Liverpool to Llandudno TfW 2 car trains on bank holiday

[Krokodil]

I’m struggling to see how my post relates to you? I was specifically making a point about two points a different poster made because they aren’t reasons a service shouldn’t exist. I don’t know enough about demand on the line in the late evening to suggest if services should exist, although I doubt many people on this thread know for sure.

Ah, sorry. We appear to have crossed wires. I interpreted your post as referring to the one that the post it quoted had in turn quoted.

 

[Starmill]

Bangor to Chester - 30k
Bangor to Colwyn Bay - 20k
Bangor to Llandudno Junction - 16k
Bangor to Rhyl - 15k

Compared with

Skipton to Settle - 11k
Skipton to Gargrave - 6k
Skipton to Carlisle - 5k
Skipton to Hellifield - 4k
Skipton to Lancaster - 2k

Skipton's primary flows are in the direction of Leeds. That is why you can catch a 22:49 to Leeds.

Bangor's primary flows are in the direction of Chester. Yet the last train to Chester is 21:06.


They had plenty of opportunity to invite feedback via internal channels. They never did. Maybe if the company ever bothered to actually communicate with its frontline staff - and actually made them feel like they were listened to - then the staff wouldn't be so fed up. If they had been upfront and honest, and said "here is the new timetable, we recognise that x and y aren't ideal but we were unable to fix them because z" then at least we'd have known that someone was actually listening.

Even if they'd said "we couldn't get Sundays sorted in time, but we're working on it" it would have been something. For all anyone knows North Wales will continue to be stuck with a service pattern that largely dates back to FNW days and leads to a stampede at Chester every hour.

Instead we get a load of PR fluff about the new timetable, and when we went "hang on, what about Sundays?" we just heard crickets.

We had someone from the events team at Chester one Sunday. Saw the scrum for a coast-bound train (which wasn't event traffic, it was contraflow) and remarked how bad it was. Yeah, that's what we dealt with every week. Maybe more senior leadership from Cardiff should pay visits up north on the busy days.

The lack of consultation with frontline grades (until things start going wrong, just like we anticipated each time) is endemic within the company. I once had an interesting chat with someone who worked on the 197 procurement. He wasn't very complimentary about the head of that team (who had been sacked some time before the units were anywhere near passenger service). His former boss refused to entertain any consultation with the people who would actually be working the things. Of course trying to get them altered after the fact is not a cheap exercise. Hence the silly catering cupboards taking up a vast amount of space on units with few seats to begin with. When the transition from 175s to 197s was planned, they said that they'd stable and service these extra units at Chester. The representative from Alstom on the call laughed and asked if they'd ever been to Chester. They had no idea that the DMU depot only had one spare slot each night alongside the 175s (which had to be maintained in service at the same time) and that Middle Yard was also full. When the things got introduced (which was late, which meant CAF took over the DMU depot with the 175s still in service, which didn't end well) the Chester shed drivers were tearing their hair out trying to find stabling space for all of these units, there were drivers having to take units out of the station and sit out west of the station because there was no room. It turned out that the plans had assumed TfW could use every inch of siding and bay platform space - no regard for the fact that tampers and test trains regularly stable on Middle Yard, that Northern stable units at Chester, and that Network Rail will periodically have overnight possessions. If they'd consulted they'd have realised this much earlier on. The poor communication around the introduction of free accompanied child fares resulted in an almighty kick-off at the end of 2019.

This is why I am glad that I no longer have to deal with the corporate BS of a passenger TOC. That makes me a passenger (whether a leisure or a business trip) so I get to join the whinging "why don't you put more coaches on?" as if the person in the uniform stood there had any influence in the decision (not that I would treat my old colleagues like the public do).

And as a passenger I probably can avoid having my intelligence insulted on here by people who think that they know the trains I worked better than I did.


Quite. But apparently our trains are only 25% full so it's "hyperbole". I must have imagined all of those times I got sworn at, received homophobic slurs, or just felt sorry for the holidaymakers emerging from the sardine tin with relief.


The 158s weren't the reason - they don't write very long term plans based on units that would have been withdrawn a few months after the timetable is introduced. The reason was that there aren't enough ETCS-fitted 197s.

There are 21 ETCS-fitted 197s to replace 24 158s. Now yes, some 158s used to be diagrammed to fill gaps the 175s couldn't cover (a morning peak Manchester for example). But the hourly Aberystwyths replaced that unit demand. It appeared that their original plans relied on CAF's hopelessly optimistic availability projections, and on reducing the Birmingham-Holyhead service to two coaches between Shrewsbury and Holyhead (luckily they got cold feet on that one when that plan was ripped to shreds by staff and the specific aspect of splitting a four car unit at Shrewsbury and sending just two towards Chester was openly described as "madness" by a controller).

But just remember that the "experts" know everything and that frontline staff are "hyperbolic" when they get proven to be right, time and time again. Those catering cupboards were such a good idea, weren't they?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jun 2026 ==


I'm yet to see any actual evidence that counters my years of experience. All I've seen is comparisons which don't really apply, and the usual operational convenience argument when there are plenty of alternative ways of working, if the will is there.


And no doubt certain posters on here would be singing the praises of management for the brilliant efficiencies they had introduced.

I'm afraid that as much as it's nice to feel better about these things, an extended personal rant about why things are not the way you want them to be is very unlikely to actually help.

 

[Krokodil]

I'm afraid that as much as it's nice to feel better about these things, an extended personal rant about why things are not the way you want them to be is very unlikely to actually help.

It's about as effective as the proper channels ever were. I, and many other people experienced that time and time again.

 

[berneyarms]

I don’t have a particular view on the line, but this strikes me as someone who has decided their point of view and is attempting to justify it no matter the evidence.

The same could be said for any route in country. The easiest way to balance stock is to run no services, and that also requires the least amount of staff.

I’m struggling to see how my post relates to you? I was specifically making a point about two points a different poster made because they aren’t reasons a service shouldn’t exist. I don’t know enough about demand on the line in the late evening to suggest if services should exist, although I doubt many people on this thread know for sure.

My main point was that I would not be basing the rail timetable around a temporary ferry timetable (caused by a ferry hitting the berth at Holyhead) that is going to change back to normal at some point. Foot passenger numbers are miniscule in the greater scheme of things. Far better to focus on local passenger needs.

But I am afraid you are putting words into my mouth. I haven't made up my mind at all about the general need for an additional service eastbound, but I was simply asking the question about the resources. To add one additional eastbound train is going to need to be balanced out somehow and my question was are the resources there to do that?

 

[mmh]

I'm afraid that as much as it's nice to feel better about these things, an extended personal rant about why things are not the way you want them to be is very unlikely to actually help.

This forum would be very quiet, and very dull, if nobody complained.

I appreciated his post, I recognise much in it.

 

[Starmill]

This forum would be very quiet, and very dull, if nobody complained.

I appreciated his post, I recognise much in it.

Complaining about the issues is reasonable - they are clearly real. If you read the previous posts, you'll note an extended discussion where I tried to explain some of the context, but it was dismissed. However, moaning about your boss, your own colleagues, your ex employer, and baseless whinging about Cardiff and so on, are not things the forum can reasonably engage with are they?

 

[frodshamfella]

So now I'm really confused.

On the Forum I was told that Liverpool to Llandudno trains were rammed. Now I am being told that they are half empty. Can both be true?

When ever I use the service they are certainly very busy when I get on at Frodsham both to Chester or Liverpool. This link via the Halton Curve has taken off, it was just a pity the full potential of linking Liverpool and Wales took so long to get going.

 

[Djgr]

Chester to Liverpool via Runcorn however had little traffic going end-to-end because Merseyrail is quicker and more frequent, ticket interavailability is extremely poor so you can't go out one way and come back the other at a reasonable price. A couple of peak trains have a good loading between Frodsham and Liverpool but nothing that put capacity into question.

A brief look at the fares data suggests that standard tickets between Liverpool and Llandudno are interchangable between the Merseyrail and Runcorn routes.

 

[Krokodil]

A brief look at the fares data suggests that standard tickets between Liverpool and Llandudno are interchangable between the Merseyrail and Runcorn routes.

I don't see what the relevance of that is to the fares situation between Liverpool and Chester.

 

[Djgr]

I don't see what the relevance of that is to the fares situation between Liverpool and Chester.

The Liverpool to Chester service was always a stopgap measure until it could continue as always planned to North Wales.

It was never seen primarily as a competing service to Merseyrail.

 

[Krokodil]

The Liverpool to Chester service was always a stopgap measure until it could continue as always planned to North Wales.

It was never seen primarily as a competing service to Merseyrail.

The whole point being made was that the Chester-Liverpool leg of Llandudno-Liverpool was never going to be busier (barring special events and disruption) than the Llandudno-Chester leg because the latter has both the through traffic and the Chester traffic, while the former shares the Chester traffic with Merseyrail and is poorly placed to compete for it. So the original plan of providing double the capacity east of Chester on those trains was clearly nonsense. Ideally they'd be three coaches throughout.

Incidentally, as part of my new role I paid a box visit today. The signaller (with no prompting from me) had many of the same issues with the new timetable that I've posted on here in terms of how running a two car on the Liverpools right ahead of the longer Manchester is likely to work out in the summer.

 

[Starmill]

Incidentally, as part of my new role I paid a box visit today. The signaller (with no prompting from me) had many of the same issues with the new timetable that I've posted on here in terms of how running a two car on the Liverpools right ahead of the longer Manchester is likely to work out in the summer.

I really do think the Manchester train should be stopping at Abergele & Pensarn during the English school holidays to be honest. This isn't ideal and may cause a headway to break somewhere, although doing that STP is, in certain circumstances, the lesser of the two evils. Of course, it's absolutely not kind on the drivers to go around flipping stops like that, but perhaps it's better than doing nothing.

 

[Caaardiff]

How many units are required for the Liverpool - Llandudno diagrams? I'm guessing 5?
It would have been better to have kept the 2 units on Liverpool-Chester and use the other 3 units to make 3 more Manchester diagrams 5 cars and split them at Llandudno Junction for town and Holyhead. Then introduce the Liverpool to Llandudno service when more units become available through south cascades.

 

[cle]

The stock exists. No reason why this shouldn’t be 4 cars always, that is not long… frankly nothing should be taking up a WCML path or a platform at a major terminus line Lime St at any shorter form.

Or run an additional hourly stopper (which could be 2 cars) from Chester or Crewe to Bangor.

 

[Krokodil]

frankly nothing should be taking up a WCML path or a platform at a major terminus line Lime St at any shorter form.

Slight issue there, it doesn't take up a Lime Street platform. It gets half of one. Which limits formations to three carriages.

 

[Caaardiff]

The stock exists.

But it doesn't

Or run an additional hourly stopper (which could be 2 cars) from Chester or Crewe to Bangor.

The paths aren't there. A huge amount of work has been done along the north wales coast just to get the current paths.
And where will the units come from to run those services?

 

[Adam Evans]

Slight issue there, it doesn't take up a Lime Street platform. It gets half of one. Which limits formations to three carriages.

I can imagine Lime St are really wishing they hadn't ripped up the tracks from the original platform 1 on the North side of the station during the 2017-18 remodelling. It would probably be quite useful now for a space to put the shorter trains.

 

[Djgr]

I can imagine Lime St are really wishing they hadn't ripped up the tracks from the original platform 1 on the North side of the station during the 2017-18 remodelling. It would probably be quite useful now for a space to put the shorter trains.

It did appear, to me, a perverse thing to do at the time!

 

[Sheridan]

I can imagine Lime St are really wishing they hadn't ripped up the tracks from the original platform 1 on the North side of the station during the 2017-18 remodelling. It would probably be quite useful now for a space to put the shorter trains.

Although if those shorter trains are to and from the South Parkway direction then they wouldn’t want to be crossing them over every time.

 

[cle]

What about all these 197s? A local could also be a 150 frankly. And yes paths do exist, there are only 3-4 passenger trains (when a Euston runs) - less west of the Junction.

 

[Adam Evans]

Although if those shorter trains are to and from the South Parkway direction then they wouldn’t want to be crossing them over every time.

Is crossing the tracks southwards such a big issue?

I'd just move the Blackpool and Wigan trains to the northernmost platform, probably renamed 'Platform 0' and then just put one of the southbound trains onto the current Platform 5 which would minimise crossing over each lane.

 

[ayubdaud]

Is crossing the tracks southwards such a big issue?

I'd just move the Blackpool and Wigan trains to the northernmost platform, probably renamed 'Platform 0' and then just put one of the southbound trains onto the current Platform 5 which would minimise crossing over each lane.

Fairly certain there are minimal gaps to reliably add crossing moves at Liverpool.

If you can get the Northern and TfW onto platform 10 at Liverpool then you can at least get 4 cars on the TfW. But I doubt that's realistic as between WMT and Avanti they immediately need 6,9 and 10. If only platform 7 and 8 could fit 2 350s.

 

[Starmill]

I'd just move the Blackpool and Wigan trains to the northernmost platform, probably renamed 'Platform 0' and then just put one of the southbound trains onto the current Platform 5 which would minimise crossing over each lane.

But... they wouldn't fit? The entire reason what used to be platform 1 was abolished was to extend the old platform 2.

Although if those shorter trains are to and from the South Parkway direction then they wouldn’t want to be crossing them over every time.

The bigger problem would be that there's only one track into the old platform 1 and 2. So the old platform 1 would be blocked in whenever a four car or longer arrived at what's now the new platform 1.

It did appear, to me, a perverse thing to do at the time!

Almost as if it was, in fact, carefully considered at the time...

 

[Pinus contorta]

]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jul 2026 ==

The ferry timetable in operation currently is a temporary one due to one of the berths at Holyhead being knocked out of use last winter.

It was supposed to switch back to normal at the end of June, but that has now been revised to the end of October.

Once they revert to the normal times again, then the afternoon Stena sailing from Dublin will connect into trains at Holyhead once more.

Going back to your desire for a later eastbound train, wouldn’t that require more staff, along with creating an imbalance in units for the start of services in the morning at Holyhead?

I’m still not sure how you can change the headway between Liverpool and Manchester services along the North Wales Coast if their paths are dictated by the slots allocated to them into and out of Lime Street and Piccadilly, unless you’re advocating longer waits at Chester?

Yes the other vessel was still berthed up in Barrow in Furness last week.

 

[mmh]

]

That looks like the edge of the toilet door on a 197 you'll have to force open after it's broken (probably nearing 50% chance) - another reason 2 car 197 services aren't acceptable.

(We were told there was nothing to worry about before 197s were introduced - they'd usually run in pairs! People on the forum who didn't believe that for a moment were dismissed as pessimists, including by TFW staff. They were right. Shock)

 

[Starmill]

We were told there was nothing to worry about before 197s were introduced - they'd usually run in pairs!

I don't think anyone ever claimed Ffestiniog, Milford Haven, Pembroke Dock, Cambrian branches, Llandudno - Liverpool, etc would be pairs of 197s. It's not realistic at all.

 

[Pinus contorta]

Apologies
Issues quoting @berneyarms

 

[Krokodil]

That looks like the edge of the toilet door on a 197 you'll have to force open after it's broken (probably nearing 50% chance) - another reason 2 car 197 services aren't acceptable.

There is talk among Cambrian staff that portabogs are to be provided at some stations in case of 197 toilet failure. Otherwise you've easily got gaps of 1hr20m between staffed stations.

 

[Cambrian359]

I don't think anyone ever claimed Ffestiniog, Milford Haven, Pembroke Dock, Cambrian branches, Llandudno - Liverpool, etc would be pairs of 197s. It's not realistic at all.

No they didn’t but to be fair I think you know exactly what was meant by the comment, various assurances were made including the fact there would be more doubled up services on the busier services/parts of the network so if one toilet failed there would be another.
Just tough luck on single unit services!

 

[Caaardiff]

No they didn’t but to be fair I think you know exactly what was meant by the comment, various assurances were made including the fact there would be more doubled up services on the busier services/parts of the network so if one toilet failed there would be another.
Just tough luck on single unit services!

One would expect when purchasing a brand new train that the toilet would be reliable. Sadly thats something train manufacturers find impossible to achieve, as well as CAF finding it difficult to achieve with their trains in general.