Wales & Borders Franchise Consultation

[northwichcat]

I've been able to still do revenue on a Class 150 with over 200 people on it. On a 2 car 175 with that many people on and with an extra 6 metres of train to fit people on you still can't even open the cab door.

One common problem with passengers is many have the view that if there's apparently no seats then they're best off staying near the external doors. On a train with end doors (whether it's a Pacer, a 158 or a 175) that means a lot of people standing near the cab doors.

 

[northwichcat]

Another thought, this time for the Crewe-Shrewsbury shuttle, is there potential to extend this to Chester via Middlewich and Northwich? If Middlewich Station is reopened and the line speed increased, it could create some useful connections between towns in West and South Cheshire and North Shropshire. Direct hourly or bi-hourly trains between Whitchurch, Wrenbury, Nantwich, Crewe, Sandbach, Middlewich, Northwich and Chester.

That would require a reversal at Northwich and would not be as useful as a train going northeast bound after Northwich. It would probably be easier to make a sound business case for 3tph between Northwich and Altrincham than 2tph between Northwich and Chester. Off-peak services between Northwich and Chester aren't all that busy on weekdays in school term time.

 

[HH]

One common problem with passengers is many have the view that if there's apparently no seats then they're best off staying near the external doors. On a train with end doors (whether it's a Pacer, a 158 or a 175) that means a lot of people standing near the cab doors.

And this is why trains with a "metro" layout have become very popular with DfT (and TfL).

 

[Gareth Marston]

And this is why trains with a "metro" layout have become very popular with DfT (and TfL).

Has Daft realised that if you add extra carriages that overcomes the problem as well!:roll:

 

[HH]

Has Daft realised that if you add extra carriages that overcomes the problem as well!:roll:

Yes, but you also add extra cost, especially if platforms need to be lengthened etc. (and there can be quite a few etceteras).

 

[Gareth Marston]

Yes, but you also add extra cost, especially if platforms need to be lengthened etc. (and there can be quite a few etceteras).

2 car 158's and 2 or 3 car 175's fit very comfortably into the platforms they use on Wales and Borders routes.

 

[HH]

2 car 158's and 2 or 3 car 175's fit very comfortably into the platforms they use on Wales and Borders routes.

Agreed, that will work. Providing they can be de-coupled easily so they don't haul around too much fresh air when less busy.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The problem that way is Wolverhampton-Birmingham.

There's more than one way to get from Stafford to Birmingham New Street; I think at least four (though some are only slightly different). Are there paths available on any of them or is the problem New Street station itself?

Ideally I'd like to see a half hourly service between Bangor and Chester; one carrying onto Crewe, the other to Manchester. If there is space to start both from Holyhead, amongst the proposed bi-hourly Anglesey stopper, and the Virgins, then even better. To compromise a bit whilst still pleasing the politicians, perhaps the Crewe service could then carry on to Cardiff via Shrewsbury?

I would leave 1tph terminating at Bangor, allowing it to be extended to Caernarfon, rather than extending everything through to Holyhead. The London services are awkward, as I don't know whether it would be better to make them part of the hourly fast service between Holyhead and Chester or additional. I take it from your post that you think Llandudno trains should go to Liverpool rather than Birmingham/Crewe or Manchester. That is another question, you have three destinations both sides of Chester, Holyhead/Bangor/Llandudno to the west and Manchester/Liverpool/Crewe to the east, and a basic pattern of 3 trains per hour from Llandudno Junction to Chester, but which pairs do you link? Should the Holyheads go to Manchester, Liverpool or Crewe? Ditto for Llandudno and Bangor/Caernarfon.

Or; is there enough demand for 4tph to Llandudno Junction, two for Llandudno (one semi-fast, one slow) and one each for Holyhead (fast) and Caernarfon (semi-fast), plus the Holyhead-Llandudno stopper every 2 hours?

2 hourly Euston-Holyhead fast
2 hourly Birmingham-Holyhead fast via Stafford (in the alternate hour with the above on the same clockface timings west of Chester, may not be possible to be the same west of Crewe due to Euston-Chester short workings)

Given the awkwardness of having the VT service, the possible lack of paths into Birmingham New Street and the coming of HS2 I have been wondering whether the most sensible thing is to make the London-Chester/Holyhead service an exension of existing Euston-Wolverhampton trains. It would be slower to London, but faster to Birmingham and an hourly through service to both from north Wales. Hell, if they did HS2 properly (with Birmingham being a through station) you might even be able to justfiy running the 200m HS2 trains into north Wales, since it would have both Birmingham and London passengers on it.

Give them all S- or IC-numbers and make it all look like the Swiss local service concept.

Birmingham-Chester via Shrewsbury would start/terminate at Chester not run onto the Coast.

And don't waste money on connecting Cardiff and the Coast for pure political reasons other than maybe one daily direct train pair. That does not reflect actual travel demand.

Don't know what you mean by S- and IC- numbers, and I maintain that the Holyhead-Cardiff service should be three trains each way (no more, no less). That's because, if you only kept Gerald, there is no through train for passengers wanting to go south in the afternoon/evening, and vice-versa.

It seems a bit pointless running Holyhead-Birmingham trains via Stafford and Crewe - there is already a good fast Birmingham-Crewe service (LM & VTWC) with plenty of capacity, and using electric trains.

Why have diesel trains funded by the Welsh government running under the wires in England? It's already usually quicker to change given the slow Wrexham routing of the direct trains, and it's not at all inconvenient.

They going via Wrexham is indirect, not direct, that's why it is slow and one of a few reasons why (in my view) it makes no sense for the Wrexham trains to run through to Holyhead rather than terminating at Chester. Another of the reasons is that, having got rid of most through trains between Holyhead and Wrexham, you might have a case for electrification of the north Wales coast line and hence being able to run electric trains from Holyhead to Birmingham, using the faster route.

Another thought, this time for the Crewe-Shrewsbury shuttle, is there potential to extend this to Chester via Middlewich and Northwich? If Middlewich Station is reopened and the line speed increased, it could create some useful connections between towns in West and South Cheshire and North Shropshire. Direct hourly or bi-hourly trains between Whitchurch, Wrenbury, Nantwich, Crewe, Sandbach, Middlewich, Northwich and Chester.

Interesting idea. Personally, I think the intermediate stations between Crewe and Shrewsbury should be the responsiblity of an English TOC, perhaps as an extension of the LM Shrewsbury-Birmingham service, allowing the Manchesters to be speeded up. The only problem is the second train per hour (northbound) on the Cardiff-Chester axis would have to go via Crewe since it would conflict with the WRX-Birmingham service.

That would require a reversal at Northwich and would not be as useful as a train going northeast bound after Northwich. It would probably be easier to make a sound business case for 3tph between Northwich and Altrincham than 2tph between Northwich and Chester. Off-peak services between Northwich and Chester aren't all that busy on weekdays in school term time.

Even better; if you can run through to Manchester via Northwich and Altrincham it would maintain a through service to Manchester (although much slower) from Whitchurch and Nantwich. Probably couldn't path it though I suppose.

If I could have more intermediate 175 cars so all 2 car services could go to 3 cars and all 3 could go to 4 I'd be very happy but that's not going to happen.

Never say never. If the 175s are to stay with W&B and my earlier suggestion of using the 2-car examples on the HOWL and Conwy valley is unpallatable then the 2-car units are going to be a bit of a capacity issue, so I wonder whether drastric 458/5-style measures might be a possibility, converting half the driving vehicles to intermediates to make 4-car sets.

There's a difference between fast and having good acceleration/deceleration, which is the problem with 185s.

185s have excellent acceleration, far superior to anything in the ATW fleet at present. It's just that they're also extremely thirsty, so they rarely get to show off that feature.

So which is it, can they accelerate quickly or not? If they do, then they should be great outer-suburban units; let's have a few on the Cardiff-Cheltenham service at least (unless a bi-mode alternative is possible, running Swansea-Cheltenham all stops).

The only real differences between the 175s and 195s will be the door arrangement and the latter having more modern facilities e.g. having USB charging points and electronic seat reservation displays.

The door layout is the issue here. I'm not sure you could get the 175's combination of good legroom and not-dreadful window alignment on a unit with suburban door layout without reducing the number of seats. Additionally, since the 195's suburban door layout will lead to shorter dwell times than a 175, it would make more sense for the 175s to make fewer stops. The 195 isn't really a regional-express (read: long-distance) design; the 175 is.

 

[HH]

So which is it, can they accelerate quickly or not? If they do, then they should be great outer-suburban units; let's have a few on the Cardiff-Cheltenham service at least (unless a bi-mode alternative is possible, running Swansea-Cheltenham all stops).

Depends what you're comparing to. All I can tell you is that it is generally accepted in the industry they are not ideal for running anything slower than semi-fast services.

And the fleet is way to small to split up, so it's all or nothing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't know what you mean by S- and IC- numbers

I mean to structure it like this with route numbers and consistent clockface calling patterns.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Agreed, that will work. Providing they can be de-coupled easily so they don't haul around too much fresh air when less busy.

aTw's 158 fleet do it all day long at Machynlleth and Shrewsbury and once a day at Chester. Not sure what the crack is with 175 uncoupling and decoupling is.

If the ATW 158 fleet is concentrated on the ex CT routes then you can have a mix of 2 and 3 car sets. Hourly Chester to BHM InTL that joins at Shrewsbury alternately with a 2 hourly Pwllheli to BHM InTL and a 2 hourly Aberystwyth to BHM INTL. with a shuttle between Aberystwyth and Dovey Junction connecting with the Pwllheli trains so is "hourly" to Aberystwyth.

Minimum of 3 car to Chester, 5 off peak between Shrewsbury and Birmingham and 6 car peaks. Cambrian can vary between 2 and 3 car turns.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given the awkwardness of having the VT service, the possible lack of paths into Birmingham New Street and the coming of HS2 I have been wondering whether the most sensible thing is to make the London-Chester/Holyhead service an exension of existing Euston-Wolverhampton trains.

There is no Euston-Wolves service. It's been integrated into the Brum-Scotland service to overall very positive effect, and so I would oppose any pre-HS2 plan to split it again.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I mean to structure it like this with route numbers and consistent clockface calling patterns.

stakeholders will have to give up on wanting a through train from everywhere to the North Wales Coast.

 

[miami]

Even better; if you can run through to Manchester via Northwich and Altrincham it would maintain a through service to Manchester (although much slower) from Whitchurch and Nantwich. Probably couldn't path it though I suppose.

Is the direct Whichurch/Nantwich 13tpd service being cut back to Crewe then? And Wilmslow dropping to just 1 fast train per hour to Manchester (the VT one)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

stakeholders will have to give up on wanting a through train from everywhere to the North Wales Coast.

3.5tph at 4 destinations (Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, 1/2 London) seems quite viable to me.

 

[northwichcat]

The door layout is the issue here. I'm not sure you could get the 175's combination of good legroom and not-dreadful window alignment on a unit with suburban door layout without reducing the number of seats. Additionally, since the 195's suburban door layout will lead to shorter dwell times than a 175, it would make more sense for the 175s to make fewer stops. The 195 isn't really a regional-express (read: long-distance) design; the 175 is.

The rolling stock should be suitable for the service, rather than changing a calling pattern to make the service more suitable for the rolling stock used.

Maybe W&B should swap the 175s for the XC 170s? The 170s are compatible with 158s but I don't think they're compatible with Voyagers so it would increase flexibility for W&B without decreasing flexibility for XC.

 

[Philip]

Is the direct Whichurch/Nantwich 13tpd service being cut back to Crewe then? And Wilmslow dropping to just 1 fast train per hour to Manchester (the VT one)?

We were talking about the 2-hourly shuttle service which calls at all stations. Make it hourly and extend it to the Mid-Cheshire line, calling at Sandbach and Middlewich en route. It would provide good connections between towns in South Cheshire and North Shropshire.

 

[Gareth Marston]

3.5tph at 4 destinations (Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, 1/2 London) seems quite viable to me.

Where demand is however the biggest stakeholder wants an hourly service to Cardiff.......

 

[craigybagel]

We were talking about the 2-hourly shuttle service which calls at all stations. Make it hourly and extend it to the Mid-Cheshire line, calling at Sandbach and Middlewich en route. It would provide good connections between towns in South Cheshire and North Shropshire.

As pointed out above though it's almost certainly not going to happen, for the simple reason that trying to path another service per hour each way across the tracks at Crewe would be nigh on impossible. There also really isn't much call for an hourly local service, unless you remove the nantwich whitchurch and Wem calls from the Manchester services that stop there. Whilst that idea is not entity without merit, and those stops are only a relatively recent invention, I suspect there would be uproar if you did!

 

[miami]

We were talking about the 2-hourly shuttle service which calls at all stations. Make it hourly and extend it to the Mid-Cheshire line, calling at Sandbach and Middlewich en route. It would provide good connections between towns in South Cheshire and North Shropshire.

I suspect the demand for that would be pretty much zero. Better to send to Chester or better Liverpool. Fundamentally it would be another crossing of the WCML. If there were platforms at Crewe on the diveunder freight lines that could work - via middlewich then turn right to terminate at altrincham for metro connections.

Give that the cheater shuttle and Shrewsbury shuttle are rarely the same service, despite able to use p12, 11 or 6 at Crewe, I don't see any benefit.

If you wanted to extend the Crewe terminator to north Cheshire towns how about extending to winsford, acton brdige and then to Warrington and Wigan?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I suspect the demand for that would be pretty much zero. Better to send to Chester or better Liverpool. Fundamentally it would be another crossing of the WCML. If there were platforms at Crewe on the diveunder freight lines that could work - via middlewich then turn right to terminate at altrincham for metro connections.

Maybe the HS2 plans will sort out Crewe for the future by 2027.
It badly needs bays facing Manchester, and/or some link from P9-12 towards Manchester.

 

[Rhydgaled]

3.5tph at 4 destinations (Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, 1/2 London) seems quite viable to me.

Not if the Welsh Government insist on their pet project of an hourly Cardiff service.

If the ATW 158 fleet is concentrated on the ex CT routes then you can have a mix of 2 and 3 car sets. Hourly Chester to BHM InTL that joins at Shrewsbury alternately with a 2 hourly Pwllheli to BHM InTL and a 2 hourly Aberystwyth to BHM INTL. with a shuttle between Aberystwyth and Dovey Junction connecting with the Pwllheli trains so is "hourly" to Aberystwyth.

That's not the way I was thinking it could be done. An hourly Birmingham-Aberystwyth with a portion for Wrexham/Chester every two hours, and Pwllheli in the other hours, with an extra Wrexham service in the peak to make up the train to three units.

I mean to structure it like this with route numbers and consistent clockface calling patterns.

Ah, I get you now; give the trains route/service numbers like bus services have. Interesting idea.

Even better; if you can run through to Manchester via Northwich and Altrincham it would maintain a through service to Manchester (although much slower) from Whitchurch and Nantwich. Probably couldn't path it though I suppose.

Is the direct Whichurch/Nantwich 13tpd service being cut back to Crewe then? And Wilmslow dropping to just 1 fast train per hour to Manchester (the VT one)?

I think you may have missed this bit:

Interesting idea. Personally, I think the intermediate stations between Crewe and Shrewsbury should be the responsiblity of an English TOC, perhaps as an extension of the LM Shrewsbury-Birmingham service, allowing the Manchesters to be speeded up.

In other words, I'm suggesting the W&B Manchester services cease to call at Whitchurch and Nantwich.

As pointed out above though it's almost certainly not going to happen, for the simple reason that trying to path another service per hour each way across the tracks at Crewe would be nigh on impossible. There also really isn't much call for an hourly local service, unless you remove the nantwich whitchurch and Wem calls from the Manchester services that stop there. Whilst that idea is not entity without merit, and those stops are only a relatively recent invention, I suspect there would be uproar if you did!

The bit I put in bold is why I think providing them with an alternative through service to Manchester could be a good solution.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The rolling stock should be suitable for the service, rather than changing a calling pattern to make the service more suitable for the rolling stock used.

Maybe W&B should swap the 175s for the XC 170s? The 170s are compatible with 158s but I don't think they're compatible with Voyagers so it would increase flexibility for W&B without decreasing flexibility for XC.

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.

 

[43074]

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

The Northern services will go through to Leeds, meaning the 195s will be perfect - frequent stops and high passenger throughput means that wide doors with plenty of circulation space, but a well specified interior meaning they will be comfortable over long distances. I suspect it's more political that the extra Chester to Manchester service will be operated by Northern rather than ATW.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The Northern services will go through to Leeds, meaning the 195s will be perfect - frequent stops and high passenger throughput means that wide doors with plenty of circulation space, but a well specified interior meaning they will be comfortable over long distances. I suspect it's more political that the extra Chester to Manchester service will be operated by Northern rather than ATW.

There's probably nothing wrong with 195s if they have more-frequent stops than the alternatives. Between Manchester and Leeds, Transpennine Express will presumably be the fast service with regional-express (bordering on intercity-style) trains (mrk5s and 800s) so the problem is between Manchester and Chester. I don't have a problem with Northern operating the second Chester-Manchester service, but if they are using 195s then the Northern service should be the slower one and W&B's 175s should be the faster service.

 

[Llanigraham]

That's not the way I was thinking it could be done. An hourly Birmingham-Aberystwyth with a portion for Wrexham/Chester every two hours, and Pwllheli in the other hours, with an extra Wrexham service in the peak to make up the train to three units.

Would that result in just a 2 car unit running down to Aber?
No thanks!! Often totally inadequate.

 

[notlob.divad]

I don't have a problem with Northern operating the second Chester-Manchester service, but if they are using 195s then the Northern service should be the slower one and W&B's 175s should be the faster service.

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.

All this talk of 195s, do we know this to be the case, or will these be the refurbished 185s?

 

[craigybagel]

Not if the Welsh Government insist on their pet project of an hourly Cardiff service.

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.

Don't get me wrong - if I see a demand in the franchise requirement for an hourly HHD-CDF I'll be very disappointed (but not very surprised) but it could still open up all sorts of needed improvements across the W&B network.

The bit I put in bold is why I think providing them with an alternative through service to Manchester could be a good solution.

A much slower alternative though which nobody would use - they'd all just change at Crewe instead. After kicking up a lot of fuss.

Would that result in just a 2 car unit running down to Aber?
No thanks!! Often totally inadequate.

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.

 

[HowardGWR]

Would that result in just a 2 car unit running down to Aber?
No thanks!! Often totally inadequate.

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?

 

[craigybagel]

All this talk of 195s, do we know this to be the case, or will these be the refurbished 185s?

As per the DFT

The new Northern franchisee will introduce an hourly Northern Connect service between Chester and Manchester (via Warrington Bank Quay, Earlestown and Newton-le-Willows). This will operate alongside an existing Arriva Trains Wales, which currently operates 1 train per hour off-peak and 2 trains per hour in the peak.

This will be operated by brand new diesel trains, and will run through to Leeds via Manchester Victoria and the Calder Valley.