester there. Like others, I think the core pattern is Cardiff -Chester with some trains going to Holyhead and others to Liverpool.

Yes my proposals are not "Intercity", and they are not designed for Mk4s. Sorry to Mk4 fans out there. IF the Mk4s have to be used then they would be on the Cardiff to Holyheads.

I agree broadly with these suggestions, which would require fewer trains than would be needed for my previous or others' ideas.

The loco-hauled Mk4 trains are only suitable for true express services, for which there is not much need on the North-and-West line; the only service that might justify their continued use is the morning Holyhead-Cardiff and evening return.

I would also not serve Pontypool and New Inn only by alternate trains on an hourly service. For the SE Wales Metro, there should be a service every 30 minutes from Cardiff to Abergavenny calling at all existing stations plus a re-opened Caerleon, with 1 of these 2 tph extending to Shrewsbury and beyond.

 

[Harpo]

The loco-hauled Mk4 trains are only suitable for true express services, for which there is not much need on the North-and-West line;

I’d not write-off that need, or that potential, on the fastest and most direct link between the Welsh capital and England’s second city.

The train is already up to an hour quicker than driving and could be quicker still.

It might even make S Wales to Manchester Airport journey times similar to Heathrow if connections at Crewe improve.

 

[Topological]

I’d not write-off that need, or that potential, on the fastest and most direct link between the Welsh capital and England’s second city.

The train is already up to an hour quicker than driving and could be quicker still.

It might even make S Wales to Manchester Airport journey times similar to Heathrow if connections at Crewe improve.

Yes, though the 197 has equal performance on the Marches and critically, shorter dwells that can actually reduce journey time relative to the Mk4 sets.

The clamour for the Mk4 is because they are associated with the truly express services on the ECML.

For reference, Google places Swansea Station to Manchester Piccadilly at 4 hours 36 minutes. Cardiff Central to Manchester Piccadilly is 3 hours 53. That is if you are going from station to station. From my house to my office would be 4 hours 8 minutes drive. Note this includes traffic on the M4 in Newport and the inevitable crawl through Birmingham. Because all of these routes use the M56, they pass Manchester Airport 20 minutes plus before the Piccadilly time.

The train is really not an express option. Nor is it sensible to invest huge sums in upgrading the Marches. If there is a long term ambition for a faster route then the answer is upgrading to Bristol Parkway and then via Birmingham. That is the only way the sums to bring the difference in journey times between South Wales and Manchester stack up (by improving other aspects of South Wales too).

It is good I am not the only one advocating for a realistic solution.

 

[Krokodil]

Fuel range was generally 400+ miles which covered most journeys; of course since DVTs weren't yet in use locos had to be released at termini which allowed fuelling if needed.

Have to say fuel range was rarely an issue in my days as a diagrammer.

A 67 providing head-end power (the American term for ETS) does seem to guzzle fuel. Didn’t CIE have issues with the 201s and solve them with generator cars? Sticking a genset in the DVT (as Chiltern have done) would solve that issue.

 

[Harpo]

If there is a long term ambition for a faster route then the answer is upgrading to Bristol Parkway and then via Birmingham. That is the only way the sums to bring the difference in journey times between South Wales and Manchester stack up

After a quick glance:

The fastest current Manchester - Parkway at 2h 55 plus 31 min Parkway to Cardiff giving 3h 26.

The current fastest Manchester - Cardiff I could see was 3h 12 so I guess around 3h 00 could be achieved through stoping patterns and timetabling??

Its going to need an 8 figure sum to knock around 25 minutes off of the timings on the Birmingham route just to match that, let alone better it. And then how many years to deliver it??

 

[robspaceman]

Why not go the whole hog and for the express services get some bimodes in and introduce Edinburgh & Glasgow (alternate hours) to Cardiff via the marches and Manchester. (Only a slightly tongue in cheek post)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Assuming the FLIRT is as modular as its Stadler heritage would suggest, something along those lines could potentially combine a suitable interior with enough performance to merge a "stopper" into a long distance train without too much issue. FLIRTs also have the potent advantage of actual level boarding.

One thing you could do with the flexibility of a FLIRT is have some vehicles with a low floor and 2 doors for quick boarding/alighting and accessibility, and other vehicles with a high floor and one door for longer distance passengers. Think a variation of the Sheffield tram layout, which is kind of like a flattened double decker bus - "downstairs" for accessibility and short standee trips, "upstairs" for those going further and wanting a comfortable seat.