Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The line has been planned for over a decade and the initial phase should have opened in 2019. Plenty of time to order but no order made, nor any tender issued.
Good point although currently the 196s have really sat around idle because there are 26 class 196s for 13 WMR diagrams.
Correct me if i am wrong but I make it
Thirteen 196s currently unused, take two for Camp Hill, take 6 for EWR diagrams and that leaves 5 maintenance spares.
So 21 needed out of 26 built !.
All what I have understood from this thread and the daily allocations on Pert Time Spotter.
The order for 196s was made when no one knew who would get the EWR train service contract.
BUT - I thought six extra 2car 196s were ordered for EWR.
Good point although currently the 196s have really sat around idle because there are 26 class 196s for 13 WMR diagrams.
Correct me if i am wrong but I make it
Thirteen 196s currently unused, take two for Camp Hill, take 6 for EWR diagrams and that leaves 5 maintenance spares.
So 21 needed out of 26 built !.
All what I have understood from this thread and the daily allocations on Pert Time Spotter.
As WMT/LNR were ordering new units and they were already operating the Bletchley-Bedford section of what will become part of EWR, it obviously made sense at the time to tack 6 units onto the WMR order. Currently the Bletchley-Bedford section is operated by Class 150s nearly 40 years old so likely to require replacement in the near future so we may see 196s on this line.
The order for 196s was made when no one knew who would get the EWR train service contract.
BUT - I thought six extra 2car 196s were ordered for EWR.
Good point although currently the 196s have really sat around idle because there are 26 class 196s for 13 WMR diagrams.
Correct me if i am wrong but I make it
Thirteen 196s currently unused, take two for Camp Hill, take 6 for EWR diagrams and that leaves 5 maintenance spares.
So 21 needed out of 26 built !.
All what I have understood from this thread and the daily allocations on Pert Time Spotter.
If you’ve used today’s allocations for your maths. Take into account 2 diagrams 407 & 409 are covered by 2 car 172’s today. So that should be 13 diagrams currently if all covered. Add 2 for camp hill & 2 for full Worcester service. Plus 6 for EWR. That leaves 3 for maintenance. So not enough and WMT passengers will ultimately lose out.
As WMT/LNR were ordering new units and they were already operating the Bletchley-Bedford section of what will become part of EWR, it obviously made sense at the time to tack 6 units onto the WMR order. Currently the Bletchley-Bedford section is operated by Class 150s nearly 40 years old so likely to require replacement in the near future so we may see 196s on this line.
This has also been discussed at length on this forum and the reasons why various route upgrades would have to be carried out before Class 196s could work on the Bedford-Bletchley route are well documented.
Current fleet stabling plan is a bit compromised, sorted for December. Additional Worcs is one unit, so final state with Camp Hill is 11/14 4 cars and 4/6 2 cars. Plenty to go round.
Neither can the 196’s at present. System is fully isolated. They can reinstate it but it means they will be limited to the 6 sets that go initially with no capacity to borrow replacements if reqd.
True, but it's a lot easier to reinstate than it is to design and install some form of train based DOO system for an older fleet.
Assuming TCMS is set up the same way as a 197, isolating the cameras is very easy. TfW's units run around with the cameras isolated by default as well, but they can be switched on if you know where to look in the TCMS for it
I think you misunderstand. If trains are due to be worked DOO using this system then it will be agreed between all relevant parties and drivers will be trained accordingly. If another method of dispatch is settled on instead, there will be no requirement to have the cameras/screens in use and switched on so they should be isolated.
BTW, DOO cameras and in-cab monitors are not a 'safety system'. They form part of the dispatch process if in use under an agreed method of operation. If they're not in use, they should be isolated as per my previous comment.
As EWR will be a DOO operation then Chiltern will train the drivers to use whatever system is available so much of this discussion is irrelevant. Chiltern is already a DOO operation south of Banbury anyway except for the loco hauled services.
As EWR will be a DOO operation then Chiltern will train the drivers to use whatever system is available so much of this discussion is irrelevant. Chiltern is already a DOO operation south of Banbury anyway except for the loco hauled services.
As far as I'm aware no confirmation has been made anywhere yet as to the method of EWR train operation, so any comment on whether it will be DOO or guarded operation is pure conjecture at this moment in time.
DOO will be a requirement in the Rail Contract between DfT and Chiltern which I am sure you will find online somewhere.
a) DfT policy that all new services should be DOO where possible.
b) Chiltern Railways is predominantly a DOO operator with guards carried only on trains north of Banbury and on loco-hauled trains.
c) When the late Adrian Shooter set up Chiltern he had a policy of not employing anyone with the job title of guard or conductor but as Customer Service Assistants some of whom were passed out to act as guards if required.
d) The first part of the line between Oxford and Bicester is already DOO.
e) There is no operational reason why EWR should not be DOO.
DOO will be a requirement in the Rail Contract between DfT and Chiltern which I am sure you will find online somewhere.
a) DfT policy that all new services should be DOO where possible.
b) Chiltern Railways is predominantly a DOO operator with guards carried only on trains north of Banbury and on loco-hauled trains.
c) When the late Adrian Shooter set up Chiltern he had a policy of not employing anyone with the job title of guard or conductor but as Customer Service Assistants some of whom were passed out to act as guards if required.
d) The first part of the line between Oxford and Bicester is already DOO.
e) There is no operational reason why EWR should not be DOO.
You're making a lot of assumptions there - some based on fact and some on conjecture, particularly with your first sentence. A casual observer may well conclude that the method of operation should be DOO but again, that is by no means confirmed.
Please free to post the 'Rail Contract between DfT and Chiltern' in relation to EWR if you're so sure it's available online. Shouldn't take you long to find the relevant clause, no?
I have been following the allocations of 196s and it is rarely that all diagrams are 100% satisfied.
Today I noticed one of the two NuCLe (Nuneaton-Coventry-Leamington Spa) pair is not out. Decided to look at RTT and I see that all day the single unit is shuttling Coventry/Nuneaton only and the Coventry/Leamington Spa half is a replacement bus !. I suppose it saves most of a conflicting move at Coventry !. Seems to have been the same yesterday but with some extra non-bus cancellations. Looks to be issues with train crew.
Would that be lack of train crew or lack of train crew trained on the traction ?.
I have been following the allocations of 196s and it is rarely that all diagrams are 100% satisfied.
Today I noticed one of the two NuCLe (Nuneaton-Coventry-Leamington Spa) pair is not out. Decided to look at RTT and I see that all day the single unit is shuttling Coventry/Nuneaton only and the Coventry/Leamington Spa half is a replacement bus !. I suppose it saves most of a conflicting move at Coventry !. Seems to have been the same yesterday but with some extra non-bus cancellations. Looks to be issues with train crew.
Would that be lack of train crew or lack of train crew trained on the traction ?.
I have been following the allocations of 196s and it is rarely that all diagrams are 100% satisfied.
Today I noticed one of the two NuCLe (Nuneaton-Coventry-Leamington Spa) pair is not out. Decided to look at RTT and I see that all day the single unit is shuttling Coventry/Nuneaton only and the Coventry/Leamington Spa half is a replacement bus !. I suppose it saves most of a conflicting move at Coventry !. Seems to have been the same yesterday but with some extra non-bus cancellations. Looks to be issues with train crew.
Would that be lack of train crew or lack of train crew trained on the traction ?.
There isn't really much of a conflicting movement at Coventry (unless something is late). One service departs towards Nuneaton as the other service arrives from Nuneaton.
There isn't really much of a conflicting movement at Coventry (unless something is late). One service departs towards Nuneaton as the other service arrives from Nuneaton.
Maybe the engineering work is impacting capacity (the 2car shuttle would be the easiest to sacrifice). But istr the line Coventry to Leamington is mainly/all single track anyway ?.
Maybe it is stuffing one platform at Coventry or the bay at Leamington ?.
There is currently a reduced XC service through Nuneaton as services are going no further than Coleshill due to HS2 work. I really cannot see this being the reason for a reduced service on the Coventry link though. More likely staffing issues.
So this week (3 days so far) I have noticed none of 196007-196012 have been used. With 196009 & 196010 off lease since earlier in August does that mean all six are earmarked for EWR I wonder ?.
Then does that mean 196113 and 196114 are at last going to see some use ?.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If you’ve used today’s allocations for your maths. Take into account 2 diagrams 407 & 409 are covered by 2 car 172’s today. So that should be 13 diagrams currently if all covered. Add 2 for camp hill & 2 for full Worcester service. Plus 6 for EWR. That leaves 3 for maintenance. So not enough and WMT passengers will ultimately lose out.
I was just reading this again. I was assuming the normal diagrams for 4 x 196/0 and 9 x 196/1.
What are the two extra Camp Hill 196s going to be ?.
(I had assumed 196/0 for a fledgling service).
What are the two extra Worcester 196s going to be ?.
(I had assumed 2 x 196/1, or better diagramming)
But I vaguely recall the Shrewsbury services are to become all 196/1 - freeing up two 196/0s for Camp Hill.
So without the extra Worcester diagrams it could be :-
4 out of 6 196/0s (66%)
11 out of 14 196/1s (79%)
This is assuming it is six 196/0s go to EWR.
Even one more 196/1 (total 12) would bring the 196/1s up to 85%.
So each subclass has one maintenance spare and one running spare.
Tight but I feel sure that is what modern management (£s) expect will work and were promised by CAF !.
Two more 196/1s *total 13) would bring the 196/1s up to 93% which is unlikely at first sight !.
But assuming it is two extra 196/1s it is doable with one 196/0 on maintenance, one 196/1 on maintenance and a single 196/0 as a running spare.
Only tight if you live in the real world !.
Yes 196012 was planned to be out last week on Wednesday 28/08/2024 but I saw it out on Tuesday 27/08/2024 in place of another unit on the Worcester route iirc.
(see lower down)
But none of 196007 - 196012 have been planned for use Monday 02/09/2024 onwards (Part Time Spotter). It is a bit early to be sure if that is is just a fluke. Also there were often 196/0s put out on 196/1 diagrams also but that has not happened this week so it has just been four out of 196001-196006 since then. Of course actual observations might show a digression from the plan for the day. But if the 196/0s are off lease then I doubt they will get used even to cover a breakdown.
I will be interested to see what anyone observes (please) plus what PTS morning reports show. That is for this week onwards.
EDIT 05/09/2024 10:00
Egg on face - 196012 has come out to work on the NuCLe (Nuneaton/Leamington)
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
