Wales & Borders Franchise Consultation

[craigybagel]

Talking of inadequacy, I think by 'Aber' did you mean Aberystwyth? There are about a million Aber names in Wales and it's a bit like saying 'Ham' or 'Bury'. Mind, there are those too!!

Anyway, you did mean the Ystwyth one didn't you?

Reminds me of the bucket and spade wielding family who came up to me on the platform at Abergavenny looking very confused asking for directions to the beach....

 

[Philip]

I can see it now; Holyhead to Cardiff will become hourly, which will require another six 175s to make up an hourly frequency. This will then mean there are none left to work North Wales to Manchester services, paving the way for an influx of DMUs from elsewhere to work on North Wales interurban, ie. 185s. Of course if they decide to go for the LHCS option for Marches then it throws it all up in the air

 

[Llanigraham]

To be fair if I'm reading it correct the Cambrian would be hourly all day, with every second running as a 4 car as far as Machynlleth, which would be a slight improvement. As you say though, it may need a bigger improvement than that to keep up with the growth down that line.

I would hope so. The all day hourly is a great wish for lots of people around here, but 2 cars at some times of day could be problematical.

Talking of inadequacy, I think by 'Aber' did you mean Aberystwyth? There are about a million Aber names in Wales and it's a bit like saying 'Ham' or 'Bury'. Mind, there are those too!!

Anyway, you did mean the Ystwyth one didn't you?

Apologies; dropping into the name we use around here for "Av'a wifwif"

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I would agree with this. Not because of the rolling stock, but that to me would seem to justify the mainly serving the Welsh market. ATW stopping Chester Warrington and Manchester would be logical with Northern serving the rest. However that would move away from the idea of Northern Connect being a semi-fast service.

It would be funny if the WG decided it wanted a fast service to Manchester and omitted stops at Helsby, Frodsham and Runcorn East.
There's nothing to say that they have to run the stopper.
I doubt DfT asked WG if it could run a fast Chester-Manchester service.
It's the kind of turf war we might get with 2 groups vying for the best paths.
Airport services are another bone of contention (not guaranteed after Ordsall Chord opens).
The new Chester-Liverpool has to be fitted in somewhere too.

 

[Philip]

It's followed the same stopping pattern since at least the mid 90s though.

The 175s have always had a mixed bag of slow and fast routes though. In the FNW era they were used on nearly all Manchester Airport to Blackpool services, which back then used to stop nearly everywhere. It's only since they started working to South Wales that they became more 'express' or intercity orientated.

 

[pemma]

The problem, in my view, isn't the W&B N.Wales - Manchester service. It may have fairly frequent stops, but it is sufficiently long distance that the 175s are a reasonable choice (but would be better if it was fast). The big problem in my view is the Northern Connect service being fast; if the Northern Connect is faster than the W&B service than that should be 175s (or similar, which currently means 158s/159s).

In other words, if the Northern Connect service is the principal fast service on the route, then Northern have ordered unsuitable trains.

New diesel trains for regional routes have to be suitable to cascade to local routes unlikely to ever be electrified as per the long term rolling stock strategy.

 

[pemma]

It would be funny if the WG decided it wanted a fast service to Manchester and omitted stops at Helsby, Frodsham and Runcorn East.
There's nothing to say that they have to run the stopper.
I doubt DfT asked WG if it could run a fast Chester-Manchester service.
It's the kind of turf war we might get with 2 groups vying for the best paths.
Airport services are another bone of contention (not guaranteed after Ordsall Chord opens).
The new Chester-Liverpool has to be fitted in somewhere too.

They can't change the service without a consultation and if they proposed stopping serving English stations without good reason questions would be asked about whether they should be allowed to run to Manchester at all. I'd be surprised if they wanted to give up Runcorn East as that call provides quite a bit of revenue for a loss making franchise.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

They can't change the service without a consultation and if they proposed stopping serving English stations without good reason questions would be asked about whether they should be allowed to run to Manchester at all. I'd be surprised if they wanted to give up Runcorn East as that call provides quite a bit of revenue for a loss making franchise.

I'm not suggesting those stations won't be served.
There was a time in NWT days when they were omitted by the North Wales services.
This was when the Liverpool-Warrington service ran on to Chester/Ellesmere Port and picked up those stops.
It was rapidly pulled when NWT got into financial difficulties early on (like the Chester-Crewe-Manchester Airport through services), and we are just left with the Ellesmere Port peak hour shuttles from Warrington.

WG seem to be proceeding without a public specification of its planned service, and the ITT has not been made public.
They also seem to be expecting the bidders to come up with "ideas" rather than be too prescriptive.

 

[Dai Corner]

WG seem to be proceeding without a public specification of its planned service, and the ITT has not been made public.
They also seem to be expecting the bidders to come up with "ideas" rather than be too prescriptive.

Indeed. I can't decide whether that's a good thing because services will be designed by professional railwaymen rather than politicians and civil servants or a bad thing because bidders will seek to maximise their profits rather than offer the best value for money.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Originally Posted by craigybagel View Post
To be fair if I'm reading it correct the Cambrian would be hourly all day, with every second running as a 4 car as far as Machynlleth, which would be a slight improvement. As you say though, it may need a bigger improvement than that to keep up with the growth down that line.
I would hope so. The all day hourly is a great wish for lots of people around here, but 2 cars at some times of day could be problematical.

The problem on the Cambrian is partly one of Stakeholder appeasement/stakeholder apathy. Ceredigion CC are quite supportive and want an hourly service all the way to Aberystwyth, they've even applied to the New Stations Fund to reopen Bow St station - though have not thought through the implications on punctuality. On the Coast Gwynedd is supportive with local level stakeholders almost fanatical about every train having to be a through one to the West Midlands even in winter. However on the busiest section of the Cambrian - Caersws through to Shrewsbury apathetic Powys CC seems not even to be aware of the lines existence and only awakes from its slumber if the issues regrading rail/road interfaces at level crossings.

85% of the traffic on the coast is internal - mainly schoolchildren and holidaymakers. The 15% through traffic is heavily skewed to the holiday periods/weekends.

80% of the traffic on the Cambrian Mainline goes through to Shrewsbury with roughly half that going beyond predominately into the West Midlands/ on to London. Most westbound trains throughout the year thin out beyond Newtown, the extra capacity is only needed east of Newtown most of the time apart from High Summer. However Ceredigion and Gwynedd shout loud.

From a Newtown perspective the things we need most are the 0839 on a weekday (0730 ex Aberystwyth) being 3 car instead of 2. A departure from Shrewsbury at around 1630. In the High Summer the 0809 BHM INTL to Aberystwyth/Pwllheli having more than 4 carriages. Better Connections at Shrewsbury or through trains to the North West of England.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Indeed. I can't decide whether that's a good thing because services will be designed by professional railwaymen rather than politicians and civil servants or a bad thing because bidders will seek to maximise their profits rather than offer the best value for money.

The acid test whether this is all baloney for public consumption will be the Cardiff to Holyhead service. No one in their right mind will want to offer an hourly service without extra subsidy to offset the revenue suppression effects it will have across North Wales and the Marches.

If we get hourly to Holyhead from Caridff we will know that the Welsh Government has specified it.

 

[pemma]

WG seem to be proceeding without a public specification of its planned service, and the ITT has not been made public.
They also seem to be expecting the bidders to come up with "ideas" rather than be too prescriptive.

I've never heard of a franchise where a bidder could say "We don't want to serve those stations which the current franchise are required to serve - make another franchise do it instead" which is what you seemed to be suggesting. Normally if a consultation doesn't specifically mention something there isn't any plan to change it. I'm sure the WG would welcome an idea like introducing a new Manchester to Wrexham service and having that service call at stations like Frodsham and Helsby to speed up services from Llandudno and Holyhead.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Reminds me of the bucket and spade wielding family who came up to me on the platform at Abergavenny looking very confused asking for directions to the beach....

I had a family looking for directions to the beach and a women who got on at Gobowen traveling to London get off the same train here at Newtown last summer.

 

[Rhydgaled]

That could well be the key to all of this. It's alright coming up with sensible plans, but if hourly HHD-CDF is what the WAG want then whenever happens will have to fit around that. At least it would give a half hourly service on the Marches which would be an improvement and could allow some existing services to be sped up.

If it also means the end of the current 2 hourly Holyheaf-Birmingham service it could also mean the end of 158s spending several hours on the North Wales Coast, meaning those ERTMS units could stay on the Cambrian where they are needed.

You don't need a frequent Holyhead-Cardiff service to gain those benifits though. The Holyhead-Birmingham can be cut back to just Chester-Birmingham and the current Holyhead-Cardiff could be turned into an hourly Chester-Cardiff service perhaps continuing to Liverpool over the Halton Curve every two hours. The only problem with that is that the northbound Chester-Cardiff would have to go via Crewe every two hours; otherwise it would be running in the Birmingham-Wrexham/Chester path. That could only be fixed if you could move the time of the northbound Swansea-Manchester services by half an hour, which would make for a long layover in MAN since the southbound timings aren't too far off.

To be fair if I'm reading it correct the Cambrian would be hourly all day, with every second running as a 4 car as far as Machynlleth, which would be a slight improvement. As you say though, it may need a bigger improvement than that to keep up with the growth down that line.

Yes, that is essentially the way I'm thinking, an hourly Aberystwyth-Birmingham service with every train being at least two units between Birmingham and Shrewsbury (between Birmingham and Machynlleth every 2hrs), and with Birmingham-Chester/Wrexham only every two hours (rather than hourly as, I think, Gareth Marston suggested) there might be more 158s available for attaching an extra unit on some services.

Also, as I said earlier in the topic, ideally W&B would have the 3-car 158s as well, so that some trains can be 5 or 6 car with two units (an Aberystwyth portion and a Pwllheli/Wrexham one). If only the 175s had UEGs, they could be an ideal fleet for the Cambrian with the 158s moving to provide 4-car trains into Manchester.

I would agree with this. Not because of the rolling stock, but that to me would seem to justify the mainly serving the Welsh market. ATW stopping Chester Warrington and Manchester would be logical with Northern serving the rest.

Trying to make English stations served by an English TOC was also a factor in my thinking, as it is with my comment that Crewe-Shrewbury intermediate stops should transfer to London Midland or Northern.

New diesel trains for regional routes have to be suitable to cascade to local routes unlikely to ever be electrified as per the long term rolling stock strategy.

The 195s wouldn't be much good for the Cambrian, HOWL or far north lines, those three (and many more besides) are at least Regional in my opinion (regional being one step above outer-suburban, which is the highest standard for which I consider the suburban door layout acceptable).

Helsby, Frodsham and Runcorn East.
There's nothing to say that they have to run the stopper.

My thinking is that those stops should be served by the Northern service, the W&B peak-extras and, in the case of Helsby and Frodsham, possibly also by the W&B Halton curve service.

Airport services are another bone of contention (not guaranteed after Ordsall Chord opens).

If the airport services aren't continued, then I hope the new operator will review its services and potentially use the other path (the one currently used for the peak extra) in one direction to cut down the turnaround time at MAN.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 195s wouldn't be much good for the Cambrian, HOWL or far north lines, those three (and many more besides) are at least Regional in my opinion (regional being one step above outer-suburban, which is the highest standard for which I consider the suburban door layout acceptable).

The Cambrian has a sort of "rural InterCity" feel to it much more like the Scottish rural lines than say the Conwy Valley which is a pure "local service for local people"(tm) plus a few tourists.

Stock wise 158s are just about ideal, other than that some services require additional capacity. 170s or similar would do, though the lack of gangways would be a nuisance. I don't think there's a real need to be bothered about door layout for these services.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Stock wise 158s are just about ideal, other than that some services require additional capacity. 170s or similar would do, though the lack of gangways would be a nuisance. I don't think there's a real need to be bothered about door layout for these services.

For the time being, the Cambrian is stuck with its sub-fleet of 158s as ETCS is required west of Shrewsbury.
Until other trains are converted (and there is no rush on "Midlands" routes) they are captive.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The Cambrian has a sort of "rural InterCity" feel to it much more like the Scottish rural lines than say the Conwy Valley which is a pure "local service for local people"(tm) plus a few tourists.

Stock wise 158s are just about ideal, other than that some services require additional capacity. 170s or similar would do, though the lack of gangways would be a nuisance. I don't think there's a real need to be bothered about door layout for these services.

158's are the right sort of unit for Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury and through to Birmingham 125 miles with a lot of end to end traffic. luggage etc. The 4 car sets struggle east of Shrewsbury with loading's in anything other than off peak but that's more an issue of rolling stock qty and poor other services for Telford to Birmingham services.

However there the wrong sort of unit for peak times on the coast line. 1/3 2/3 wide doors are what you need in the summer so all those tourists with buggys etc can get on and off those little halts quickly - think Fairbourne to Barmouth.

 

[craigybagel]

You don't need a frequent Holyhead-Cardiff service to gain those benifits though. The Holyhead-Birmingham can be cut back to just Chester-Birmingham and the current Holyhead-Cardiff could be turned into an hourly Chester-Cardiff service perhaps continuing to Liverpool over the Halton Curve every two hours. The only problem with that is that the northbound Chester-Cardiff would have to go via Crewe every two hours; otherwise it would be running in the Birmingham-Wrexham/Chester path. That could only be fixed if you could move the time of the northbound Swansea-Manchester services by half an hour, which would make for a long layover in MAN since the southbound timings aren't too far off.

Oh indeed, something along the lines of what your are suggesting would probably be much better than an hourly CDF-HHD. I'm merely pointing out that if that is foisted on the franchise by the folks in the Bay then it's not the end of the world, it could still mean a big improvement for passengers in these parts.

 

[pemma]

The 195s wouldn't be much good for the Cambrian, HOWL or far north lines, those three (and many more besides) are at least Regional in my opinion (regional being one step above outer-suburban, which is the highest standard for which I consider the suburban door layout acceptable).

Well the WG or winning bidder share your view they can look for a solution for get 158s (or 159s) off another TOC rather than new stock. As mentioned in a SWT thread Stagecoach have looked at options for replacing the 158s and 159s with new trains - doesn't mean it will happen but it could happen and if it does W&B and EMT will probably be at the front of the queue for the 158s and 159s.

 

[HH]

I don't think the SWF will be keeping Sprinters, no matter who wins.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The Cambrian has a sort of "rural InterCity" feel to it much more like the Scottish rural lines than say the Conwy Valley which is a pure "local service for local people"(tm) plus a few tourists.

Stock wise 158s are just about ideal, other than that some services require additional capacity. 170s or similar would do, though the lack of gangways would be a nuisance. I don't think there's a real need to be bothered about door layout for these services.

I agree that 158s (apart from lack of capacity) are ideal for the Cambrian. I disagree that the door layout is unimportant, a reasonably fast long-distance service (which the Cambrian main line is) needs a comfortable train with good window alignment etc. and the end-doors are way better for that. Also, due to the use of portion working on the Cambrian, in my opinion, the lack of gangways would be rather more than a nuisance; I would consider it a showstopper and if I wrote the franchise agreement it would be forbidden.

However there the wrong sort of unit for peak times on the coast line. 1/3 2/3 wide doors are what you need in the summer so all those tourists with buggys etc can get on and off those little halts quickly - think Fairbourne to Barmouth.

I disagree; because the trains run through to Birmingham the 158s are still the right choice (just need to have enough of them to be able to run longer trains in the summer). Even if they didn't run through, I still think the journey length and scenic nature of Dovey/Machynlleth to Porthmadog/Pwllheli should rule out of use of suburban units. I would however, in that case, look at something with a lower gear ratio (better acceleration, lower top speed) and doors which operate more quickly. I'm thinking a 156 would probably fit that description?

Well the WG or winning bidder share your view they can look for a solution for get 158s (or 159s) off another TOC rather than new stock. As mentioned in a SWT thread Stagecoach have looked at options for replacing the 158s and 159s with new trains - doesn't mean it will happen but it could happen and if it does W&B and EMT will probably be at the front of the queue for the 158s and 159s.

GWR could be in the market too. Personally, where SWT to replace their diesel fleet I think it might work out quite well if the 'true 159s' (159/0) all went to a single operator and all 17x 3-car 158s (A.K.A. 159/1) moved to W&B with ETCS fitted for the Cambrian. Sadly I don't think SWT's 10x 2-car 158s are enough to allow GWR to run all Cardiff-Portsmouths as 6-car (3x 2-car units) so the ugly 3-car hybrids are likely to be needed long-term; unless the new W&B operator goes for UEGs and ETCS on 175s allowing them to be used on the Cambrian so that the 17x 3-car 158s aren't needed.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I don't think the SWF will be keeping Sprinters, no matter who wins.

This highlights the farce that is franchising process. There should be one clear and credible long term rolling stock plan for Regional services across the UK (which most people on this forum could probably bash up on a spreadsheet) instead we have to wait on each franchise contest with the protracted costs of bidding as 3 or 4 players all try and plan their small piece of the pie in isolation to the bigger picture.

BR would have penciled in NSE DMU replacement and the cascades from it already and everyone would know where they stood and the probable timescale.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I agree that 158s (apart from lack of capacity) are ideal for the Cambrian. I disagree that the door layout is unimportant, a reasonably fast long-distance service (which the Cambrian main line is) needs a comfortable train with good window alignment etc. and the end-doors are way better for that. Also, due to the use of portion working on the Cambrian, in my opinion, the lack of gangways would be rather more than a nuisance; I would consider it a showstopper and if I wrote the franchise agreement it would be forbidden.

I disagree; because the trains run through to Birmingham the 158s are still the right choice (just need to have enough of them to be able to run longer trains in the summer). Even if they didn't run through, I still think the journey length and scenic nature of Dovey/Machynlleth to Porthmadog/Pwllheli should rule out of use of suburban units. I would however, in that case, look at something with a lower gear ratio (better acceleration, lower top speed) and doors which operate more quickly. I'm thinking a 156 would probably fit that description?

Ideally -a 172 optimized for use on rural/scenic lines is probably the best option for most of the coast diagrams with a handful of through trains a day to the West Midlands in the hands of 158's.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ideally -a 172 optimized for use on rural/scenic lines is probably the best option for most of the coast diagrams with a handful of through trains a day to the West Midlands in the hands of 158's.

I would suggest going for a consistent clockface Taktfahrplan involving *all* trains working through to Birmingham, perhaps as 5-car formations - 3 to Aber, 2 to the Coast.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that 158s (apart from lack of capacity) are ideal for the Cambrian. I disagree that the door layout is unimportant, a reasonably fast long-distance service (which the Cambrian main line is) needs a comfortable train with good window alignment etc. and the end-doors are way better for that.

Have you ever been on a CT or ScotRail-spec 170? They have near full window alignment, the only bits that lack it are caused by the way priority seating is specified in law and applies to end door stock too. They also have decent seating and big windows.

Have you ever been on a ScotRail Class 380? Despite being essentially a suburban EMU, they have a real InterCity feel to them.

The door position really isn't that important. It's how you lay the interior out.

Also, due to the use of portion working on the Cambrian, in my opinion, the lack of gangways would be rather more than a nuisance; I would consider it a showstopper and if I wrote the franchise agreement it would be forbidden.

A Class 172 of course could be specified with gangways like the LM ones. Indeed, had ATW not been created and Wales remained with 5 franchises as before (FNW, CT, GWR, Valley Lines, SW&WR) most likely Class 172s or 170s would have featured.

I disagree; because the trains run through to Birmingham the 158s are still the right choice (just need to have enough of them to be able to run longer trains in the summer). Even if they didn't run through, I still think the journey length and scenic nature of Dovey/Machynlleth to Porthmadog/Pwllheli should rule out of use of suburban units.

170s are not "suburban units". Have you ever been on one? They are regional express units designed for similar services to Class 158s. They just have a different door layout which does have its advantages as well as disadvantages.

I would however, in that case, look at something with a lower gear ratio (better acceleration, lower top speed) and doors which operate more quickly. I'm thinking a 156 would probably fit that description?

156s have been used in the past, but why suggest a downgrade to mid-1980s build?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Have you ever been on a CT or ScotRail-spec 170? They have near full window alignment, the only bits that lack it are caused by the way priority seating is specified in law and applies to end door stock too. They also have decent seating and big windows.

Have you ever been on a ScotRail Class 380? Despite being essentially a suburban EMU, they have a real InterCity feel to them.

The door position really isn't that important. It's how you lay the interior out.

[snip]

170s are not "suburban units". Have you ever been on one? They are regional express units designed for similar services to Class 158s. They just have a different door layout which does have its advantages as well as disadvantages.

I've not be on a 380. I have been on a ScotRail 170, but that was back in 2014 and I don't remember what it was like. My most recent ride on a 170 I think was June 2016, which would have been an XC unit. It was horrible, the legroom I think was as non-existant as it is on ATW's 150s, 153s and Pacers. I maintain that 170s are suburban units, particularly because when we sent one of my brothers (he's not a rail enthusiast, far from it) to Nottingham by train from years ago (I think from Port Talbot, with a change at Cardiff onto XC) he reported back that 'the doors were in the wrong place'. Sort the legroom out and the XC 170s would be 'outer-suburban', but right now they aren't even that; I'd had enough by Gloucester.

156s have been used in the past, but why suggest a downgrade to mid-1980s build?

I wasn't, really, since I was referring to a 'what if' scenario where the Cambrian coast service terminated at Dovey Junction or Machynlleth. I am not particularly keen on that 'what if' scenario, and hope they keep the service running through to Birmingham.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wasn't, really, since I was referring to a 'what if' scenario where the Cambrian coast service terminated at Dovey Junction or Machynlleth. I do not support that 'what if' scenario.

I could support that, but only if:-

1. Mach station received a full rebuild to a single island platform with an overall roof, good indoor waiting facilities and toilets, catering and assistance staff. This would need to be for the full period of service.

2. The timetable was altered to provide for the Pwllheli unit to always be waiting at Macc for the incoming unit from Brum to allow for an easy connection. (The evening run is an absolute joke, 40 or so minutes waiting in the cold at Mach for no good reason, which must be a massive dissuading factor for tourist traffic).

3. 5-car trains were used from Brum to Aber.

 

[Llanigraham]

I could support that, but only if:-

1. Mach station received a full rebuild to a single island platform with an overall roof, good indoor waiting facilities and toilets, catering and assistance staff. This would need to be for the full period of service.

Have you ever been to Machy station? If you had you would know that that proposal in preposterous.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have you ever been to Machy station? If you had you would know that that proposal in preposterous.

Yes, I have on a number of occasions. What's preposterous about it? Flatten it and build a new, modern, pre-cast concrete type one from scratch. That's what the Swiss do. You'd have to close the line and run a bus shuttle from Newtown to Aber and <somewhere on the Coast> (or a temporary road access to Dovey Jn if the farmer was amenable to such) but it'd take what, a couple of months?

You could as an alternative staff and provide buildings at Dovey Jn, but that would have less value.

Or you just run every train through to/from Brum and the importance as an interchange reduces to being between Aber and the Coast only, which is my preferred option.

 

[pemma]

GWR could be in the market too.

Indeed. However, as the EMT and W&B franchises should be renewed first they should be at the front of the queue.

if the 'true 159s' (159/0) all went to a single operator and all 17x 3-car 158s (A.K.A. 159/1) moved to W&B

Haven't the ex-TPE 3 car 158s at SWT been modified so they are are more similar to the 159/0s then the remaining 3 car 158s with other operators?