CT 170 on Cambrian Line?

[PHILIPE]

If 158s didm.t get involved with Ebbw Vale, they wouldn.t come to South Wales at all. All part of a bigger picture.

 

[Gareth Marston]

If 158s didm.t get involved with Ebbw Vale, they wouldn.t come to South Wales at all. All part of a bigger picture.

There too good for shwni's anyway!

 

[Swr28]

CT introduced them in summer 2000 on Cambrian Mainline did not go up coast, 2 trains had them 1 key morning departure was 3 car and and a 2 car came down in day and back as well before the 3 car ran down in evening ready for next day. Would have to go tt digging to tell you exact times.

Of course things went backwards when the Wales and Border franchise was created.

I was fortunate to have a ride on 170 639 from Machynlleth to Barmouth on what was then the 10:55 local service they ran it due to the unavailable 153.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I was fortunate to have a ride on 170 639 from Machynlleth to Barmouth on what was then the 10:55 local service they ran it due to the unavailable 153.

did anyone get a picture of it on Barmouth Bridge?

 

[anthony263]

Are there any photos showing the class 170's on the Cambrian line. I remember seeing a photo on fotopic about 5 years ago

 

[Rhydgaled]

If 158s didm.t get involved with Ebbw Vale, they wouldn.t come to South Wales at all. All part of a bigger picture.

Re. anthony and Gareth too:

While it is annoying to have three 158s (I think) working stoppers to Maesteg and Ebbw Vale, south Wales does need them. I've just been on a short break / railway explore. As I've said many times before, the class 150 is woefully inappropriate for the Fishguard boat train, and this evening I had one on the 16:04 off Cardiff back to Fishguard too. All I can say is: "my poor knees".

Actually, perhaps there is something else I can say, the bus I only just managed to catch after getting off the train at FGW had more legroom (and it was the Fishguard Town Service bus, not one of the superb Optare Tempos YJ55BKE and YJ55BKF).

The 158s probably have to go to Canton occasionally for heavier maintainance they can't do at Machynlleth also don't they?

158s for the Cambrian hourly service should come from cutting the Holyhead - Birmingham in half at Chester and using 175s (released by using LHCS on one or two Manchester diagrams, which is probably the only way to boost the fleet size) on the Holyhead - Chester section (ideally extended to Crewe to make up, at least in part, for north Wales losing the indirect through trains to Birmingnham). Alternativly, if you can get some non-ERTMS 158s from other operators and don't have to cycle the ERTMS units through Canton you could use these on Holyhead - Chester and/or the south Wales workings to release the ERTMS 158s for Cambrian work.

 

[Swr28]

I cannot say i have seen any photos of it, and at the time i never did take photos..

 

[anthony263]

Re. anthony and Gareth too:

While it is annoying to have three 158s (I think) working stoppers to Maesteg and Ebbw Vale, south Wales does need them. I've just been on a short break / railway explore. As I've said many times before, the class 150 is woefully inappropriate for the Fishguard boat train, and this evening I had one on the 16:04 off Cardiff back to Fishguard too. All I can say is: "my poor knees".

Actually, perhaps there is something else I can say, the bus I only just managed to catch after getting off the train at FGW had more legroom (and it was the Fishguard Town Service bus, not one of the superb Optare Tempos YJ55BKE and YJ55BKF).

The 158s probably have to go to Canton occasionally for heavier maintainance they can't do at Machynlleth also don't they?

158s for the Cambrian hourly service should come from cutting the Holyhead - Birmingham in half at Chester and using 175s (released by using LHCS on one or two Manchester diagrams, which is probably the only way to boost the fleet size) on the Holyhead - Chester section (ideally extended to Crewe to make up, at least in part, for north Wales losing the indirect through trains to Birmingnham). Alternativly, if you can get some non-ERTMS 158s from other operators and don't have to cycle the ERTMS units through Canton you could use these on Holyhead - Chester and/or the south Wales workings to release the ERTMS 158s for Cambrian work.

Having done the 16:04 when it has been worked by a class 150 I would agree with you about Legroom. The former Scotrail & Wessex class 150's are the worst for legroom while those which came Valley Lines & Wales & West have some pretty good legroom just depends on what seets you get.

ATW do have some issues at the moment with 158823 being out of action thanks to the cab being damaged. If it is likely to be out of action for a while perhaps they could reform 1 set into a 3 carriage unit like FGW have done.

You have all the work being done on the Cardiff Valley lines network sadly however I doubt there is any stock available at the moment for additional services and if there was the stock would be better used to provide extra capacity on existing services where needed.

I think Machynlleth is now where the class 158's do get their major work done rather than canton. I can see more heavy work done to the dmu's being transfered to Llandore once electrifcation of the Cardiff Valleys is completed as there will be far less dmu's stabling at Canton on weekends & overnight.
We will sadly have to whait until 2016 before we start to see additional dmu's becoming available and some will become available one the wires reach Swansea, Maesteg and Ebbw Vale.

 

[PHILIPE]

Loco-Hauled trains are confined to history as I keep on repeating, however much people might suggest using them. They are used only in exceptional circumstances and for a very good reason, i.e. DFT making up for their own mistakes or outside sponsorship as in the case of Gerallt.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Loco-Hauled trains are confined to history as I keep on repeating, however much people might suggest using them. They are used only in exceptional circumstances and for a very good reason, i.e. DFT making up for their own mistakes or outside sponsorship as in the case of Gerallt.

Don't you consider class 150s on journeys of two and a half hours to two and three quarter hours to be a mistake? Or 2-car units on Manchester - Swansea workings? Ok, maybe they aren't DfT mistakes, but they are not right.

And what about the proposed Cumbrian coast extras DRS are refurbishing mrk2s for? And FirstGW going out for tender for hire of LHCS for Cardiff - Taunton workings? Are those examples that DfT making up for their mistakes, outside sponsorship or something else? And aren't the 25 new locos DRS have ordered mixed-traffic locos rather than specifically designed for freight?

As I see it, there are no spare DMUs to allow the cascade of the two 158s required to boost the Cambrian service to hourly (or any of umpteen different places where additional diesel rolling stock is required to enhance frequencies and/or relieve crowding) but no case for building new DMUs since electrification extentions are likely to render them obsolete before they are life-expired (not that that seems to stop the DfT). Hence the choice for diesel-worked lines seems to be LHCS or nothing.

 

[merlodlliw]

Loco-Hauled trains are confined to history as I keep on repeating, however much people might suggest using them. They are used only in exceptional circumstances and for a very good reason, i.e. DFT making up for their own mistakes or outside sponsorship as in the case of Gerallt.

What about Chiltern, modern history there.

 

[Gareth Marston]

What about Chiltern, modern history there.

ATW have quoted WG options running into £ millions to run Cambrian hourly and other derivatives including extra Newtown to Shrewsbury trains. If the WG decide to fund ATW will have to be inventive but the prospect of extra money for them will override any concerns about lack of rolling stock. they will not turn around and say theres no stock if money is dangled in front of them.

 

[jimm]

What about Chiltern, modern history there.

What about Chiltern? There was no chance of them finding someone to finance a substantial new order of dmus for Oxford services but there was overhauled Mk3 stock and locos owned by Chiltern's parent company available after the demise of Wrexham & Shropshire.

If they could have got money to pay for new-build dmus, I'm sure that's what Chiltern would have opted for without hesitation, given their series of incremental orders for more 168s. In the absence of that money, then you go with what's available and it should, given the Mk3 power-door and life-extension programme, see Chiltern through until electrification in the 2020s.

Don't you consider class 150s on journeys of two and a half hours to two and three quarter hours to be a mistake? Or 2-car units on Manchester - Swansea workings? Ok, maybe they aren't DfT mistakes, but they are not right.

And what about the proposed Cumbrian coast extras DRS are refurbishing mrk2s for?

The 150s may not be ideal but if that's all there is available then that's how it is - unless, of course, you just don't operate the service and most passengers would rather have a train than no train.

Operators aren't stupid. Does ATW diagram 2-car 175s on Manchester-Swanseas at the busiest times of the day? Not if it can help it. Similarly FGW tries to keep the 3+2 seat 150s it inherited from LM off longer-distance jobs.

The DRS trains for the Cumbrian coast are a private initiative, on behalf of the operators of the Sellafield nuclear plant, nothing to do with DfT or Northern.

 

[Rhydgaled]

What about Chiltern? There was no chance of them finding someone to finance a substantial new order of dmus for Oxford services but there was overhauled Mk3 stock and locos owned by Chiltern's parent company available after the demise of Wrexham & Shropshire.

If they could have got money to pay for new-build dmus, I'm sure that's what Chiltern would have opted for without hesitation, given their series of incremental orders for more 168s. In the absence of that money, then you go with what's available

Exactly, you go with what is available, which brings me to:

ATW have quoted WG options running into £ millions to run Cambrian hourly and other derivatives including extra Newtown to Shrewsbury trains. If the WG decide to fund ATW will have to be inventive but the prospect of extra money for them will override any concerns about lack of rolling stock. they will not turn around and say theres no stock if money is dangled in front of them.

So, if the money is dangled in front of ATW what will they do? Will they go get some suitable stock that is available (LHCS) for north Wales services to release 175s to release 158s from Chester - Holyhead?

The 150s may not be ideal but if that's all there is available then that's how it is - unless, of course, you just don't operate the service and most passengers would rather have a train than no train.

But the 150s would be less unsuitable on the Maesteg and Ebbw Vale lines than they are on the Fishguard - Cardiff services, and there are 158s on Maesteg and Ebbw Vale. Swap the 158s off the Maesteg and Ebbw Vale diagrams onto the Fishguard diagrams.

If a 158 doesn't happen to be available one day and they are forced to swap a 150 on to cover the service that is one thing, having the Fishguard - Cardiff trains permenantly booked for a 150 when there are 158s booked on routes that don't need 158s is quite another.

 

[PHILIPE]

If you had actual experience of Diagramming you would understand how difficult it can be at times to Diagram everything that might be preferred. It is a very complex process and, although a 158 might be preferable on the Fishguard it would not be for lack of trying. It is easy to say a 158 should be on it rather than on Maestegs or Ebbw Vales,, but diagramming it is not that easy as Units have to be balanced to finish whereever at the end of the day. One way would be to terminate the 09 15 Maesteg to Cheltenham at Cardiff so would you be happy with that.
I have already explained on a previous occasion how the 3x158s are deployed and explained the difficulty in the provision for Fishguard Boat. The 16 04 ex Cardiff is booked a 158 so if there is not one available, which can be for a number of reasons, on any day or days the train is not cancelled but a 150 provided.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Thanks PHILIPE for confirming that the 16:04 ex Cardiff is still booked for a 158, that's a relief.

As for the boat train, they managed to diagram a 158 on weekdays one summer (2012 I think). Did anything else change which meant that could not continue?

 

[merlodlliw]

ATW have quoted WG options running into £ millions to run Cambrian hourly and other derivatives including extra Newtown to Shrewsbury trains. If the WG decide to fund ATW will have to be inventive but the prospect of extra money for them will override any concerns about lack of rolling stock. they will not turn around and say theres no stock if money is dangled in front of them.

I recall a senior ATW Manager telling us at a SCRUA open meeting some years ago at Wrexham,"We are ready to commence extra services on the Cambrian,providing WG confirm funding them"

Not sure about Chiltern just using the W/S loco haul sets because they were there, the experience of W/S in using 67s/DVT was was seen by Chiltern as attracting extra business class customers.
IWJ the then WAG Minister modeled Gerald on W/S stock, but rushed in too quickly with the wrong class 57, I recall Andy Hamilton ceo of W/S saying "I would not touch class 57 with a barge pole" plus in my opinion IWJ did no market research on demand for a premier dining service between Holyhead & Cardiff,now reduced to a First class dining service between Rhyl & Cardiff.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I recall a senior ATW Manager telling us at a SCRUA open meeting some years ago at Wrexham,"We are ready to commence extra services on the Cambrian,providing WG confirm funding them"

Not sure about Chiltern just using the W/S loco haul sets because they were there, the experience of W/S in using 67s/DVT was was seen by Chiltern as attracting extra business class customers.
IWJ the then WAG Minister modeled Gerald on W/S stock, but rushed in too quickly with the wrong class 57, I recall Andy Hamilton ceo of W/S saying "I would not touch class 57 with a barge pole" plus in my opinion IWJ did no market research on demand for a premier dining service between Holyhead & Cardiff,now reduced to a First class dining service between Rhyl & Cardiff.

ATW have been very consistent saying they have costed this option and that option for WG one Manager said that they were fed up costing things for WG.

 

[The Planner]

Not sure about Chiltern just using the W/S loco haul sets because they were there, the experience of W/S in using 67s/DVT was was seen by Chiltern as attracting extra business class customers.

So if there wasn't a use for them Chiltern would have dumped them? sorry, but you're not naive enough to believe that.

 

[PHILIPE]

Thanks PHILIPE for confirming that the 16:04 ex Cardiff is still booked for a 158, that's a relief.

As for the boat train, they managed to diagram a 158 on weekdays one summer (2012 I think). Did anything else change which meant that could not continue?

There was a Temporary Additional 150 covering for a long absent 175002 (I think) following level crossing collision and this covered for a 158 to work vice the 175. This allowed a little flexibility but a 150 was covering the 16 04 ex Cardiff so more by luck than judgement.

 

[Rhydgaled]

There was a Temporary Additional 150 covering for a long absent 175002 (I think) following level crossing collision and this covered for a 158 to work vice the 175. This allowed a little flexibility but a 150 was covering the 16 04 ex Cardiff so more by luck than judgement.

Didn't the boat train actually run 150 vice 158 for most of the summer because 175002 was absent, with the 158 only being available once 175002 returned?

 

[PHILIPE]

When the 158s were back to 3 South Wales they had to be diagrammed to incorporate the extra one to get it on the 20 17 Carddiff to Manchester on the third day to work it away thus one going on to the 14 35 ex Gloucester to Fishguard. I can't go into every individual train and it's Diagram to explain any better than this. With all due respect, I don't want to be nasty, but surely it's time to change the record on the 158 on the Fishguard Boats as it seems to keep on arising from time to time.

 

[Rhydgaled]

surely it's time to change the record on the 158 on the Fishguard Boats as it seems to keep on arising from time to time.

Yes, I do keep mentioning it. That's because it is one of my pet hates, it really just seems WRONG to have a 150 on it. I'm sorry if you are fed up with me mentioning it but the presence of a 150 on that service really does annoy me, so it is always my favoriate example of inappropriate rolling stock.

 

[PHILIPE]

Yes. You've made your point. I agree a 158 might be more attractive, but the journey time is little over 2 hours and little different from Maesteg to Cheltenham.

 

[merlodlliw]

So if there wasn't a use for them Chiltern would have dumped them? sorry, but you're not naive enough to believe that.

No I am not naive, I recall the statements from Chiltern about using the stock,after DB axed W/S. All water under the bridge at watery road now.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Yes. You've made your point. I agree a 158 might be more attractive, but the journey time is little over 2 hours and little different from Maesteg to Cheltenham.

You are right, as far as time is concerned, but passengers from Fishguard will be much more likely to be carrying items of luggage and might well be still suffering from the crossing. Something better than a 150 should be expected.

 

[Rhydgaled]

You are right, as far as time is concerned, but passengers from Fishguard will be much more likely to be carrying items of luggage and might well be still suffering from the crossing. Something better than a 150 should be expected.

And the Maesteg - Cardiff section is an all-stations valley lines service, if that was decoupled from Cardiff - Cheltenham Maesteg - Cardiff would be a much better fit for a class 150. I think Cardiff - Cheltenham, the boat train and 16:04 Cardiff - Fishguard (and the unit's return on 07:09 from Pembroke Dock in the morning) could then by worked by a single 150 (on Cheltenham - Cardiff only) plus the 3 158s. The question is whether that leaves enough 150s to cover Maesteg - Cardiff and Cardiff - Ebbw Vale.

 

[PHILIPE]

The Maesteg service is not part of the Valleys Network any more and for movement purposes continues on to Cheltenham. I am fed up of explaining how the Diagrams work which prevent a 158 on the Fishguard Boats. I am fed up with this moaning from a certain poster, who no doubt has no diagramming experience, re a 158 on this service and I don't think there's any point in flogging it any more. The point has been made and I'm not going to post anything more on the subject, to assist or otherwise. Even after explaining, this does not seem to be accepted.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

The Maesteg service is not part of the Valleys Network any more and for movement purposes continues on to Cheltenham.

Well no it isn't but yes it is as far as the passengers are concerned. It comes under the Valley Lines Zonal Fare Structure and is included in the Valley Senior Railcard scheme. It also connects, mostly, with the Vale of Glamorgan Line service which is also included in the Valley Lines as does the Ebbw Vale service, which operates, for the most part, as a stand alone service although it does have one through service from Maesteg to Ebbw Vale.

 

[anthony263]

There is also the 08:07 Bridgend - Cardiff - Ebbw Vale and 15:40 Ebbw Vale - Cardiff - Bridgend service.

Maesteg used to be part of the Valley lines network when services ran through to Coryton before teh timetables were re-cast and services from Maesteg were switched to run through to Cheltenham