Arriva Trains Wales Query

[Rhydgaled]

Alas Mr Bunker perhaps should have thought twice before he bought them for ATW, his vision was good at the time, however HQ Directors were not amused.

What exactly did Mr Bunker have in mind for the mark2s? What services would they have operated had he not been sacked?

jones_bangor
Mark2s have until 2020 before they have to be scrapped, that's a little longer than 5 years. Also, six of them wouldn't need a penny spent on them (capital-wise) as they are already operational and going spare in a few months time. Unfortunatly, there's not much that can be done with just those. However, spend a little on some of ATW's other mark2s, and ideally the DBSOs to simplify operation, and you have a fleet of trains that can keep 150s off routes they shouldn't be on until 2015/16 when we'll hopefully get more 158s. After that, a rake or two of mark2s will help avoid leaving passengers behind on platforms during special events until 2017/18 when mark3s from disbanded IC125 sets can replace the mark2s on those duties.

 

[jones_bangor]

What exactly did Mr Bunker have in mind for the mark2s? What services would they have operated had he not been sacked?

jones_bangor
Mark2s have until 2020 before they have to be scrapped, that's a little longer than 5 years. Also, six of them wouldn't need a penny spent on them (capital-wise) as they are already operational and going spare in a few months time. Unfortunatly, there's not much that can be done with just those. However, spend a little on some of ATW's other mark2s, and ideally the DBSOs to simplify operation, and you have a fleet of trains that can keep 150s off routes they shouldn't be on until 2015/16 when we'll hopefully get more 158s. After that, a rake or two of mark2s will help avoid leaving passengers behind on platforms during special events until 2017/18 when mark3s from disbanded IC125 sets can replace the mark2s on those duties.

DBSOs - NO, NO, NO. Not fit for modern railways purely on the grounds of safety. Why spend a penny on decayed unsafe rubbish when Mark 3 DVTs are plentiful.

You obviously have not travelled on the ATW mark 2s recently, broken toilets, internal doors not working....

 

[IanXC]

Other posters are missing this crucial point in their LHCS is old hat stance. No one is ordering DMU's either.

The only future for LHCS is clearly as DVT + Loco combinations, which have the benefits of units in that there's no messing about with run-arounds etc. Clearly a lot of mark 3 stock will come available in a few years' time with IEP etc. The Chiltern "Evergreen" project clearly offers a new lease of life for the stock, but my guess is a lot of perfectly good mark 3s will be exported or scrapped.

I think the key reason why Chiltern are spending money on their Mark 3s, compared to why no DMUs are being ordered, is that were the Chiltern Mainline to be electrified it would be very easy to swap the 67s for 90s. The investment in the Mark 3s is not limited by diesel operation, they can easily be put to work in an electrified world!

 

[jones_bangor]

I think the key reason why Chiltern are spending money on their Mark 3s, compared to why no DMUs are being ordered, is that were the Chiltern Mainline to be electrified it would be very easy to swap the 67s for 90s. The investment in the Mark 3s is not limited by diesel operation, they can easily be put to work in an electrified world!

A good point. There are rows and rows of redundant Class 90s at Crewe.

 

[Rhydgaled]

DBSOs - NO, NO, NO. Not fit for modern railways purely on the grounds of safety. Why spend a penny on decayed unsafe rubbish when Mark 3 DVTs are plentiful.

You spend money on them so they are no longer unsafe. DVTs are a waste of weight when you don't need to go above 100mph. A DVT is better than having to top&tail with one loco being dead on rear or having to run the loco round, but a DBSO (provided they were made safe) would be better still for services that don't need the speed a DVT allows. Converting some mark3s to Driving Trailer Standard Open would therefore be useful when ATW's mark2s are replaced (assuming they are replaced by mark3s).

However you look at it, losing the mark2s without suitable replacments (used more regulary to supply capacity for events) would be very bad.

 

[merlodlliw]

What exactly did Mr Bunker have in mind for the mark2s? What services would they have operated had he not been sacked?


He told us(Wrexham meeting), bought to relieve overcrowding on routes.


Bob

 

[northernrailer]

Yesterday Sun 6th May the 1135 Cdf - Man and 1530 Man - Cdf was operated by 150255, 153303 & 153367 but was cancelled at Crewe on the return to Cardiff due to a class 175 unit hitting a cow at Craven Arms.

 

[jones_bangor]

You spend money on them so they are no longer unsafe. DVTs are a waste of weight when you don't need to go above 100mph. A DVT is better than having to top&tail with one loco being dead on rear or having to run the loco round, but a DBSO (provided they were made safe) would be better still for services that don't need the speed a DVT allows. Converting some mark3s to Driving Trailer Standard Open would therefore be useful when ATW's mark2s are replaced (assuming they are replaced by mark3s).

However you look at it, losing the mark2s without suitable replacments (used more regulary to supply capacity for events) would be very bad.

The mark 3 s are replacing the mark 2 s.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your fixation with putting passengers in a leading vehicle that is only built to be a intermediate coach. Imagine the carnage if a DBSO had hit the hay lorry on that level crossing in West Wales a few months ago.

 

[Rhydgaled]

What exactly did Mr Bunker have in mind for the mark2s? What services would they have operated had he not been sacked?

He told us(Wrexham meeting), bought to relieve overcrowding on routes.
Bob

Did he say which routes, and how he planned to avoid the run-round problems?

The mark 3s are replacing the mark 2s.

Are they? As far as I know, some are replacing the rakes used on north-south service, but there is no strategic reserve for special events and the only help to franchise services is the return of one 175. The mark2s come in to provide more relief to franchise services, particularly for special events. We need the mark2s unless/until we can have alot more mark3s than three rakes of four or five.

Yesterday Sun 6th May the 1135 Cdf - Man and 1530 Man - Cdf was operated by 150255, 153303 & 153367 but was cancelled at Crewe on the return to Cardiff due to a class 175 unit hitting a cow at Craven Arms.

I hope the 175 managed to shrug off that, otherwise ATW will be down three 175s. If it is out of action for a few days, doesn't this show how useful a strategic reserve of mark2s would be to ensure trains remain operated by suitable stock?

 

[Gareth Marston]

The mark 3 s are replacing the mark 2 s.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your fixation with putting passengers in a leading vehicle that is only built to be a intermediate coach. Imagine the carnage if a DBSO had hit the hay lorry on that level crossing in West Wales a few months ago.

Its much safer by road then is it? Any journey moved from rail to road is instantly more safer whether its heritage stock or not.

 

[sprinterguy]

The mark 3 s are replacing the mark 2 s.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your fixation with putting passengers in a leading vehicle that is only built to be a intermediate coach. Imagine the carnage if a DBSO had hit the hay lorry on that level crossing in West Wales a few months ago.

I think you're putting too much stead in one unfortunate accident for claiming how supposedly "unsafe" the DBSOs are. They ran back and forwards perfectly fine at up to 100mph on the Anglian main line for years and years, and generally had no issues on the Scottish region either outside of that major accident. Now that we have a principally DMU operated railway, the potential risks of having a passenger vehicle leading are not so clear cut: A mark 2 DBSO is only 4.5 tonnes lighter than a 158 vehicle, which isn't a particularly massive difference, and I don't feel like I'm taking my life in my hands every time I travel on a much lighter, less substantially constructed, Pacer either.

 

[SprinterMan]

I think you're putting too much stead in one unfortunate accident for claiming how supposedly "unsafe" the DBSOs are. They ran back and forwards perfectly fine at up to 100mph on the Anglian main line for years and years, and generally had no issues on the Scottish region either outside of that major accident. Now that we have a principally DMU operated railway, the potential risks of having a passenger vehicle leading are not so clear cut: A mark 2 DBSO is only 4.5 tonnes lighter than a 158 vehicle, which isn't a particularly massive difference, and I don't feel like I'm taking my life in my hands every time I travel on a much lighter, less substantially constructed, Pacer either.

Yeah, I don't really understand why DBSOs are so feared. The leading vehicle of most 1980s/1990s EMUs isn't powered (317/318/319/320/321/322/442) and all the driving vehicles of Slam-door stock is just a Mk.1 coach with a cab stuck on the end. Anglia never had a problem with them, and had the incident with the cow occurred years later with a 322 on a North Berwick-Glasgow Central service, I fear the results would have been equally ugly. While I agree DBSOs should not be used while DVTs lay idle, they should not be demonized like they are. I would rather be in one in a big crash than a 142, which when it was bit by the 87 at Winsford the body sheared off the chassis.

 

[merlodlliw]

Did he say which routes, and how he planned to avoid the run-round problems?

If I recall he said he had Cardiff to Manchester & Summer in North Wales in mind,when he bought the Mark 2s.

Anyhow some pics of 175s & loco haul to Llandudno last weekend in the link below,plus ATW 175s rescue 300 stranded at Llandudno

http://www.nwrail.org.uk/nwnews.htm


Bob

 

[Rhydgaled]

If I recall he said he had Cardiff to Manchester & Summer in North Wales in mind,when he bought the Mark 2s.

So, that would have been top&tail 37s then would it?

 

[merlodlliw]

So, that would have been top&tail 37s then would it?

No idea,presume he was thinking a copy of what FNW did between Manchester & Nth Wales etc. They used a 37 & four carriages.

 

[Rhydgaled]

No idea,presume he was thinking a copy of what FNW did between Manchester & Nth Wales etc. They used a 37 & four carriages.

But running round in Manchester on trains from Cardiff? I thought we had already established in this thread that it couldn't be done.

 

[merlodlliw]

But running round in Manchester on trains from Cardiff? I thought we had already established in this thread that it couldn't be done.

I presume when he bought them, they could run around, FNW 37s did.
Otherwise I don't know.


Bob

 

[TDK]

I think the key reason why Chiltern are spending money on their Mark 3s, compared to why no DMUs are being ordered, is that were the Chiltern Mainline to be electrified it would be very easy to swap the 67s for 90s. The investment in the Mark 3s is not limited by diesel operation, they can easily be put to work in an electrified world!

The reason why Chiltern are spending money on Mk3's is nothing to do with the possible future of electrification its cost! They own the mk3's and do not need to pay rosco charges and the Mk's 3's are a hell of a lot cheaper than a DMU by cost and maintenance by the time the Chilterns get electrified (if they do at all) the Mk3's will be redundant. Why electrify the Chilterns anyway with HS2 and the WCML serving London to Brum, it would just be a complete waste of money

 

[IanXC]

The reason why Chiltern are spending money on Mk3's is nothing to do with the possible future of electrification its cost! They own the mk3's and do not need to pay rosco charges and the Mk's 3's are a hell of a lot cheaper than a DMU by cost and maintenance by the time the Chilterns get electrified (if they do at all) the Mk3's will be redundant. Why electrify the Chilterns anyway with HS2 and the WCML serving London to Brum, it would just be a complete waste of money

Point taken! I'd forgotten about the lack of leasing costs payable on the Mark 3s. To some extent the point remains, even if diesel traction becomes uneconomic the investment in the Mark 3s is not necessarily lost with a move to electric traction.

However I will be very surprised, if at some point in the future, we do not see Chiltern power door Mark 3s operating with Class 90s. Depending on the franchising situation I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if electrification is on the agenda when the Chiltern franchise is re let in 2022.

Another (exceedingly off topic) thought; perhaps DB will use the experience to make a bid on the next Greater Anglia franchise. Hmm.

 

[SIGGY56]

Did he say which routes, and how he planned to avoid the run-round problems?

If I recall he said he had Cardiff to Manchester & Summer in North Wales in mind,when he bought the Mark 2s.

Anyhow some pics of 175s & loco haul to Llandudno last weekend in the link below,plus ATW 175s rescue 300 stranded at Llandudno

http://www.nwrail.org.uk/nwnews.htm


Bob

The reason for rescuing 300 stranded passengers at Llandudno was due to operating problems at Llandudno Junction where the stock for the steam special was stabled (Tamper Siding). The points worked from the ground frame had failed and had to be barred over to enable the 2 x steam engines to attach the stock. With all this in mind there wasn't enough time to run the stock and the steam engine top and tail to Llandudno so they decided to start the return steam special from Llandudno Junction instead of Llandudno.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Point taken! I'd forgotten about the lack of leasing costs payable on the Mark 3s.

I don't think Chiltern own their mark3s though, the DB parent company (or one of its other subsidurarys) do I believe. They'll be paying leasing costs to another part of DB for the mark3s I would suspect.

The only reasons I can think of for not electrifying the Chiltern line are the number of higher priority routes (just about everything that uses Intercity 125s and/or Voyagers) and the fact that alot of Chiltern's stock is too wide-bodied (for its 23m length) to be of use in many other places.

 

[merlodlliw]

The reason for rescuing 300 stranded passengers at Llandudno was due to operating problems at Llandudno Junction where the stock for the steam special was stabled (Tamper Siding). The points worked from the ground frame had failed and had to be barred over to enable the 2 x steam engines to attach the stock. With all this in mind there wasn't enough time to run the stock and the steam engine top and tail to Llandudno so they decided to start the return steam special from Llandudno Junction instead of Llandudno.

Thanks for the full version & reasons for the rescue. Pleased to read it was Arriva Train and not Arriva bus to the rescue.

Bob

 

[TDK]

Point taken! I'd forgotten about the lack of leasing costs payable on the Mark 3s. To some extent the point remains, even if diesel traction becomes uneconomic the investment in the Mark 3s is not necessarily lost with a move to electric traction.

However I will be very surprised, if at some point in the future, we do not see Chiltern power door Mark 3s operating with Class 90s. Depending on the franchising situation I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if electrification is on the agenda when the Chiltern franchise is re let in 2022.

Another (exceedingly off topic) thought; perhaps DB will use the experience to make a bid on the next Greater Anglia franchise. Hmm.

The Chiltern Mk3's are not compatible with Class 90's only class 67's that is why they took a while to refurbish them, I believe Class 90's use TDM where as the Chiltern ones use the direct jumper cable from the 67 for the control circuits. I may be mistaken but you will most likely find that they are not compatible.

 

[IanXC]

The only reasons I can think of for not electrifying the Chiltern line are the number of higher priority routes (just about everything that uses Intercity 125s and/or Voyagers) and the fact that alot of Chiltern's stock is too wide-bodied (for its 23m length) to be of use in many other places.

To me its an add on to the Snow Hill lines electrification which is in the Electrification RUS, showing a reasonable cost:benefit.

In addition it would very nearly allow Manchester-Reading XCs to go eletric.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Chiltern Mk3's are not compatible with Class 90's only class 67's that is why they took a while to refurbish them, I believe Class 90's use TDM where as the Chiltern ones use the direct jumper cable from the 67 for the control circuits. I may be mistaken but you will most likely find that they are not compatible.

Ah this I did not know, I thought the TDM would still be in place.

Anyway I think that's quite enough of that off topic diversion! Sorry folks!

 

[merlodlliw]

might as well post here as well, got my first look at the new style PRINTED ATW timetable booklet, all editions avail at Wrexham except number 4 Manchester to Nth Wales.

In edition 1, there is a great improvement, Cambrian & Salop/Chester lines are at last separate, making it much easier to read. ATW have at last listened.

Pity all North Wales lines are not in one booklet,IE Wrexham Chester edition 1,Wrexham Bidston edition 4,this is not helpful.

Overall yes a great improvement, but a few wont like the fonts


Bob

 

[PHILIPE]

Observed ATW Units rather out of place today. 11.21 Cardiff to Holyhead left Right Time turned back off the inward from Holyhead. 10 40 Ebbw Vale to Cardiff 142 + 153 but later in the Diagram was a 158 (15 35 Cardiff to Ebbw Vale). Saw 2 Maesteg to Cheltenham diagrams being worked by 175s, the 15 18 ex Cardiff to Maesteg being a waste of a carriage, i.e. 3 Coach Set.

 

[Michael.Y]

Observed ATW Units rather out of place today. 11.21 Cardiff to Holyhead left Right Time turned back off the inward from Holyhead. 10 40 Ebbw Vale to Cardiff 142 + 153 but later in the Diagram was a 158 (15 35 Cardiff to Ebbw Vale). Saw 2 Maesteg to Cheltenham diagrams being worked by 175s, the 15 18 ex Cardiff to Maesteg being a waste of a carriage, i.e. 3 Coach Set.

Perhaps tomorrow's engineering works are to blame -- stock staying put up North and being shuffled around down south so as to not cock up anything either side of the NWP-SHR blockade coming into effect in 90 minutes. I caught the CDF-Cheltenham train last Saturday coming back from Cardiff and it was a 3-car 175. Filthy with litter I might add - I expect it had worked the Fishguard Flyer.

 

[PHILIPE]

Perhaps tomorrow's engineering works are to blame -- stock staying put up North and being shuffled around down south so as to not cock up anything either side of the NWP-SHR blockade coming into effect in 90 minutes. I caught the CDF-Cheltenham train last Saturday coming back from Cardiff and it was a 3-car 175. Filthy with litter I might add - I expect it had worked the Fishguard Flyer.

That's precisely what I thought afterwards. The same number of 175s finishing south of the occupation Saturday night would have to be the same number required for start of work Monday.

 

[Michael.Y]

That's precisely what I thought afterwards. The same number of 175s finishing south of the occupation Saturday night would have to be the same number required for start of work Monday.

And indeed all day Sunday running down to Carmarthen, Milford etc.