Ex LNER (and Grand Central) Mark 4 sets for TfW

[atwales]

Especially as from December there will be other stations that are too short for a 4 car MKIV set that will be served, and not just the current twice a day Abergavenny calls. Nantwich, Whitchurch, Wem and Leominster are all too short in at least one if not both directions and all are booked to be served.

Of note, is that from December Wem, Whitchurch and Nantwich are losing a LOT of Class 1 services and will primarily be served by Class 2 local services.

Wem: currently has 16 Class 1 services to be reduced to 13 from Dec
Whitchurch: currently has 23 Class 1 services to be reduced to 14 from Dec
Nantwich: currently has 24 Class 1 services to be reduced to 20 in Dec

Not sure how many of the remaining services stopping at these stations will be loco-hauled but it does somewhat reduce the potential for issues to arise.

I do wonder if it’s to claw some time back for the loss in running south of Shrewsbury with loco-hauled services running at less than MU speeds.

 

[craigybagel]

Of note, is that from December Wem, Whitchurch and Nantwich are losing a LOT of Class 1 services and will primarily be served by Class 2 local services.

Wem: currently has 16 Class 1 services to be reduced to 13 from Dec
Whitchurch: currently has 23 Class 1 services to be reduced to 14 from Dec
Nantwich: currently has 24 Class 1 services to be reduced to 20 in Dec

Not sure how many of the remaining services stopping at these stations will be loco-hauled but it does somewhat reduce the potential for issues to arise.

I do wonder if it’s to claw some time back for the loss in running south of Shrewsbury with loco-hauled services running at less than MU speeds.

I think you may right about fitting around loco timings - there's very little difference in timings between a non stop loco limited to 70mph and a 90mph DMU stopping at the 3 major stations. The last I heard TfW were still trying to persuade Network Rail to allow running at MU speeds; it would be nice if that could be done as part of the big recast coming.

That said, whilst the stations are getting fewer calls, they are better spread out. At the moment, Nantwich often gets a 1 hour 45 minutes wait for a train, followed another 15 minutes later.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Sep 2022 ==

Also what's with the two guards currently needed?

Abergavenny down platform isn't long enough for the current 4 cars + DVT set. On the two services each day in this direction booked to call 2 guards are booked to be on board, with one used to manually lock out the rear door just for Abergavenny. If for whatever reason only one guard is available, a Not to Call order has to be issued and the service skips Abergavenny.

 

[Envoy]

Abergavenny down platform isn't long enough for the current 4 cars + DVT set. On the two services each day in this direction booked to call 2 guards are booked to be on board, with one used to manually lock out the rear door just for Abergavenny. If for whatever reason only one guard is available, a Not to Call order has to be issued and the service skips Abergavenny.

Why can’t it just have 1 guard who can lock the rear door when approaching Abergavenny?

 

[Nym]

Out of curiosity what type of SDO will it be please? Will it be beacon-based, GPS-based, or a door forward/door in rear type release?

Also what's with the two guards currently needed?

It's just straight SDO. Nothing A or C or CA about it.

 

[craigybagel]

Why can’t it just have 1 guard who can lock the rear door when approaching Abergavenny?

Manually locking out end doors and leaving them unattended whilst the guard dispatches from the other end is frowned upon. It's never been an officially permitted method of working at TfW.

 

[Neptune]

Manually locking out end doors and leaving them unattended whilst the guard dispatches from the other end is frowned upon. It's never been an officially permitted method of working at TfW.

I’m guessing the official reasoning is like at Northern. If there was a fire blocking the route forwards and the escape route backwards is locked out it could be rather problematic at the inquest.

Many people don’t think of that.

 

[anthony263]

Especially as from December there will be other stations that are too short for a 4 car MKIV set that will be served, and not just the current twice a day Abergavenny calls. Nantwich, Whitchurch, Wem and Leominster are all too short in at least one if not both directions and all are booked to be served.

Pyle also being served

 

[craigybagel]

Pyle also being served

Pyle is down as an unadvertised stop on RTT, and only on the northbound service. I know there are some pretty strict rules around trains longer than 4 cars calling at Swanline stops so it wouldn't surprise me if it doesn't actually happen.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Sep 2022 ==

I’m guessing the official reasoning is like at Northern. If there was a fire blocking the route forwards and the escape route backwards is locked out it could be rather problematic at the inquest.

Many people don’t think of that.

Funnily enough the rules around an end door being OOU requiring the entire car to be locked OOU were removed a few years ago.

 

[el_lnrd]

In December 2022, according to RTT, Mk4 diagrams seem to be as follow:

1
Cardiff C 1W11 04:35 - 10:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V37 08:30 -11:53 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W19 12:49 - 16:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V50 16:30 - 20:42 Swansea

2
Swansea 1W13 05:36 - 10:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V39 10:30 -13:53 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W61 14:49 - 18:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V62 18:30 - 21:55 Cardiff C

3
Manchester Picadilly 1V33 06:27 -09:56 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W57 10:52 - 18:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V62 18:30 - 21:55 Cardiff C

4
Cardiff C 1W55 08:49 - 12:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V42 12:30 -15:44 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W65 18:55- 22:27 Manchester Picadilly

At Landore there is a ex-GC Mk4 sets at least, as well as a red liveried DVT.

 

[Clouds]

In December 2022, according to RTT, Mk4 diagrams seem to be as follow:

1
Cardiff C 1W11 04:35 - 10:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V37 08:30 -11:53 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W19 12:49 - 16:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V50 16:30 - 20:42 Swansea

2
Swansea 1W13 05:36 - 10:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V39 10:30 -13:53 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W61 14:49 - 18:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V62 18:30 - 21:55 Cardiff C

3
Manchester Picadilly 1V33 06:27 -09:56 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W57 10:52 - 18:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V62 18:30 - 21:55 Cardiff C

4
Cardiff C 1W55 08:49 - 12:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V42 12:30 -15:44 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W65 18:55- 22:27 Manchester Picadilly

At Landore there is a ex-GC Mk4 sets at least, as well as a red liveried DVT.

So much for the time savings TFW claimed

 

[craigybagel]

In December 2022, according to RTT, Mk4 diagrams seem to be as follow:

1
Cardiff C 1W11 04:35 - 10:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V37 08:30 -11:53 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W19 12:49 - 16:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V50 16:30 - 20:42 Swansea

2
Swansea 1W13 05:36 - 10:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V39 10:30 -13:53 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W61 14:49 - 18:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V62 18:30 - 21:55 Cardiff C

3
Manchester Picadilly 1V33 06:27 -09:56 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W57 10:52 - 18:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V62 18:30 - 21:55 Cardiff C

4
Cardiff C 1W55 08:49 - 12:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V42 12:30 -15:44 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W65 18:55- 22:27 Manchester Picadilly

At Landore there is a ex-GC Mk4 sets at least, as well as a red liveried DVT.

Diagram 4 actually starts at Crewe with 0454 to Cardiff. This causes an imbalance as it requires another set to overnight there. This is likely to be off either ~1650 Cardiff - Manchester or ~2015 Cardiff to Manchester - both of which are missing from RTT entirely, but ECS paths back to Crewe from Manchester do show at around the right time for both services. The 2030 Manchester - Cardiff, which would be expected to be formed with the set off the 1650 from Cardiff, is also shown on the system with no inward working, and is pathed for a DMU.

Also, the initial plans I saw showed some interworking of Manchester and Holyhead sets at Cardiff during the day, but I'm not sure if that's still the plan.

So much for the time savings TFW claimed

Wait until the full timetable comes into effect - that should see some of the intermediate calls on the Marches dropped and services sped up.

 

[xotGD]

In December 2022, according to RTT, Mk4 diagrams seem to be as follow:

1
Cardiff C 1W11 04:35 - 10:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V37 08:30 -11:53 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W19 12:49 - 16:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V50 16:30 - 20:42 Swansea

2
Swansea 1W13 05:36 - 10:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V39 10:30 -13:53 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W61 14:49 - 18:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V62 18:30 - 21:55 Cardiff C

3
Manchester Picadilly 1V33 06:27 -09:56 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W57 10:52 - 18:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V62 18:30 - 21:55 Cardiff C

4
Cardiff C 1W55 08:49 - 12:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V42 12:30 -15:44 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W65 18:55- 22:27 Manchester Picadilly

At Landore there is a ex-GC Mk4 sets at least, as well as a red liveried DVT.

Some of the above are a bit garbled and duplicated.

But basically a 67 every 2 hours.

 

[sd0733]

In December 2022, according to RTT, Mk4 diagrams seem to be as follow:

1
Cardiff C 1W11 04:35 - 10:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V37 08:30 -11:53 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W19 12:49 - 16:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V50 16:30 - 20:42 Swansea

2
Swansea 1W13 05:36 - 10:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V39 10:30 -13:53 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W61 14:49 - 18:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V62 18:30 - 21:55 Cardiff C

3
Manchester Picadilly 1V33 06:27 -09:56 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W57 10:52 - 18:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V62 18:30 - 21:55 Cardiff C

4
Cardiff C 1W55 08:49 - 12:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V42 12:30 -15:44 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W65 18:55- 22:27 Manchester Picadilly

At Landore there is a ex-GC Mk4 sets at least, as well as a red liveried DVT.

The sets interwork with Holyhead workings so thats not what the actual diagrams will be even if the workings are.
1 diagram, pretty much the one shown there as diagram 2 wont he starting until around March to allow the current sets to have SDO fitted.

 

[Watershed]

In December 2022, according to RTT, Mk4 diagrams seem to be as follow:

1
Cardiff C 1W11 04:35 - 10:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V37 08:30 -11:53 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W19 12:49 - 16:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V50 16:30 - 20:42 Swansea

2
Swansea 1W13 05:36 - 10:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V39 10:30 -13:53 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W61 14:49 - 18:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V62 18:30 - 21:55 Cardiff C

3
Manchester Picadilly 1V33 06:27 -09:56 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W57 10:52 - 18:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V62 18:30 - 21:55 Cardiff C

4
Cardiff C 1W55 08:49 - 12:15 Manchester Picadilly
Manchester Picadilly 1V42 12:30 -15:44 Cardiff C
Cardiff C 1W65 18:55- 22:27 Manchester Picadilly

At Landore there is a ex-GC Mk4 sets at least, as well as a red liveried DVT.

Think you've got some of those timings mixed up

But in essence, there's a Mk4 path every second hour except on Sundays - departing 06:30 till 20:30 at the Manchester end, and 04:35 till 18:55 at the Cardiff end. One working at the start and end of day runs to/from Swansea, otherwise they're all to/from Cardiff.

How many of those actually run as Mk4s is another matter...

 

[GWVillager]

I think you may right about fitting around loco timings - there's very little difference in timings between a non stop loco limited to 70mph and a 90mph DMU stopping at the 3 major stations. The last I heard TfW were still trying to persuade Network Rail to allow running at MU speeds; it would be nice if that could be done as part of the big recast coming.

Why can't they run at MU speeds anyway?

 

[JN114]

Why can't they run at MU speeds anyway?

MU speeds are for multiple units; and their superior braking performance.

 

[Western 52]

MU speeds are for multiple units; and their superior braking performance.

Mk4 coaches ran at 125mph on the ECML though, so why below line speed on the Marches route?

 

[whoosh]

Funnily enough the rules around an end door being OOU requiring the entire car to be locked OOU were removed a few years ago.

Not quite the case.

The rules were changed, but now differentiate a door being locked, and a door being locked but still able to be egressed from, and that in the latter case the entire coach may not have to be locked out of use and can continue normally if authority is given by the TOC's Control.

If it's physically locked and can't be egressed from, then the rule hasnt changed.

The Rule Book now also allows (with Control's authority) a car with an internal door or barrier which has been secured (like separating first class for example) near the next operative door, to continue normally.

There will have been a risk assessment done for these coaches, and a risk assessment for the arrangements at Abergavenny.

 

[craigybagel]

Mk4 coaches ran at 125mph on the ECML though, so why below line speed on the Marches route?

The ECML has sufficient braking distances and weight limits for any vehicle capable of 125mph to run at those speeds. On the Marches, only vehicles that are light enough and have good enough brakes to run at MU speeds are allowed to run at those speeds. It's the difference between one of the most important Intercity links in the country, and something that's more of a secondary regional link.

Not quite the case.

The rules were changed, but now differentiate a door being locked, and a door being locked but still able to be egressed from, and that in the latter case the entire coach may not have to be locked out of use and can continue normally if authority is given by the TOC's Control.

If it's physically locked and can't be egressed from, then the rule hasnt changed.

The Rule Book now also allows (with Control's authority) a car with an internal door or barrier which has been secured (like separating first class for example) near the next operative door, to continue normally.

There will have been a risk assessment done for these coaches, and a risk assessment for the arrangements at Abergavenny.

True - although I've always found the bit about control giving authority hilarious. Given a choice are they really likely to say no to keeping the set in service?

 

[Bald Rick]

MU speeds are for multiple units; and their superior braking performance.

MU speeds are for multiple units, with their superior braking performance and light weight.

The loco hauled Mark IV sets have only one of these characteristics.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

MU speeds are for multiple units, with their superior braking performance and light weight.

The loco hauled Mark IV sets have only one of these characteristics.

Very heavy, clunky things compared to the nifty 175s. A slackened timetable on Manchester services would definitely be a good idea.

 

[craigybagel]

Very heavy, clunky things compared to the nifty 175s. A slackened timetable on Manchester services would definitely be a good idea.

On the contrary, where they're not held back by lower speed limits, the 67s will leave a 175 standing. Especially where there's a hill involved - and on the Marches there are lots of them.

They're not good at frequent stops - because of the nature of the brakes precision stopping has to be done carefully, and they're slow to release at well - but it's notable that despite the lower speed limits in parts, the timings for the 67s from December are broadly similar to what the 175s achieve now.

 

[DanNCL]

Why can’t it just have 1 guard who can lock the rear door when approaching Abergavenny?

I don’t think there’s a procedure for this. LNER have to lock out an entire carriage (as opposed to just one door) to serve Skipton and Keighley with Mark 4s. I can’t remember what they did at Falkirk Grahamston when Mark 4s briefly worked to Stirling, I think they may have been forced to use local door only in the absence of any other options. Mark 4s aren’t the most flexible stock when it comes to short platforms!

Why can't they run at MU speeds anyway?

Mk4 coaches ran at 125mph on the ECML though, so why below line speed on the Marches route?

Disregarding any potential breaking performance issues with the Mark 4s preventing use of MU speeds, the presence of a 67 in the consist would prevent use of MU speeds - 67s are Route Availability (RA)8, for comparison 185s which are also too heavy for MU speeds are RA5.

Mark 4s can run at HST speeds with 91s on the ECML (or indeed anywhere else with HST differentials), but not with a 67.

 

[Neptune]

I don’t think there’s a procedure for this. LNER have to lock out an entire carriage (as opposed to just one door) to serve Skipton and Keighley with Mark 4s. I can’t remember what they did at Falkirk Grahamston when Mark 4s briefly worked to Stirling, I think they may have been forced to use local door only in the absence of any other options. Mark 4s aren’t the most flexible stock when it comes to short platforms!

Local door only at Shipley P1 too.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

MU differentials apply on the Marches route between Nantwich and Craven Arms (90mph rather than 70).
But not Crewe-Manchester (110mph possible Sandbach-Cheadle Hulme) or south of Craven Arms (mostly 90mph to Pontypool).
Shrewsbury-Chester-Holyhead is more complicated, but there are some 90mph stretches as well as some non-MU restrictions.

 

[craigybagel]

Disregarding any potential breaking performance issues with the Mark 4s preventing use of MU speeds, the presence of a 67 in the consist would prevent use of MU speeds - 67s are Route Availability (RA)8, for comparison 185s which are also too heavy for MU speeds are RA5.

Although Network Rail were perfectly happy for the 67s to run at MU speeds on the Shrewsbury - Craven Arms section when they were hauling MKIIIs. It's only since the change to MKIVs that they've had to slow down here.

Mark 4s can run at HST speeds with 91s on the ECML (or indeed anywhere else with HST differentials), but not with a 67.

What confuses me is that NR have also said no to running at HST speeds - even though as you say the MKIVs themselves are deemed acceptable for this when hauled by a 91, and a 67 has such good braking characteristics that when running light engine they're not subject to the usual speed limits for such moves.

MU differentials apply on the Marches route between Nantwich and Craven Arms (90mph rather than 70).
But not Crewe-Manchester (110mph possible Sandbach-Cheadle Hulme) or south of Craven Arms (mostly 90mph to Pontypool).
Shrewsbury-Chester-Holyhead is more complicated, but there are some 90mph stretches as well as some non-MU restrictions.

And as I said above, on the sections without MU differentials the 67s will out perform the units. Some of those 90mph sections are unobtainable for a unit, even a 175, but a 67 will do with no problem. My suspicion is they'll trounce the 175s when it comes to accelerating to 100 (and beyond) North of Crewe.

The biggest losses of time for the 67s will be Crewe - Shrewsbury (which is relatively flat and has sustained 90mph running in both directions) and the 40/90MU bridge just north of Craven Arms. If anything could be fixed, those should be the priorities.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Adding a fifth car to the Mk4 sets will trim the performance somewhat.

 

[krus_aragon]

Adding a fifth car to the Mk4 sets will trim the performance somewhat.

But also improve the braking performance?

 

[craigybagel]

Adding a fifth car to the Mk4 sets will trim the performance somewhat.

True - it'll increase weight by about 13%. I reckon they'll still be quicker than a 175 at that point though, but it'll be interesting to see how exactly it pans out.

But also improve the braking performance?

I'm no expert, but based on my experience driving the sets as they are now the brakes are fine enough as they are. Driving from the DVT I rarely need to go past step 2. It's weight that's going to be the issue I would have thought.

 

[GWVillager]

Although Network Rail were perfectly happy for the 67s to run at MU speeds on the Shrewsbury - Craven Arms section when they were hauling MKIIIs. It's only since the change to MKIVs that they've had to slow down here.

Is that weight related as well or more to do with paperwork