CAF class 197 Civity for TfW: News and updates on introduction.

[Bletchleyite]

In terms of ground-level racks for large luggage TfW informed me some time ago that their CAF DMUs would have a rack 1227mm long in each carriage. Two of these would of course be a total of 245.4cm on a 2-car unit which is a bit less than I found with my tape measure on a 2-car 175 (260cm). Unfortunately I don't know how much luggage space there is on coach B of a 175 but my measurements on a 158 were 379cm of free-standing luggage rack. That's more than a 3-car 197.

One key difference there, of course, is that the CAF units have very large overhead racks (which I've tried out with some very large bags) and the ones on 158s are OK but a bit small (and 175 ones useless for more than a coat or laptop bag). This will make a huge difference. That said, this would also be true if the TfW order was instead a DMU based on the end-doored Class 397, which I'm sure CAF would have built for them if they'd ordered it, the Civity platform appears to be very flexible in terms of layout.

 

[Envoy]

Some very interesting points have been made today. I note that GWR now have all Hereford to London services operated by IET’s - so this could result in fewer people travelling via Newport.

When the Liverpool service starts, it could well be that passengers to/from Bristol are attracted to The Marches route via a change at Newport - especially if the fares are competitive with going via Birmingham. Of course, this also depends on the quality of the new CAF 197’s. I also note that Trans Pennine Express are taking delivery of new trains including some 800’s. It could well be that with 5 coach 197’s on The Marches combined with the better Trans Pennine offering, that more passengers will be attracted to these services via a change at Manchester rather than going via Birmingham.

I note that commuters are mentioned. At the southern end of The Marches, surely it would be desirable to have a new station at Caerleon and have that - along with Cwmbran, Pontypool/NewInn served by a local stopper to/from Abergavenny - where a new bay platform could easily be created? By shifting this local traffic going to/from Newport, Cardiff East Parkway and Cardiff Central, we could speed up the long distance services - with passengers transferring at Abergavenny for places further north? (I note that Pontypool/New Inn is to get a new car park with direct access from the A4042. This would be the nearest rail station to Use and is bound to attract more commuters. All the more reason therefore to serve these people with a local service rather than try and get the long distance express trains to perform the function of a local stopper as well?

I hope that the CAF trains have overhead racks that are the same size at those on the 800’s. These have been made big enough so that people can put in them the size of case that can be taken in the cabin on the low cost airlines.

Finally, I must mention fares - even though this is not the fares section but it is highly relevant. The fares between south Wales & places north of Crewe are apparently set by Cross Country as it is deemed a so called ‘Inter City’ route. So, if somebody wishes to travel from say Cardiff to Edinburgh tomorrow - the fare one way = £192.60. (Carlisle is £143.50). Craigybagel says that very few passengers are aware of split ticketing. I know of somebody in Cardiff who wanted to visit a relative in Carlisle. This family of 3 put in for a fare and up came the sky high fare charged by Cross Country. These people knew nothing of split ticketing and simply chose to drive - hence we have business lost to TfW & what is not Avanti due to this ridiculous fares policy. I wonder how many staff working The Marches have found through tickets where those who did not know better are paying these sky high fares? I also wonder if staff at stations are telling customers the cheapest way of doing such journeys?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Now Trainline does splits, the splitting genie is out of the bottle as far as regular consumers go, and it isn't going back in.

 

[Bikeman78]

Don't have the data, but anecdotally as someone who's worked the line for years - there's lots of local traffic. I would say the vast majority of the passengers boarding at stations between Shrewsbury and Hereford are traveling to one of those two towns. Obviously there are a fair few on board making long journeys to Manchester and/or Cardiff as well, and a large amount of commuters for both cities in the peaks. I don't think there's any one dominant flow on the line, so the stock needs to be able to cope with all kinds of different passenger journeys. From what I've seen, the CAFs look pretty well specced for that.

As far as I can tell, the best unit for timekeeping on the 18:30 from Manchester is a 150, at least as far as Shrewsbury. For those that don't know, this stops all stations south of Crewe to Cardiff. 175s struggle to keep time although they will make it up as the schedule is very slack south of Hereford.

 

[craigybagel]

Commuters don't get turned away from class 800s (and before that slam-door HSTs) do they? So why should they be turned away from a Swansea to Manchester service? I am not saying that the long-distance services should be reserved for long-distance passengers. I'm meerly saying that Swansea-Manchester (along with other routes on the Wales & Borders franchise) is important for long-distance passengers and that the trains should be designed to be attractive to that market. That isn't just about the position of the doors (and, as noted above, I'm open to a compromise door layout). The width of the doors (almost double a 175 I believe, though I don't have the figures) is the bigger problem because it robs space from everything else, things that do matter to everyone not just me.

The trains need to be designed to be attractive to as many markets as possible as those that they will serve. Whilst it is true there is a (relatively small) InterCity market they serve, they also have a much bigger role in providing regional services out of big cities, often for commuters. You can't ignore this role just to keep the small amount of people making long distance runs happy - and in any case, there is little evidence yet (other then a low amount of toilets) that these units won't be suitable for InterCity journeys. They will be clean and new, the Swansea - Manchester sets will have first class, all will have sure conditioning and catering trollies, and for the vast majority of the people making long distances, that will be sufficient. They will also have a layout that will be more suitable for the shorter journeys that many passengers make, and which will have a very positive effect on dwell times

I note that commuters are mentioned. At the southern end of The Marches, surely it would be desirable to have a new station at Caerleon and have that - along with Cwmbran, Pontypool/NewInn served by a local stopper to/from Abergavenny - where a new bay platform could easily be created? By shifting this local traffic going to/from Newport, Cardiff East Parkway and Cardiff Central, we could speed up the long distance services - with passengers transferring at Abergavenny for places further north? (I note that Pontypool/New Inn is to get a new car park with direct access from the A4042. This would be the nearest rail station to Use and is bound to attract more commuters. All the more reason therefore to serve these people with a local service rather than try and get the long distance express trains to perform the function of a local stopper as well?

There's been talk for years about a station at Caerleon, and an Abergavenny shuttle to serve it. That said, under the new timetable there will already be at least 2 trains per hour over that section anyway, and with the improved acceleration the 197s should offer it might but even be necessary to add an extra service.

Finally, I must mention fares - even though this is not the fares section but it is highly relevant. The fares between south Wales & places north of Crewe are apparently set by Cross Country as it is deemed a so called ‘Inter City’ route. So, if somebody wishes to travel from say Cardiff to Edinburgh tomorrow - the fare one way = £192.60. (Carlisle is £143.50). Craigybagel says that very few passengers are aware of split ticketing. I know of somebody in Cardiff who wanted to visit a relative in Carlisle. This family of 3 put in for a fare and up came the sky high fare charged by Cross Country. These people knew nothing of split ticketing and simply chose to drive - hence we have business lost to TfW & what is not Avanti due to this ridiculous fares policy. I wonder how many staff working The Marches have found through tickets where those who did not know better are paying these sky high fares? I also wonder if staff at stations are telling customers the cheapest way of doing such journeys?

Retail staff and conductors aren't supposed to tell passengers about split fares. If the customer asks for it, then it has to be issued as a split, but it's down to the customer to find the split first. This is a more fair system as not all staff know the best splits, and other then trial and error on the ticket machine or by using their own phone to access a third party website they have no way of finding the best splits themselves.

As far as I can tell, the best unit for timekeeping on the 18:30 from Manchester is a 150, at least as far as Shrewsbury. For those that don't know, this stops all stations south of Crewe to Cardiff. 175s struggle to keep time although they will make it up as the schedule is very slack south of Hereford.

150s will easily match if not beat the acceleration of a 175 up to about 70 mph, plus the door layout makes dwell times a lot quicker. It will struggle for timing between Wilmslow and Crewe though as that's a long run at 75mph Vs 100mph for a 175.

 

[Rhydgaled]

One key difference there, of course, is that the CAF units have very large overhead racks (which I've tried out with some very large bags) and the ones on 158s are OK but a bit small (and 175 ones useless for more than a coat or laptop bag). This will make a huge difference. That said, this would also be true if the TfW order was instead a DMU based on the end-doored Class 397, which I'm sure CAF would have built for them if they'd ordered it, the Civity platform appears to be very flexible in terms of layout.

I must confess I've not kept track of which trains have better overhead racks (although I have noticed that it differs rather alot between types). Sounds like you have hit on a positive with the CAF stock.

As for the 397, having seen those (or renders at least), the 196s and the 195s my hope for the Welsh franchise (before I saw a render of a bi-mode Aventra) was a class 197 taking aspects from the 196 (end gangways) and 397 (narrow exterior doors at or near vehicle ends).

The trains need to be designed to be attractive to as many markets as possible as those that they will serve. Whilst it is true there is a (relatively small) InterCity market they serve, they also have a much bigger role in providing regional services out of big cities, often for commuters. You can't ignore this role just to keep the small amount of people making long distance runs happy

The thing with that argument is that (I assume) short-distance passengers are easier to please. A long distance passenger will suffer more from reduced toilets, reduced legroom and hard seats. A short-distance passenger is more likely to put up with those issues, but surely if anything will be even more satisfied by a higher quality train? Admittedly if you take it to extremes and put an intercity train through the London Underground commuters wouldn't be happy because it would cause massive delays. But the long-distance Wales & Borders routes don't have stations every 5 minutes (except perhaps the Llandudnos) to cause problems like that.

 

[Jez]

The South Wales to Manchester service is fine when it doesn't call at Swanline stations or places like Wem, Whitchurch and Nantwich. These stops hinder the performance of the service IMO.

As mentioned above the 1830 Manchester-Carmarthen is a prime example of this. It not only calls at the 3 stations I mentioned above but also the request stops. It then calls at Pencoed, Llanharan and Pontyclun (but not Pyle) on depature from Cardiff and often loses time by the time it gets to Port Talbot. It then takes the district line so probabaly makes up time before arrival in Carmarthen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I must confess I've not kept track of which trains have better overhead racks (although I have noticed that it differs rather alot between types). Sounds like you have hit on a positive with the CAF stock.

All the late-2010s/early 2020s stock has much better racks than the previous generation of stock. 80x are quite large too, as are the FLIRTs, at least in the low-floor bit. CAF's seem to be the largest, though. Don't know about Aventras, the only ones I've been on are Crossrail ones and I don't think they have any racks?

It's one of the many things that the naysayers said we couldn't have...then we did!

 

[Energy]

Don't know about Aventras, the only ones I've been on are Crossrail ones and I don't think they have any racks?

To be fair the only ones in service are the LO 710s and Crossrail 345s which are both metro style configurations.

 

[hexagon789]

Northern's class 195 DMUs have a 405 litre CET tank capacity. Their class 158s have a 310 litre CET tank under each coach. A 2-car 158 therefore has 215 litres more capacity than a 195. Of course we do not know if

I'll be fair, that was more a snide comment to do with the overall toilet situation rather than a comment on tank ccapacity per se. It's the number of toilets that I would suggest is the greater issue.

Presumably double the toilets (ie - two) would mean twice the tank capacity across the unit though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would say that at present one toilet is not adequate on any toilet-fitted unit, because modern CETs are so much less reliable than the old "dump on the track" type. Every unit should have one accessible toilet and one small one.

 

[John R]

I would say that at present one toilet is not adequate on any toilet-fitted unit, because modern CETs are so much less reliable than the old "dump on the track" type. Every unit should have one accessible toilet and one small one.

Agree. Some people have hidden disabilities that means the need to use one can be sudden and urgent. Joining a queue behind someone changing a baby and maybe a couple of more can end up being somewhat embarrassing. And besides, it doesn't matter how big and full the water tank is if the toilet is out of order for any other reason, where user related or a technical problem.

Going back a generation, wasn't it the norm to have two toilets on most inter-city coaches, ie one per 36 passengers (or less)? Or is my memory wrong on that point.

 

[samuelmorris]

From this image Aventra racks look pretty big?

On board a Greater Anglia Aventra - RailStaff

Listen to this article Greater Anglia’s new Aventra is a train built with capacity in mind. Bombardier is manufacturing four variations of the electric multiple unit (EMU) platform for four different customers but, according to project director Alan Fravolini, the Class 720 is one of the most...

www.railstaff.co.uk

My experience of a CAF unit with a single toilet was a 4-car 331 and the sole toilet was out of use. Only a sample size of 1 but a 100% failure rate! A 4-car unit with a single toilet in this day and age is a bit suspect to say the least.

 

[Envoy]

Retail staff and conductors aren't supposed to tell passengers about split fares. If the customer asks for it, then it has to be issued as a split, but it's down to the customer to find the split first. This is a more fair system as not all staff know the best splits, and other then trial and error on the ticket machine or by using their own phone to access a third party website they have no way of finding the best splits themselves.

I may be wrong but I thought that with the through fare being set by Cross Country for south Wales to places north of Crewe, that XC get a cut of the money - even though passengers are not using their trains. Therefore, surely TfW are losing money by not having their staff at booking offices tell people to at least split the fare at Crewe & therefore deprive XC of the money - assuming that the passengers are travelling via The Marches. (Sorry for going off topic a bit).

 

[craigybagel]

The thing with that argument is that (I assume) short-distance passengers are easier to please. A long distance passenger will suffer more from reduced toilets, reduced legroom and hard seats. A short-distance passenger is more likely to put up with those issues, but surely if anything will be even more satisfied by a higher quality train? Admittedly if you take it to extremes and put an intercity train through the London Underground commuters wouldn't be happy because it would cause massive delays. But the long-distance Wales & Borders routes don't have stations every 5 minutes (except perhaps the Llandudnos) to cause problems like that.

But it does make a difference. I've worked these routes for years, I know what dwell times are like, and I know that this will make a positive difference. And it's not like the whole train is being ruined somehow to cope with these demands - they will still have all the modern things a train needs. They will be fine for long journeys - but they will also be able to cope with higher passenger numbers a lot easier when required.

The South Wales to Manchester service is fine when it doesn't call at Swanline stations or places like Wem, Whitchurch and Nantwich. These stops hinder the performance of the service IMO.

As mentioned above the 1830 Manchester-Carmarthen is a prime example of this. It not only calls at the 3 stations I mentioned above but also the request stops. It then calls at Pencoed, Llanharan and Pontyclun (but not Pyle) on depature from Cardiff and often loses time by the time it gets to Port Talbot. It then takes the district line so probabaly makes up time before arrival in Carmarthen.

In an ideal world there would be separate services, and Manchester - South Wales would make limited stops and could use similar stock to the MkIVs going on Holyhead - Cardiff. But unfortunately, there's only space for one Manchester train an hour, and everyone wants the train to there to stop in their town. The Marches timetable is very much a juggling act trying to meet all the different demands that is placed on it, and anytime you try to tweak it there's an uproar.

I may be wrong but I thought that with the through fare being set by Cross Country for south Wales to places north of Crewe, that XC get a cut of the money - even though passengers are not using their trains. Therefore, surely TfW are losing money by not having their staff at booking offices tell people to at least split the fare at Crewe & therefore deprive XC of the money - assuming that the passengers are travelling via The Marches. (Sorry for going off topic a bit).

It's not a TfW rule, I believe it's meant to be industry standard, though you do hit on one of the reasons. XC would be deprived of income in this particular example (as indeed would Avanti, Northern, GWR, LNWR and anyone else who operates services along the multitude of routes an Any Permitted is valid on) in favour of TfW. Ticket retailers are meant to be impartial.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen of course, and many staff take a certain pride in finding the best deals for their customers. But officially it's not supposed to.

 

[krus_aragon]

I imagine that it's almost entirely down to the lower prices they happened to be able to offer. It seems very unlikely indeed they will be as suitable as from-new 175s.

This may not be exactly what you meant, but the state of the 175s "from-new" left a lot to be desired on the reliability front!

 

[Doveymain158]

There are some places via the Marches north of Crewe and Manchester with a routing via Shrewsbury which TfW set the fares.

 

[Envoy]

In an ideal world there would be separate services, and Manchester - South Wales would make limited stops and could use similar stock to the MkIVs going on Holyhead - Cardiff. But unfortunately, there's only space for one Manchester train an hour, and everyone wants the train to there to stop in their town. The Marches timetable is very much a juggling act trying to meet all the different demands that is placed on it, and anytime you try to tweak it there's an uproar.

It's not a TfW rule, I believe it's meant to be industry standard, though you do hit on one of the reasons. XC would be deprived of income in this particular example (as indeed would Avanti, Northern, GWR, LNWR and anyone else who operates services along the multitude of routes an Any Permitted is valid on) in favour of TfW. Ticket retailers are meant to be impartial.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen of course, and many staff take a certain pride in finding the best deals for their customers. But officially it's not supposed to.

Taking your first point: would it not be possible to have more local stoppers between Crewe & Shrewsbury and possibly continuing down to Church Stretton & Craven Arms? Some of these could continue to/from Swansea via the Heart of Wales - as some have done in the past? Passengers from these smaller places could change at Crewe for Manchester. I note that some of the Manchester to west Wales trains become stoppers between Cardiff & Swansea. This is obviously due to a lack of rolling stock. It is ridiculous that someone say going from Manchester to Tenby has to stop at say Pontyclun & Baglan. Let us hope that with new trains, this problem will be solved. It is just a shame that Cardiff to Swansea is not getting electrified as the all stop services could have been electric.

In your second comment about ticket revenue, I don’t unstandardised how Avanti would be deprived of revenue if a passenger was told to purchase a ticket for say Cardiff to Crewe (all revenue goes to TfW) and Crewe to Edinburgh (all revenue goes to Avanti). So, the TOC’s the passenger is actually travelling on actually get paid for the services they provide. It is absolutely bonkers that Cross Country (Arriva) are getting revenue for trains that the customer is not even travelling on and that the Welsh Government has to subsidise the Welsh rail network whilst a primarily English operator is deriving revenue that surely should not go to them?

Anybody reading this who wishes to check out the fares should not use the TfW site - which just shows the dearer fares as set by Cross Country for the routes mentioned - along with the National Rail website. Instead try:>
www.traintickets.com

Split Train Tickets with TrainSplit | Mobile App | Save up to 90%

TrainSplit compares routes & fares to get cheap train tickets for your next journey through split ticketing with no booking fee & saving up to 90%

new.trainsplit.com

Europe by train and bus made easy | Rail Europe

Buy train and bus tickets for the UK and Europe. Simple, fast booking.

raileurope.co.uk

 

[berneyarms]

I was going to suggest something similar.

I do get the point that Craigybagel makes. It is very hard to be all things to all men, and that's what the current timetable does. But it is a bit of a pig's dinner.

Clearly the restriction of 1 tph into/out of Manchester is a major issue in terms of timetabling.

Perhaps the solution would be to

1) Have the Manchester to South Wales services call at Stockport, Wilmslow, Crewe, then Shrewsbury, Ludlow, (possibly Leominster too), Hereford, Abergavenny and Newport; and then Bridgend, Port Talbot and Neath between Cardiff and Swansea
2) Have an hourly Crewe-Shrewsbury stopper that connects with in/out of the Manchester-Swansea trains at Crewe
3) Make the bi-hourly Liverpool-Cardiff service the stopper south of Shrewsbury
4) Have an hourly stopper between Cardiff and Abergbavenny
5) Have an hourly Swanline service

It would require additional units, but would at least turn the Manchester service into more of a regional express.

 

[craigybagel]

Taking your first point: would it not be possible to have more local stoppers between Crewe & Shrewsbury and possibly continuing down to Church Stretton & Craven Arms? Some of these could continue to/from Swansea via the Heart of Wales - as some have done in the past? Passengers from these smaller places could change at Crewe for Manchester. I note that some of the Manchester to west Wales trains become stoppers between Cardiff & Swansea. This is obviously due to a lack of rolling stock. It is ridiculous that someone say going from Manchester to Tenby has to stop at say Pontyclun & Baglan. Let us hope that with new trains, this problem will be solved. It is just a shame that Cardiff to Swansea is not getting electrified as the all stop services could have been electric.

I was going to suggest something similar.

I do get the point that Craigybagel makes. It is very hard to be all things to all men, and that's what the current timetable does. But it is a bit of a pig's dinner.

Clearly the restriction of 1 tph into/out of Manchester is a major issue in terms of timetabling.

Perhaps the solution would be to

1) Have the Manchester to South Wales services call at Stockport, Wilmslow, Crewe, then Shrewsbury, Ludlow, (possibly Leominster too), Hereford, Abergavenny and Newport; and then Bridgend, Port Talbot and Neath between Cardiff and Swansea
2) Have an hourly Crewe-Shrewsbury stopper that connects with in/out of the Manchester-Swansea trains at Crewe
3) Make the bi-hourly Liverpool-Cardiff service the stopper south of Shrewsbury
4) Have an hourly stopper between Cardiff and Abergbavenny
5) Have an hourly Swanline service

It would require additional units, but would at least turn the Manchester service into more of a regional express.

I suspect the plan is for the Manchester - West Wales services to lose some of their stops South of Shrewsbury when that section goes up to 2 TPH in the new timetable. North of Shrewsbury is a bit more problematic. The current 2 hourly local service is quiet enough as it is without doubling it, which would make for a questionable use of limited resources, and you'd have to deal with a lot of upset people in Nantwich and Whitchurch who are used to the existing through service. Again, it's the compromise issue - everyone wants through services to Manchester but giving them all it slows down the service.

Not saying it couldn't or shouldn't happen - just as with other possible changes, you'll have to deal with a lot of upset people if you do.

In your second comment about ticket revenue, I don’t unstandardised how Avanti would be deprived of revenue if a passenger was told to purchase a ticket for say Cardiff to Crewe (all revenue goes to TfW) and Crewe to Edinburgh (all revenue goes to Avanti). So, the TOC’s the passenger is actually travelling on actually get paid for the services they provide. It is absolutely bonkers that Cross Country (Arriva) are getting revenue for trains that the customer is not even travelling on and that the Welsh Government has to subsidise the Welsh rail network whilst a primarily English operator is deriving revenue that surely should not go to them?

Anybody reading this who wishes to check out the fares should not use the TfW site - which just shows the dearer fares as set by Cross Country for the routes mentioned - along with the National Rail website. Instead try:>
www.traintickets.com

Split Train Tickets with TrainSplit | Mobile App | Save up to 90%

TrainSplit compares routes & fares to get cheap train tickets for your next journey through split ticketing with no booking fee & saving up to 90%

new.trainsplit.com

Europe by train and bus made easy | Rail Europe

Buy train and bus tickets for the UK and Europe. Simple, fast booking.

raileurope.co.uk

It might be bonkers but that's the railway for you. The whole fare system probably needs ripping up and starting again from scratch, but that's for another thread.

Point is: staff who sell tickets are obliged to be neutral, and that means sticking with the tickets in the system and not delving into the world of split tickets.

 

[Starmill]

It's incredibly unlikely that CrossCountry get anything from the standard allocation of Manchester to Cardiff Off Peak and Anytime tickets.

TfW run a significant number of direct trains, which no other operators do except for the CrossCountry train each way that is overtaken.

The interavailable ticket is priced by Transport for Wales. As with many long-distance TfW flows it has a very flat price structure. There is a single (£80) and a return (£90), and a unless you can find an Advance ticket, that's it.

 

[berneyarms]

I suspect the plan is for the Manchester - West Wales services to lose some of their stops South of Shrewsbury when that section goes up to 2 TPH in the new timetable. North of Shrewsbury is a bit more problematic. The current 2 hourly local service is quiet enough as it is without doubling it, which would make for a questionable use of limited resources, and you'd have to deal with a lot of upset people in Nantwich and Whitchurch who are used to the existing through service. Again, it's the compromise issue - everyone wants through services to Manchester but giving them all it slows down the service.

Not saying it couldn't or shouldn't happen - just as with other possible changes, you'll have to deal with a lot of upset people if you do.

Absolutely understand - every change to timetables will upset someone.

I well remember that the plan to replace the through Wrexham-Birmingham service in the morning peak with extra stops on “Gerald” and a cross-platform connection at Shrewsbury to Birmingham left a former member here, who lived in Wrexham, apoplectic.

It’s a balancing act. But looking at the working timetable trains do seem to be able to depart Crewe southbound within 6 minutes of each other - the change wouldn’t be that dramatic.

 

[craigybagel]

Absolutely understand - every change to timetables will upset someone.

I well remember that the plan to replace the through Wrexham-Birmingham service in the morning peak with extra stops on “Gerald” and a cross-platform connection at Shrewsbury to Birmingham left a former member here, who lived in Wrexham, apoplectic.

It’s a balancing act. But looking at the working timetable trains do seem to be able to depart Crewe southbound within 6 minutes of each other - the change wouldn’t be that dramatic.

We had similar arguments when the Heart of Wales timetable changed a few years ago (which incidentally, must have set some kind of record; an increase of services by 25% that resulted in passenger numbers going DOWN) and as recently as last Autumn when stops were removed from some Cardiff - Holyhead services to accommodate a change to loco hauled stock.

Incidentally, whilst you can get away with a 6 Min separation at Crewe itself, unfortunately when the line was resignalled back in 2013 the existing long section through the previously closed Whitchurch signal box was left in - meaning there's a long signal section from Prees to Wrenbury. Anything less then a 10 minute connection at Crewe and trains will end up getting held up waiting for the one in front to clear the section. Realistically a passenger traveling from Whitchurch on a stopper is going to need to leave 15 minutes before the following Manchester train comes through non stop.

 

[berneyarms]

Indeed - although in both of those cases (HoWL and the loco hauled paths) replacements for the lost connections weren’t offered.

HoWL lost the morning schoolchildren's connection at Craven Arms and stations between Shrewsbury/Wrexham and Bangor/Llandudno Junction lost services altogether with no substitute offered.

The HoWL is a dog’s dinner too - very difficult to path without long waits at crossing points and then finding paths on the mainline at either end is tricky.

I know that the morning Shrewsbury/Wrexham stops have been reinstated but that was only due to the introduction of loco hauled stock being deferred.

I wouldn’t propose anything that didn’t maintain existing connections. That’s the tricky bit!

 

[berneyarms]

To be fair with a minimum connecting time at Crewe of 10 minutes, you'd need 12 minutes between the stopper and the South Wales/Manchester services arriving/departing at Crewe, which would allow a five minute turnaround for the stopper there.

That would mean passengers on an existing South Wales/Manchester service from Whitchurch to Manchester would have a 13-14 minute extension in journey times.

It's a very difficult balancing act.

 

[Jez]

In an ideal world there would be separate services, and Manchester - South Wales would make limited stops and could use similar stock to the MkIVs going on Holyhead - Cardiff. But unfortunately, there's only space for one Manchester train an hour, and everyone wants the train to there to stop in their town. The Marches timetable is very much a juggling act trying to meet all the different demands that is placed on it, and anytime you try to tweak it there's an uproar.

I agree and in an ideal world it would be different. However the very slow 1830 could be avoided if they ran an extra shuttle between Crewe and Shrewsbury about 1920 after the 1830 ex Manchester has left Crewe. No doubt there isn't a set available however. The 1830 is a useful train for travelling back from Manchester to wherever in South Wales without leaving Manchester too early or getting back too late. The 2030 is probably fine to make the stops between Crewe and Shrewsbury as it is much later in the evening by the time it leaves Crewe a lot of long distance travellers would have left earlier than that.

As for splitting fares, most of the time I book an advance ticket for journeys unless it is a very short local journey. However on the occasions ive not planned a journey in advance ive always split the ticket where I can. Neath to Cheltenham Spa is one that springs to mind straight away. Ive saved well over £10 by splitting the ticket at Cardiff. Not usually a problem as usually change at Cardiff anyway and never go via Bristol Parkway. I believe Bristol Parkway is still a valid route however, but find the trains much less busy going from Cardiff. I believe GWR, XC and TFW would all get a share of revenue for the ticket regardless of whether it was split at Cardiff as you can travel on any of those 3 between Cardiff and Cheltenham. An extra £10 does seem a lot if one doesnt realise you can split the ticket. Its exactly the same journey on exactly the same trains. Seems very unfair IMO.

 

[craigybagel]

To be fair with a minimum connecting time at Crewe of 10 minutes, you'd need 12 minutes between the stopper and the South Wales/Manchester services arriving/departing at Crewe, which would allow a five minute turnaround for the stopper there.

That would mean passengers on an existing South Wales/Manchester service would have a 13-14 minute extension in journey times.

It's a very difficult balancing act.

As with the fare system, the W&B timetable also needs ripping up and starting again! Of course, there's meant to be a recast in 2024 as part of the franchise - fingers crossed TfW are brave enough to do the necessary to make the service benefit the greatest amount of people, even though whatever they do is bound to upset someone somewhere.

I agree and in an ideal world it would be different. However the very slow 1830 could be avoided if they ran an extra shuttle between Crewe and Shrewsbury about 1920 after the 1830 ex Manchester has left Crewe. No doubt there isn't a set available however. The 1830 is a useful train for travelling back from Manchester to wherever in South Wales without leaving Manchester too early or getting back too late. The 2030 is probably fine to make the stops between Crewe and Shrewsbury as it is much later in the evening by the time it leaves Crewe a lot of long distance travellers would have left earlier than that.

The 153 off the last local arriving into Crewe at 1915 goes on to the shed for servicing, coming off it again at about 4am. Whether it would still have enough time to get all the work it needs doing if it stayed in service for another 2 hours to do another round trip I have no idea.

As for splitting fares, most of the time I book an advance ticket for journeys unless it is a very short local journey. However on the occasions ive not planned a journey in advance ive always split the ticket where I can. Neath to Cheltenham Spa is one that springs to mind straight away. Ive saved well over £10 by splitting the ticket at Cardiff. Not usually a problem as usually change at Cardiff anyway and never go via Bristol Parkway. I believe Bristol Parkway is still a valid route however, but find the trains much less busy going from Cardiff. I believe GWR, XC and TFW would all get a share of revenue for the ticket regardless of whether it was split at Cardiff as you can travel on any of those 3 between Cardiff and Cheltenham. An extra £10 does seem a lot if one doesnt realise you can split the ticket. Its exactly the same journey on exactly the same trains. Seems very unfair IMO.

I too use a lot of split fares - even with my staff discount I still can save even more through splitting. But based on what I saw checking tickets, you and I are in the minority

However, before the mods get upset I should point out both discussing timetables and fares is a bit OT for a thread on future traction.

 

[Jez]

Its a shame the 153 isn't available for that extra Crewe shuttle. That's one of my biggest gripes with the timetable the 1830 Manchester, what is already a long journey is made even longer. It also loses times and very rarely has it left Shrewsbury on time. It usually does make up time by the time we get to Hereford/Abergavenny however.

Im all for saving as much money as possible - train fares are so expensive. I guess people not so clued up about split fares wont know any different. I always write to claim compensation for delays too and usually get vouchers if its over 15 minutes late. Many people are unaware that they can do this either.

Going back on topic - I am looking forward to the CAF Civity trains arriving - are they likely to arrive on time 2022/2023? Are we likely to see a delay in the 175s being withdrawn like the pacers I wonder. I guess its too early to say. It will be sad to see the 175s go, its a shame TFW cant keep at least some of them. Im sure the CAF Civity will be great with all the extra luggage space and capacity. As you say they will have all the modern things that other trains of the same generation have.

 

[tomuk]

2017/2018 ORR Passenger Usage Estimates

Nantwich	237,480
Wrenbury	11,744
Whitchurch (Salop)	140,746
Prees	7,374
Wem	110,630
Yorton	7,686
Church Stretton	130,378
Craven Arms	96,996
Ludlow	300,742
Leominster	261,672

 

[Bikeman78]

Agree. Some people have hidden disabilities that means the need to use one can be sudden and urgent. Joining a queue behind someone changing a baby and maybe a couple of more can end up being somewhat embarrassing. And besides, it doesn't matter how big and full the water tank is if the toilet is out of order for any other reason, where user related or a technical problem.

Going back a generation, wasn't it the norm to have two toilets on most inter-city coaches, ie one per 36 passengers (or less)? Or is my memory wrong on that point.

Yes you are right about two per coach. Travelling with young children just out of nappies can be interesting. They often only announce at the last second that they need a wee. It was noticable that we never had to wait for a toilet on an HST but we often do on an IET. They have one per carriage (on average) so one toilet on a two car long distance unit doesn't sound good.