Arriva Trains Wales Query

[ainsworth74]

It's a shame track access charges are so high for LHCS - are these really justified?

Network Rail seem to think so and the ORR don't have an issue with it so presumably yes. Personally I think that there is some justification as locomotive do bash the track around more than most MUs (for example a 67 has an per axle weight of 22 tonnes whilst a 175 has a per axle weight of 12 tonne) so there will be higher cost to keep track maintained when locomotives are using it.

 

[Greenback]

Network Rail seem to think so and the ORR don't have an issue with it so presumably yes. Personally I think that there is some justification as locomotive do bash the track around more than most MUs (for example a 67 has an per axle weight of 22 tonnes whilst a 175 has a per axle weight of 12 tonne) so there will be higher cost to keep track maintained when locomotives are using it.

That is also my understanding. One of the reasons for getting rid of locomotive haulage in the first place was said to be to reduce the wear and tear on the track.

I'm not sure exaclty how much additional wear and tear would be created by using two locos on a top and tail basis compared with a single unit, but commons ense suggests that there would be quite a bit more.

 

[Penmorfa]

Some themes on anti LHCS:

Trains have to turn around very quickly - why? Current practice is driven by not enough stock trying to run very frequent off peak services, the ultimate end product is at Wrexham Central where the unit that arrives from Bidston has to depart before its official arrival time when the old charter minutes are factored in.

LHCS doesn't fit with the asset sweating utilization pattern of today's railway.
We must turn around quickly so we can burn increasingly expensive fuel up carrying a light off peak load many of whom are on giveaway AP tickets. One of the reasons why the railways costs are so high.

So can we assume that your master plan is less trains and higher fares?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Network Rail seem to think so and the ORR don't have an issue with it so presumably yes. Personally I think that there is some justification as locomotive do bash the track around more than most MUs (for example a 67 has an per axle weight of 22 tonnes whilst a 175 has a per axle weight of 12 tonne) so there will be higher cost to keep track maintained when locomotives are using it.

That is also my understanding. One of the reasons for getting rid of locomotive haulage in the first place was said to be to reduce the wear and tear on the track.

I'm not sure exaclty how much additional wear and tear would be created by using two locos on a top and tail basis compared with a single unit, but commons ense suggests that there would be quite a bit more.

Locos are certainly heavy, and I wouldn't contemplate top&tail if the DBSOs were fit and healthy. Even given that they have been in store for a while, I think refurbishing them could be better than top&tail. It all depends on capital cost of refurbishment versus the more-expensive running costs of doing top&tail for the relativly short life of the mark2 LHCS stop-gap.

A single loco on a push-pull set might not be too much of a problem. Ian Walmsley of Porterbrook wrote in Modern Railways that:

We now have a means if calculating track access charges which means we can escape the 'units good - locos bad' mantra of the last few years. In fact, keeping the Mk 3 coaches - even with four heavy (25-tonne) axles hauling them - would be the best Network Rail could hope for.

He was talking about a 9-car rake of mark3s with a TRAXX UK locomotive with track-friendly bogies and a new DVT, not five mark2s and a diesel loco, admittedly. Still, no mark2s = no solution to overcrowding, no solution to inappropriate deployment of pacers/150s and no solution to grossly underused routes until somebody can find Wales more 158s.

 

[Penmorfa]

Thats correct - the correct term is that the points are handworked and are actually "bolt locked" from the signalbox (lever 2). They are locked in the normal position from the box but if they are required to be used. Communication is usually done by bell system between the points and the box. After the movement is made the hand points must be in the normal position before they can be locked from the signalbox again. They had similar ones between Platform 3 and 4 when a middle siding was used as an engine release. This all went in 1967 I believe and any run round movements thereafter had to propel out to the sidings to run round.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Could you also confirm that the run round in Llandudno is unsuited for regular intensive use?

 

[SIGGY56]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Could you also confirm that the run round in Llandudno is unsuited for regular intensive use?

As an employer with NR - I was in Llandudno few days ago. The run round facilities between Platform 1 & 2 can still be used at anytime otherwise a note would be displayed in the signalbox stating "out of use" with reminder appliances placed on the appropriate lever controlling the bolt lock for the points.

Platform 1 can deal with a loco + 8 coaches (for running round)
Platform 2 can deal with a loco + 9 coaches.(for running round)

The points leading to the down sidings are out of use (disconnected since 2005). They are still on the diagram and officially still in use. Anything that is taken out of use officially or a change in infrastructure, such as signalling usually appears in the Weekly Operating Notice (WON) for railway staff.

 

[Rhydgaled]

SIGGY56, since you seem to know about run-round loops, are you able to answer my question from page 10 about whether a run-round facility exists in the sidings near Cheltenham Spa? (I put I image of the track layout that I think exists, going from Google Earth, as an attachment on page 10).

 

[Michael.Y]

Saw three 1st class Mk 3s in BR grey/blue sitting outside Canton today...

 

[Rhydgaled]

Saw three 1st class Mk 3s in BR grey/blue sitting outside Canton today...

Does anyone have any idea what they are there for?

Are they resturant cars?
Are they through-wired for 67+DVT operation?
Is there a paintshop in Cardiff?
Do the two ATW liveried mark3 buffet cars currently used for Gerald not have 67+DVT through-wiring?

If you answer no to any of the above questions, I would guess it is unlikely that they are for ATW passenger use. Happy to be proved wrong of course. I'd be interested to know the answer to the fourth question regardless.

 

[sprinterguy]

Does anyone have any idea what they are there for?

Are they resturant cars?
Are they through-wired for 67+DVT operation?
Is there a paintshop in Cardiff?
Do the two ATW liveried mark3 buffet cars currently used for Gerald not have 67+DVT through-wiring?

If you answer no to any of the above questions, I would guess it is unlikely that they are for ATW passenger use. Happy to be proved wrong of course. I'd be interested to know the answer to the fourth question regardless.

They are six former Cargo-D first class vehicles, and yes, I believe that there is a paintshop at Canton. They are there apparently for attention at Pullman Rail at Canton, and rumours abound that they are to be utilised for ATWs' WAG Express workings come September.

Mark 3 carriages do not, as far as I know, require any special modification to be able to work with class 67s and DVTs in push pull formation: It is only the 67s and DVTs that need modification, the through-wiring on the mark 3s is still compatible: AFAIK the DBS and former Virgin mark 3s used in Chilterns' scratch rake of mark 3s on the Banbury commuter turn have not undergone any sort of special modification.

 

[jones_bangor]

Saw three 1st class Mk 3s in BR grey/blue sitting outside Canton today...

Maybe more loco DVT sets on North to South than anticipated?

 

[Michael.Y]

Maybe more loco DVT sets on North to South than anticipated?

Either that or they're replacing the Mk2s in storage completely for future rugex and specials.

 

[merlodlliw]

Maybe more loco DVT sets on North to South than anticipated?

Appreciate you like the idea, but without being controversial, there is nothing in the budget to run a North/South service using DVTs up to March 2013,The £3.5M was only for running one set.

Perhaps ATW could be persuaded to do something out of there own funds from December, we shall see.

On second thoughts with a pinch of salt,perhaps the 3 1st Mark 3s could make the WAG all 1st class comfort, & pay for meals seperate but that's stretching it


Bob

 

[jones_bangor]

Appreciate you like the idea, but without being controversial, there is nothing in the budget to run a North/South service using DVTs up to March 2013,The £3.5M was only for running one set.

Perhaps ATW could be persuaded to do something out of there own funds from December, we shall see.

On second thoughts with a pinch of salt,perhaps the 3 1st Mark 3s could make the WAG all 1st class comfort, & pay for meals seperate but that's stretching it


Bob

There are 3 x blue 67s, 3 x DVTs, 3 x First class coaches we hear....


Sounds like 3 x sets....when loco-examinations etc need to be conducted, there's plenty of 67s in various liveries out there...


As nice as 1st class all-round sounds!!..............

 

[merlodlliw]

There are 3 x blue 67s, 3 x DVTs, 3 x First class coaches we hear....


Sounds like 3 x sets....when loco-examinations etc need to be conducted, there's plenty of 67s in various liveries out there...


As nice as 1st class all-round sounds!!..............

We shall see, all that is confirmed is, One set via Wrexham from September,that was in ATWs letter to stakeholders, but I would agree three of everything does not seem like one service, perhaps December will tell the tale,I look forward to the Dec12/13 consultation timetable.
Perhaps its a bogof 3 for the price of 2. Suppose one set will have to be in reserve has happens with the 67.

Bob

 

[Rhydgaled]

Mark 3 carriages do not, as far as I know, require any special modification to be able to work with class 67s and DVTs in push pull formation: It is only the 67s and DVTs that need modification, the through-wiring on the mark 3s is still compatible: AFAIK the DBS and former Virgin mark 3s used in Chilterns' scratch rake of mark 3s on the Banbury commuter turn have not undergone any sort of special modification.

If mark3s can run with 67+DVT by default, then the current pair of mark3 resturant cars used on Gerald should be fine for new Gerald via Wrexham. So, if ATW gets any more first class vehicles it is likely to be just one (a resturant car).

There are 3 x blue 67s, 3 x DVTs, .... Sounds like 3 x sets.

Yep, sounds like three sets, and no need for a mark3 FO in any of them (unless the three first class ex-Cargo-D vehicles at Canton are resturant cars, or the new sets will have standard class buffets with a whole coach of first class, I doubt the first class ex-Cargo-D vehicles will be used in regular ATW passenger service). I expect one set spare and two in service, but if there's only going to be one WAG-ex what is the other serviceable set to be used for.

I hope ATW will have a strategic reserve of LHCS stock (either mark2s or additional mark3s), in addition to the three Gerald rakes, for dealing with heavy passenger numbers at various events across Wales.

Also, my previous question is still unanswered:

SIGGY56, since you seem to know about run-round loops, are you able to answer my question from page 10 about whether a run-round facility exists in the sidings near Cheltenham Spa? (I put I image of the track layout that I think exists, going from Google Earth, as an attachment on page 10).

 

[Gareth Marston]

So can we assume that your master plan is less trains and higher fares?

What am saying is there a many locations across the network where the off peak service is of a relatively high frequency carrying relatively light loads many of whom are passengers on AP deals.
Some people on this forum believe that these services are covered by marginal costs i.e the crew is already paid for line of thought this ignores the actuality of privitisation finances where every movement attracts the same cost regardless of what time of day its is. A peak train costs the same in track access and ever more expensive Diesel to move as an off peak one. The peak one is full to standing with folk on seasons and full price anytimes, the off peak has some students on AP and Doris and co on Club 55's.

I'm not saying do away with off peak just that do you really need 6 tph between Cardiff and Pontypridd in the middle of the day? Why not join/split at Ponty in the off peak theres still a service out to Aberdare/Merthyr but with lower running costs.

On the North Wales coast - apart from Saturdays do you really need 2 ATW tph on the same hour as VT runs?

 

[Greenback]

What am saying is there a many locations across the network where the off peak service is of a relatively high frequency carrying relatively light loads many of whom are passengers on AP deals.
Some people on this forum believe that these services are covered by marginal costs i.e the crew is already paid for line of thought this ignores the actuality of privitisation finances where every movement attracts the same cost regardless of what time of day its is. A peak train costs the same in track access and ever more expensive Diesel to move as an off peak one. The peak one is full to standing with folk on seasons and full price anytimes, the off peak has some students on AP and Doris and co on Club 55's.

I'm not saying do away with off peak just that do you really need 6 tph between Cardiff and Pontypridd in the middle of the day? Why not join/split at Ponty in the off peak theres still a service out to Aberdare/Merthyr but with lower running costs.

On the North Wales coast - apart from Saturdays do you really need 2 ATW tph on the same hour as VT runs?

One of the selling points of rail on the Cardiff-Pontypridd corridor is the frequency of services. I've never been aware of particularly light loadings whenever I have travelled on that route. In fact, I have been quite surprised by the numbers boarding and alighting, particularly at intermediate stations like Taffs Well and Llandaff. Treforest is usually particularly busy, but a lot of the passengers there are students!

No doubt there could be some small savings made by splitting and joining units at Pontypridd. But I think it's entirely possible that these would be offset by losing some traffic which only uses the train because of the high frequency of services.

Also, it would probably be necessary for these services to split and join again at Cardiff Central, due to running through to Bridgend or Barry Island.

 

[Gareth Marston]

One of the selling points of rail on the Cardiff-Pontypridd corridor is the frequency of services. I've never been aware of particularly light loadings whenever I have travelled on that route. In fact, I have been quite surprised by the numbers boarding and alighting, particularly at intermediate stations like Taffs Well and Llandaff. Treforest is usually particularly busy, but a lot of the passengers there are students!

No doubt there could be some small savings made by splitting and joining units at Pontypridd. But I think it's entirely possible that these would be offset by losing some traffic which only uses the train because of the high frequency of services.

Also, it would probably be necessary for these services to split and join again at Cardiff Central, due to running through to Bridgend or Barry Island.

To be honest I don't think theirs much practical difference between 6tph and 4 tph in the off peak apart from a third higher running costs. Though running costs will be a lot cheaper if its electrified!
Split/ join at Barry is the answer south of the city.

 

[jones_bangor]

If mark3s can run with 67+DVT by default, then the current pair of mark3 resturant cars used on Gerald should be fine for new Gerald veia Wrexham. So, if ATW gets any more first class vehicles it is likely to be just one (a resturant car).

Yep, sounds like three sets, and no need for a mark3 FO in any of them (unless the three first class ex-Cargo-D vehicles at Canton are resturant cars, or the new sets will have standard class buffets with a whole coach of first class, I doubt the first class ex-Cargo-D vehicles will be used in regular ATW passenger service). I expect one set spare and two in service, but if there's only going to be one WAG-ex what is the other serviceable set to be used for.

:

WHat if the formations will be a 67, a mark 3 FO, 3 x mark 3 SO, and a mark 3 DVT.....no layover, just running North to South all day.....and vice versa (I.e. No more restaurant car).

 

[Michael.Y]

WHat if the formations will be a 67, a mark 3 FO, 3 x mark 3 SO, and a mark 3 DVT.....no layover, just running North to South all day.....and vice versa (I.e. No more restaurant car).

Doubtful. What would be the benefit of First Class sans any kind of catering provision?

 

[jones_bangor]

Doubtful. What would be the benefit of First Class sans any kind of catering provision?

I would envisage a trolley and complimentary snacks in First.

 

[Rhydgaled]

WHat if the formations will be a 67, a mark 3 FO, 3 x mark 3 SO, and a mark 3 DVT.....no layover, just running North to South all day.....and vice versa (I.e. No more restaurant car).

Assuming it is just one express return working they'll be doing, I'd be rather disapointed if they drop meals, especially if the evening service is in the later slot as has been suggested. Certainly I think the meals service is more important than 1st class provision. Formation should be one of the following if you ask me:

• 67+RFB+TSOs+DVT (basicly as now)
• 67+TSO+StandardBuffet+TSOs+DVT

If they do use FOs, then I think it should be 67+FO+StandardBuffet+TSOs+DVT (though far too much space for likely numbers of 1st class passengers). First class tickets should only cost slightly more than standard, but with no complementary meal (ie. everyone pays the same for food if they want some and first class passengers just get the improved comfort, and maybe free orange juice).

Whether they are running all day or not, I wouldn't want them used on the normal Holyhead - Cardiff 2-hourly stoppers. If they are going to run all day, is two 67+mrk3s+DVT sets enough to scrap the 2-hourly Holyhead - Cardiff and replace it with:

• A 2-hourly Holyhead - Crewe/Manchester
• A 2-hourly Cardiff - Wrexham - Crewe
• An AM Holyhead - Cardiff express
• An AM Cardiff - Holyhead express
• A PM Holyhead - Cardiff express
• And a PM Cardiff - Holyhead express?

The northbound AM north-south express would go onto Holyhead - Manchester/Crewe for the day and the southbound AM train would do a Swansea - Manchester trip, but I'm not sure if they'd get back in time for their evening return express.

 

[Greenback]

To be honest I don't think theirs much practical difference between 6tph and 4 tph in the off peak apart from a third higher running costs. Though running costs will be a lot cheaper if its electrified!
Split/ join at Barry is the answer south of the city.

Two fewer trains per hour may be the difference between some choosing rail over bus/car. I am biased, however, as it is my personal preference to see better services and more comfortable trains to encourage people to use rail. Although I accept that encouraging modal shift is not as popular as it used to be!

 

[merlodlliw]

I would envisage a trolley and complimentary snacks in First.

No reason why it could not have a buffet,which is well used now, however the travelling Chef has proved disappointing in take up, the W/S idea did not use a chef and worked well.
Better have the train out & about than what will be an eight hour out of service in Cardiff between 10a.m. & 6p.m. Sept to Dec,unbelievable. Business people wont hang about in Cardiff until 6.18p.m. and I would also include senior statutory CEOs if going North.
Agree just give complimentary snacks in first, no need for anything more. Hopefully the Dec12/13 timetable will sort this out.

 

[jones_bangor]

Assuming it is just one express return working they'll be doing, I'd be rather disapointed if they drop meals, especially if the evening service is in the later slot as has been suggested.

I can't see the suggested timings of the "express" working. For a start the current staffing system won't function with 05xx southwards and 18xx departure northwards (arriving 22xx). It all points to the "Premier" coach being ditched.

I envisage that 3 x LHCS sets of the type I suggested will simply be integrated into the existing timetable, so there may be fewer North - South services, but a few more seats in total, with class 175s / 158s released for other services.

I agree that a small supplement should buy you a seat in FC.

 

[Welshman]

On the North Wales coast - apart from Saturdays do you really need 2 ATW tph on the same hour as VT runs?

The problem is Virgin does not serve Shotton, Abergele and the request stops between Llandudno Junction and Bangor, and Bangor and Holyhead, so, unless Virgin were to call everywhere, which would not make commercial sense, these smaller stations would lose-out were ATW to withdraw when the Virgin runs.

Also, ATW run a reasonably regular set of services - Holyhead-Chester to Cardiff and Birmingham, and Llandudno-Chester and Manchester. Cancelling one leg of these [eg Chester-Llandudno] when the Virgin runs, would cause problems for the next leg.

 

[merlodlliw]

deleted



Bob

 

[tbtc]

The problem is Virgin does not serve Shotton, Abergele and the request stops between Llandudno Junction and Bangor, and Bangor and Holyhead, so, unless Virgin were to call everywhere, which would not make commercial sense, these smaller stations would lose-out were ATW to withdraw when the Virgin runs

We are talking pretty small places though - do these request stops really need the service that they currently get? Presumably the fact that they are "request" stops means that they don't have great passenger numbers?

Also, ATW run a reasonably regular set of services - Holyhead-Chester to Cardiff and Birmingham, and Llandudno-Chester and Manchester. Cancelling one leg of these [eg Chester-Llandudno] when the Virgin runs, would cause problems for the next leg.

You could arrange things so that for each Virgin service that ran (London) - Chester - Holyhead - Chester (London) the ATW service from Cardiff/ Birmingham ran something like (Cardiff/Birmingham) - Shrewsbury - Wrexham - Chester - Manchester - Manchester Airport, thus providing additional capacity on one of the franchise's busiest sections?

Before recent changes, the hourly ScotRail service from Aberdeen to Edinburgh had several services "missing" in the hours when the East Coast (GNER/ NXEC etc) HST filled in for it. The East Coast service wasn't able to serve all of the same stops, so some smaller stations lost out, but it allowed ScotRail to use their resources better (rather than having their DMU running within a few minutes of the larger/ longer distance service).

 

[Rhydgaled]

I can't see the suggested timings of the "express" working. For a start the current staffing system won't function with 05xx southwards and 18xx departure northwards (arriving 22xx). It all points to the "Premier" coach being ditched.

I envisage that 3 x LHCS sets of the type I suggested will simply be integrated into the existing timetable, so there may be fewer North - South services, but a few more seats in total, with class 175s / 158s released for other services.

I agree that a small supplement should buy you a seat in FC.

You can't integrate 3 LHCS sets into the timetables unless there are more than three sets available. Yes you could share a neutrally-branded spare set with Chiltern, but I doubt that is likely to happen (the ATW DVTs don't have generators do they?) Anyway, if you are dropping express and buffet facilities and reducing Holyhead - Cardiff to the 2-hourly stoppers, I would put the LHCS on Manchester - Swansea/Llandudno, not the Holyhead - Cardiff stoppers.