Gerallt Gymro's little brother(s)

[krus_aragon]

I've been watching recorded coverage of a rail infrastructure debate at the Welsh Assembly three days ago on BBC Parliament, and Ieuan Wyn mentioned plans to 'introduce improved rolling stock on other North-South services', and that he is in talks with Arriva and 'suppliers' about this. This was specifically replacing stock on current paths, as opposed to new paths, which he again implied won't become available before redoubling near Wrexham.

My bet is that this means putting a Gerald II set on some existing paths, and maybe sending the first set back up North on an existing path as well. There'd be one or two free 175s that could then cascade other stock within Wales.

Does anyone have any views or information?

 

[The Planner]

Its all part of the work for Wrexham Saltney project and North-South Wales as a whole. As journey time is the major factor in it all several different types of traction are being looked at, some will make enthusiasts excited, some wont...

 

[krus_aragon]

Its all part of the work for Wrexham Saltney project and North-South Wales as a whole. As journey time is the major factor in it all several different types of traction are being looked at, some will make enthusiasts excited, some wont...

I'd have thought that linespeed through the Marches would have more effect on journey time than swapping the 175s for something else.

 

[merlodlliw]

The Minister is getting a lot of flack, due to "Gerald" resting in Cardiff for over
six hours, in my opinion we wont see a Sth Nth loco hauled service before
some kind of semi redoubling between Wrexham & Saltney, but no rush on this at the moment for whatever reason.

I am aware, The Minister has had very heated meetings of late with ATW on a lot of operational concerns being raised by A.Ms.,
sent you a p.m. on this Krus

 

[The Planner]

I'd have thought that linespeed through the Marches would have more effect on journey time than swapping the 175s for something else.

Not really, a lot of it is 80-90mph already and not capable of much more, its the signalling that screws the job up. North of Shrewsbury it is slower than that and, again, with naff signalling. It also isnt about swapping the 175s, this is for extra services a la Gezza.

 

[TDK]

Not really, a lot of it is 80-90mph already and not capable of much more, its the signalling that screws the job up. North of Shrewsbury it is slower than that and, again, with naff signalling. It also isnt about swapping the 175s, this is for extra services a la Gezza.

Max Loco speeds opposed to DMU speeds are as follows!

Saltney Jct to Wrexham North Jc. MU 60 Loco 60
Wrexham to Shrewsbury MU70 Loco 60
Shrewsbury to Craven Arms MU90 Loco 70
Craven Arms onward MU90 Loco 90 (depending on amount of coaches)

From Saltney Jct to Shrewsbury is nothing to do with the signalling but the track. I think the only way forward for ATW is to forget the loco hauled and go for new stock like 172's maybe, if the WAG funds it! However I cannot see the WAG paying for any new stock so it lookslike 15x's & tatty 175's for the forseeable future
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Its all part of the work for Wrexham Saltney project and North-South Wales as a whole. As journey time is the major factor in it all several different types of traction are being looked at, some will make enthusiasts excited, some wont...

I think I have said this before, until the section between Wrexham and Shrewsbury is resignalled there will not be any extra capacity, the only extra capacity will be from Chester to Wrexham, I still think they are all barking up the wrong tree, there is deperate need for at least IB signals between Wrexham and Gobowen and also Baschurch to Shrewsbury as the headway is 17 minutes Wrexham to Gobowen and 11 minutes Gobowen to Baschurch.

 

[Drimnagh Road]

Isn't much of the Marches route due be resignalled later on this year?

Re Gerald laying over at Cardiff all day, it could cover the Fishguard run out and back in time for the 16:15 Northbound.

 

[The Planner]

Max Loco speeds opposed to DMU speeds are as follows!

Saltney Jct to Wrexham North Jc. MU 60 Loco 60
Wrexham to Shrewsbury MU70 Loco 60
Shrewsbury to Craven Arms MU90 Loco 70
Craven Arms onward MU90 Loco 90 (depending on amount of coaches)

Its not all MU 90 south of Shrewsbury, you dont start hitting that until around Church Stretton in the down, the up seems to get the better speeds.
Craven Arms towards Newport doesnt get 90 all the way, there are a lot of slower speeds south of Hereford too. It needs evening out where possible to remove the sawtooth effect.

From Saltney Jct to Shrewsbury is nothing to do with the signalling but the track. I think the only way forward for ATW is to forget the loco hauled and go for new stock like 172's maybe, if the WAG funds it!

I think I have said this before, until the section between Wrexham and Shrewsbury is resignalled there will not be any extra capacity, the only extra capacity will be from Chester to Wrexham, I still think they are all barking up the wrong tree, there is deperate need for at least IB signals between Wrexham and Gobowen and also Baschurch to Shrewsbury as the headway is 17 minutes Wrexham to Gobowen and 11 minutes Gobowen to Baschurch.

It is partly to do with it, in planning purposes it is basically one train in section and thats it. You may be able to follow on a distant but we cant work like that, only the signaller can run trains that way.

The whole idea of the scheme is to make Saltney a double lead so you can hold a train off the main line in either direction and the same at Wrexham (though there isnt a platform starter at Wrexham in the plans, which doesnt help my cause). The line speed will go up from the current 60 up to 80 and 90 in sections from Saltney down to Shrewsbury. The IBs are part of the plan too, the plan is to put 3 more in and get the headways to around the 6 minute mark. Again, that is all possible to change...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Isn't much of the Marches route due be resignalled later on this year?

No, you get a new IB at Llanvihangel in the up only.

 

[merlodlliw]

Isn't much of the Marches route due be resignalled later on this year?

Re Gerald laying over at Cardiff all day, it could cover the Fishguard run out and back in time for the 16:15 Northbound.

A good point, but ATW will not replace a 158 with loco hauled "Gerald" unless WAG pays for it, (staff & fuel). but six hours of idling in Cardiff is a waste of
stock.

 

[Greenback]

There must be a lot of extra cost in running a loco to Fishguard. I don;t suppose the extra revenue from bashers will cover it? It'd be a nice day out - Taunton - Cardiff and then Cardiff - Fishguard and return!

 

[tbtc]

A good point, but ATW will not replace a 158 with loco hauled "Gerald" unless WAG pays for it, (staff & fuel). but six hours of idling in Cardiff is a waste of
stock.

I see your point, but there are a number of units used on morning/ teatime paths, that don't move during the daytime. Its more high profile in this case, but there are other trains sitting "idle" during the daytime (due to lower demand in the middle of the day, repairs etc)

 

[krus_aragon]

It also isnt about swapping the 175s, this is for extra services a la Gezza.

No, that appears to be what it is. Quoting the Assembly's transcripts:

We are looking currently as to whether, rather than having an extra North Wales service, we can have improved rolling stock on an existing North Wales service. We are currently looking at that and are in discussions with Arriva and manufacturers.

This definitely reads like replacing an existing 175 service to me. I think this is having to withdraw an existing service to fit Gerallt Jr. in, like the Cwmbrân commuter run that was replaced by Gerallt Sr. I can't see any reason for sourcing a new-build DMU, or where an existing one would come from.

 

[merlodlliw]

I see your point, but there are a number of units used on morning/ teatime paths, that don't move during the daytime. Its more high profile in this case, but there are other trains sitting "idle" during the daytime (due to lower demand in the middle of the day, repairs etc)

Agree with you, suppose "Gerald Senior" is ATWs only loco hauled service
so the profile is High.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, that appears to be what it is. Quoting the Assembly's transcripts:



This definitely reads like replacing an existing 175 service to me. I think this is having to withdraw an existing service to fit Gerallt Jr. in, like the Cwmbrân commuter run that was replaced by Gerallt Sr. I can't see any reason for sourcing a new-build DMU, or where an existing one would come from.

But only after the Wrexham line sort out, and that seems next year at the earliest, *(May 2011? or later) I agree the Minister wants another loco
service, Sth/Nth, hence 4 locos via Wrexham, I can not see another service via Crewe with class 57s, all hell would let loose. And 4 runarounds
at Chester unless DVTs, not my usual Wrexham harp, but all 175s to HDD
are routed this way, and WAG elections next year, a new Minister may think different.

 

[tbtc]

Out of interest (this seems as good as anywhere to ask), do the 175s on Cardiff - Holyhead just do one up/ one down trip a day? Or do they do two in one direction (or similar)?

 

[TDK]

Agree with you, suppose "Gerald Senior" is ATWs only loco hauled service
so the profile is High.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But only after the Wrexham line sort out, and that seems next year at the earliest, *(May 2011? or later) I agree the Minister wants another loco
service, Sth/Nth, hence 4 locos via Wrexham, I can not see another service via Crewe with class 57s, all hell would let loose. And 4 runarounds
at Chester unless DVTs, not my usual Wrexham harp, but all 175s to HDD
are routed this way, and WAG elections next year, a new Minister may think different.

TBH, I feel that the WAG is wasteing money on the Gerald fiasco, £4700 a day or there abouts just to take the WAG ministers to Cardiff!!. Hellfire that money could have been used refurbing the 175's. They only wanted this after sampling another operators service, there are no DVT's for the 57's, firstly they are scarce and all taken up and also 57's are not compatible, they will have to hire a set from WSMR or Chiltern.

 

[jopsuk]

here are no DVT's for the 57's, firstly they are scarce and all taken up and also 57's are not compatible, they will have to hire a set from WSMR or Chiltern.

If the "not compatible" problem wasn't there, Porterbrook have (by what I can ascertain) 18 Mrk 3 DVTs, and DB Regio a further 7 in addition to the ones in WSMR and Chiltern livery. There's then 17 Class 67s that aren't Fort-William Sleeper-modified, WSMR liveried/modified, Royal Liveried or EWS Silver and DBS Red- I guess ideally they'd have the WSMR fire control modification.

There are also five or six mk2 DBSOs potentially available.

 

[The Planner]

But only after the Wrexham line sort out, and that seems next year at the earliest, *(May 2011? or later)

You wont see that until the Dec 2011 timetable at the very earliest.

 

[merlodlliw]

You wont see that until the Dec 2011 timetable at the very earliest.

I was being optimistic with May 2011, the grip costings are due around June
I heard yesterday?, then theres the decisions for another few months.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

TBH, I feel that the WAG is wasteing money on the Gerald fiasco, £4700 a day or there abouts just to take the WAG ministers to Cardiff!!. Hellfire that money could have been used refurbing the 175's. They only wanted this after sampling another operators service, there are no DVT's for the 57's, firstly they are scarce and all taken up and also 57's are not compatible, they will have to hire a set from WSMR or Chiltern.

Most of us agree the cost & benefit of "Gerald" is wasteful, however Minister
Ieuan had it rushed into service ignoring professional advice,yet he wants
another Sth/Nth running, so yes hire a set in from whoever that is able to
use Chester,
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Out of interest (this seems as good as anywhere to ask), do the 175s on Cardiff - Holyhead just do one up/ one down trip a day? Or do they do two in one direction (or similar)?

No idea, you could have three runs taking up over 18 hours, ill ask

 

[TDK]

If the "not compatible" problem wasn't there, Porterbrook have (by what I can ascertain) 18 Mrk 3 DVTs, and DB Regio a further 7 in addition to the ones in WSMR and Chiltern livery. There's then 17 Class 67s that aren't Fort-William Sleeper-modified, WSMR liveried/modified, Royal Liveried or EWS Silver and DBS Red- I guess ideally they'd have the WSMR fire control modification.

There are also five or six mk2 DBSOs potentially available.

Class 67's would be the best option for any further LHCS for the logistics point of view, these DVT's spare I feel will already have allocation, they will also need to be refurbed as will the coaches, you cannot just take a coach and put a DVT on with a loco (67/57) the other end they all have to be modified, then they have to be test run, by the time this is completed it will be the 2011 timetable, the 67's will need the fire precautions mod fitted to run with a DVT also, the 18 at porterbrook are these serviceable or not? The only other option would be top & tail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You wont see that until the Dec 2011 timetable at the very earliest.

I think Dec 2011 is also optimistic the cost would also rise. I really think that this is also a tad wasteful. Will there be a demand for extra services from Chester to Shrewsbury as most of the curreent services are about 60% capacity currently and this is with a 2-car, the only ones that have heavy loadings are the ones before 9am and between 16.00 and 18.00 off shrewsbury. So planner let me pick your brains, with the new porposed IB signals between Wrexham and Shrewsbury what will the headway be between trains off of Wrexham? (realistically of course)

 

[The Planner]

IF they put them in the right spots, I reckon you could get 6 minute headways.

 

[TDK]

IF they put them in the right spots, I reckon you could get 6 minute headways.

Interesting, lets hope they put them in places you can actually stop as the line between Ruabon Road Tunnel and Crewe Junction is deemed a low adhesion area, if they put any near Chirk on a down gradient I do feel sorry for the drivers. You may know this Planner, when a new signal is installed I know the SBD is worked out taking gradients into considerstion do the Signalling planners take low adhesion into consideration as well?

 

[truckman060473]

what is a low adhesion area? assuming it isn't involving a gradient and there are no leaves on the line etc, what constitutes it being deemed slippery?

 

[The Planner]

Iwhen a new signal is installed I know the SBD is worked out taking gradients into considerstion do the Signalling planners take low adhesion into consideration as well?

I dont know to be honest, but isnt low adhesion "curable" ?? if so, then it shouldnt really be included in my view.

 

[TDK]

what is a low adhesion area? assuming it isn't involving a gradient and there are no leaves on the line etc, what constitutes it being deemed slippery?

The lay of the land, if in a cutting the railhead gets damp and caused adhesion problems, there are hundreds of low adhesion areas listed in the sectional appendix, it is classified as a low adhesion area if incidents occur on that section of tack.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I dont know to be honest, but isnt low adhesion "curable" ?? if so, then it shouldnt really be included in my view.

If low adhesion was curable it would have been cured by now, it isn't curable unless a lot of money is spent. There are assisting mechanisms in place like on board sanding equipment, on track sanders a treatment program from October to December and driver briefing however this should be taken into account when signals are positioned.

 

[merlodlliw]

The lay of the land, if in a cutting the railhead gets damp and caused adhesion problems, there are hundreds of low adhesion areas listed in the sectional appendix, it is classified as a low adhesion area if incidents occur on that section of tack. quote

.......................................................................................................................


Agree, you will get low adhesion if the track is by a canal or waterway, creating mist caused by temperature change and damp. Lines in cuttings suffer damp due
to lower temperatures of cuttings.Areas around Chirk are very damp.