TfW potential future rolling stock procurements

[cle]

IF we were talking about a Cardiff-Newport-Hereford-Shrewsbury-Crewe-Wilmslow-Stockport-Manchester then that might be an attempt to run an intercity service. Avanti serve Wilmslow so I left it in. However, that would then need a relief train on the 197 stopping pattern to prevent many of the smaller towns on the route losing their hourly service to Manchester.

This would be the pattern I would imagine, and agree Wilmslow is the outlier there - but a relief service might only have the paths to run Cardiff-Crewe (Crewe offers many more connections beyond Manchester - it would work out) - and so Wilmslow would be down a service. But I doubt there is much demand Wilmslow - west of Crewe in itself.

If the Liverpool plan came back, that would add frequency south of Shrewsbury too, of course - useful especially for Leominster, Ludlow and Aber who are on the busy side for mostly 1tph.

 

[Topological]

This would be the pattern I would imagine, and agree Wilmslow is the outlier there - but a relief service might only have the paths to run Cardiff-Crewe (Crewe offers many more connections beyond Manchester - it would work out) - and so Wilmslow would be down a service. But I doubt there is much demand Wilmslow - west of Crewe in itself.

If the Liverpool plan came back, that would add frequency south of Shrewsbury too, of course - useful especially for Leominster, Ludlow and Aber who are on the busy side for mostly 1tph.

Thankfully, no one has actually decided to launch such a service.

Although I do not have the numbers, the impact on service to places like Abergavenny, Leominster and Ludlow would be terrible. You are inserting connections for what? The line does not need high top speed, so just gear for more stops.

Given that the Mk4 is considered "Premier" then the fact that 197s can do the same time but serving more communities tells you exactly what is needed. We do not need a premium service we need a service that serves more people and still keeps to the same time (i.e. trains geared and built to stop and accelerate more)

Anyone who wants trains that have long gaps like Newport to Hereford to Shrewsbury probably needs to go from Taunton to Reading as I do not think we have many in the South West that only stop once an hour. Certainly long spread stops is not what the Marches should be about.

I am not saying you in particular. But it amazes me that people look at the 09:53 and 10:53 departures from Cardiff and think the latter is a better stopping pattern for two trains that take exactly the same time. (For reference the "Premier" stock is so useless that today's 10:53 is a 197 as was the 06:46 which was also advertised as being reject ECML junk)

Is it worth investing in "Intercity" stock that has a lower maximum speed and is geared to accelerate and dwell for shorter times? I doubt it. It is also worth noting that the highest standard seating capacity train is the 5-car 197 and that is overkill for most services. So essentially you are building a train for a bespoke Intercity setting and only need a few of them.

More 197s would be absolutely fine. If they can be made to work part of the route on battery and charge between Crewe and Manchester, or Newport and Cardiff, then that would be an environmental bonus.

 

[Harpo]

More 197s would be absolutely fine.

Making the ones they’ve already got work would be a good start.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Wednesday at 10:01 ==

The answer is not to buy more trains from the manufacturer that has built the current fleet that fails to meet availability targets. That's just rewarding failure.

Exactly!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Making the ones they’ve already got work would be a good start.

How does reliability compare to Northern's very similar 195s, and if different what is being done differently?

 

[Topological]

Making the ones they’ve already got work would be a good start.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Wednesday at 10:01 ==


Exactly!

Giving them a depot that was big enough would be an even better planning start.

How anyone thought that putting the 197s through a depot that was sized for the 175s was a good idea I will never know. It is no surprise you end up with queues for work to be done.

It is very harsh saying that the 197s are out of service relative to other classes that do not need to queue so long to get into their depots.

 

[3RDGEN]

How does reliability compare to Northern's very similar 195s, and if different what is being done differently?

All three CAF 19x fleets are similar and it's awful at approx. 8000 miles per failure. The data is in the Roger Ford new train performance table in Modern Railways every month since none of the fleets has ever achieved the 15000 miles figure to exit the table. The 195's are over seven years old so are unlikely to improve much more now, buy cheap buy twice.

TfW may buy more since it supports local jobs and is a common fleet with no further training required however where will they be maintained?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Wednesday at 10:40 ==

How anyone thought that putting the 197s through a depot that was sized for the 175s was a good idea I will never know.

TfW and CAF both knew the capacity of Chester but still went ahead, even when 197's go into Machynlleth there will be capacity issues. A new depot should have been created for the new fleet but they went cheap.

 

[Topological]

All three CAF 19x fleets are similar and it's awful at approx. 8000 miles per failure. The data is in the Roger Ford new train performance table in Modern Railways every month since none of the fleets has ever achieved the 15000 miles figure to exit the table. The 195's are over seven years old so are unlikely to improve much more now, buy cheap buy twice.

TfW may buy more since it supports local jobs and is a common fleet with no further training required however where will they be maintained?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Wednesday at 10:40 ==


TfW and CAF both knew the capacity of Chester but still went ahead, even when 197's go into Machynlleth there will be capacity issues. A new depot should have been created for the new fleet but they went cheap.

The decision to use Chester was certainly a cheap one. But I would blame those involved in that decision more than the trains themselves for the consequences.

It was a missed opportunity not to repurpose a brownfield rail-connected site for the depot. Missed from many sides as there are so many such sites in South Wales (and I am sure there are near Chester) where the good news stories for the government could have helped too.

All passed now, but I do not think that the 197s have an equal chance of hitting service targets as other classes.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The decision to use Chester was certainly a cheap one. But I would blame those involved in that decision more than the trains themselves for the consequences.

It was a missed opportunity not to repurpose a brownfield rail-connected site for the depot. Missed from many sides as there are so many such sites in South Wales (and I am sure there are near Chester) where the good news stories for the government could have helped too.

All passed now, but I do not think that the 197s have an equal chance of hitting service targets as other classes.

Whatever the extra fleet chosen, more depot capacity in South Wales would make sense as seems there are reasonable sites AND it is then within Wales (unlike Chester).

 

[3RDGEN]

The decision to use Chester was certainly a cheap one. But I would blame those involved in that decision more than the trains themselves for the consequences.

It was a missed opportunity not to repurpose a brownfield rail-connected site for the depot. Missed from many sides as there are so many such sites in South Wales (and I am sure there are near Chester) where the good news stories for the government could have helped too.

All passed now, but I do not think that the 197s have an equal chance of hitting service targets as other classes.

Need to wait until Machynlleth is in full use and has had time to get used to the fleet before a real judgement can be made but based upon the 195 & 196's it's not looking good. The one up side is the 197's are CAF maintained whereas the 195 & 196 are TOC maintained with CAF support so the 197's should be the star performers once the depot issues are resolved.

Replacing the 158 & 175's on mass was the correct plan for a common fleet and extra capacity, just a shame TfW has a new fleet that's less reliable and with poorer availability than the old ones.

 

[Topological]

Need to wait until Machynlleth is in full use and has had time to get used to the fleet before a real judgement can be made but based upon the 195 & 196's it's not looking good. The one up side is the 197's are CAF maintained whereas the 195 & 196 are TOC maintained with CAF support so the 197's should be the star performers once the depot issues are resolved.

Replacing the 158 & 175's on mass was the correct plan for a common fleet and extra capacity, just a shame TfW has a new fleet that's less reliable and with poorer availability than the old ones.

My understanding is that even with Machynlleth online there are still more 197s to be maintained across Chester and Machynlleth than there were 175s and 158s maintained by those two depots.

I still think it would have been better with a bigger depot.

 

[Peter Sarf]

My understanding is that even with Machynlleth online there are still more 197s to be maintained across Chester and Machynlleth than there were 175s and 158s maintained by those two depots.

I still think it would have been better with a bigger depot.

I suppose we can add Holyhead to the extra capacity already existing since 158+175 days- I don't know how much beyond a wheel lathe though.

Plus bear in mind that when the 158s go that will reduce fleet size and simplify.

I still agree Chester is too small.

 

[Caaardiff]

More 197s would be absolutely fine

There is so much wrong with that statement, I dont even know where to start.
The last thing TFW, or any part of the UK Rail network, needs is more 197s.

There are quite a few 197s out of service with various major faults, and damage that is taking an age to repair, but are being hidden by the use of Cambrian 197s in their place, which cant go on forever.

 

[Topological]

There is so much wrong with that statement, I dont even know where to start.
The last thing TFW, or any part of the UK Rail network, needs is more 197s.

There are quite a few 197s out of service with various major faults, and damage that is taking an age to repair, but are being hidden by the use of Cambrian 197s in their place, which cant go on forever.

See the point about depot capacity.

Even if it is not more 197s, it needs to be more similar units. As noted in my posts, we need something which can give all the stations on the line a good service AND keep to the present Mk4 journey time. We know the 197s can do it because of the current timetable. However, that does not mean 197s would be the only units that can.

I just do not see the sense in denying service to places like Church Stretton, Whitchurch or Nantwich, just so that you can have a train geared for faster running with slow boarding end doors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if it is not more 197s, it needs to be more similar units. As noted in my posts, we need something which can give all the stations on the line a good service AND keep to the present Mk4 journey time. We know the 197s can do it because of the current timetable. However, that does not mean 197s would be the only units that can.

Or they go for something entirely different and cascade 197s, e.g. a 5 car train with "intercity style" interior, which to be fair the 197 isn't that far off, it's quite comfortable in my view, though the colour scheme and lighting is very stark.

I just do not see the sense in denying service to places like Church Stretton, Whitchurch or Nantwich, just so that you can have a train geared for faster running with slow boarding end doors.

There will be no more new end doored trains after the 897 and HS2 units anyway, simply because you can't do low floor with end doors as the bogies get in the way. All new trains will be doors at thirds ish, though some may only have a door at one of the two thirds like say the 745s. (The middle isn't good as the stepping distance can be too great on curved platforms so that won't be common either, hence why the Mk1s and Mk2s had those blocked off).

 

[Zomboid]

There will be no more new end doored trains after the 897 and HS2 units anyway, simply because you can't do low floor with end doors as the bogies get in the way.

But do they have to? S Stock on the underground manages it, and the wheel diameter is about the same as a 220/222. No doubt there would be other compromises, but at least for trains without a diesel engine under there it shouldn't be impossible to have low floor throughout.

 

[lowe1409]

The middle isn't good as the stepping distance can be too great on curved platforms so that won't be common either, hence why the Mk1s and Mk2s had those blocked off

Tell that to alstom and these new TPE trains...

In all fairness, I reckon that new level boarding gap fillers will make doors in the middle of carriages less problematic going forward. Potentially even being the way new intercity trains go to maintain the benefits of having a door between the vestibule and main seating areas.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tell that to alstom and these new TPE trains...

They're not in the middle, they're at one third (roughly).

 

[lowe1409]

They're not in the middle, they're at one third (roughly).

I agree they're not quite perfectly central, however they do appear to be more central than at one third from the images I've seen

 

[positron]

More 197s would be absolutely fine. If they can be made to work part of the route on battery and charge between Crewe and Manchester, or Newport and Cardiff, then that would be an environmental bonus.

You can't make a mechanical traction system basically run on battery. The 197s are the actually junk train in that respect, they're incredibly high floored units with no way to ever make run on electric. The best they'll manage is running on 100% HVO or maybe at a push a hydrogen system.

Also given how CAF have been problematic to work with for TfW (arguing over contract terms rather than doing what's right for passengers) I really don't see why they'd want to give them any further orders.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also given how CAF have been problematic to work with for TfW (arguing over contract terms rather than doing what's right for passengers) I really don't see why they'd want to give them any further orders.

The factory being in Wales. That closing would be very bad publicity.

 

[43096]

All three CAF 19x fleets are similar and it's awful at approx. 8000 miles per failure. The data is in the Roger Ford new train performance table in Modern Railways every month since none of the fleets has ever achieved the 15000 miles figure to exit the table. The 195's are over seven years old so are unlikely to improve much more now, buy cheap buy twice.

That's reliability, which is one metric. What is the availability - i.e. what proportion of the fleet is in use each day?

 

[JamesT]

But do they have to? S Stock on the underground manages it, and the wheel diameter is about the same as a 220/222. No doubt there would be other compromises, but at least for trains without a diesel engine under there it shouldn't be impossible to have low floor throughout.

S stock doesn’t manage it. Floor height is 1005mm, versus standard platform height of 915mm. They’re also 60mph units, I suspect you need chunkier suspension for something that can do mainline speeds.

 

[positron]

The factory being in Wales. That closing would be very bad publicity.

Not like a different train manufacturer who maybe doesn't already have UK production capacity couldn't take it over though.

 

[SWML9102]

The 197 is a good layout and design for inter regional services such as Cardiff - Manchester. Agreed the build quality and reliability is not top notch, but having made the decision for a large fleet of them, then increasing fleet size with more of the same is, I would say, the correct decision. Meanwhile effort needs to be made on improving reliability and some thought given to maintenence capacity. I do think that increasing the number of three car units is also worth considering- ie extra centre cars. There are too many routes where inadequate capacity of 2-cars is evident - should not be running services around Cardiff for example.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The 197 is a good layout and design for inter regional services such as Cardiff - Manchester. Agreed the build quality and reliability is not top notch, but having made the decision for a large fleet of them, then increasing fleet size with more of the same is, I would say, the correct decision. Meanwhile effort needs to be made on improving reliability and some thought given to maintenence capacity. I do think that increasing the number of three car units is also worth considering- ie extra centre cars. There are too many routes where inadequate capacity of 2-cars is evident - should not be running services around Cardiff for example.

Still need enough 2car 197s to add to 3car 197s for the 5car services - although how many of the stations Swansea to Manchester could take 6cars ?.

Another thought is pairs of 2car units might be better than lengthening one 2car unit to 3car.

But in my heart I feel longer units is best, if practical, fewer cabs taking up space and to maintain.

If the 197s can be got up to reasonable reliability then the efficiency of a homogeneous fleet wins.
Otherwise I can see CAF Newport should be viewed as a political mill stone round Wales' neck.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But in my heart I feel longer units is best, if practical, fewer cabs taking up space and to maintain.

I think there is scope for five car units with a coach of first class for the longer distance services, to be used on all of those and thus to make a more consistent product. It would mean the loss of direct Manchester to west of Swansea services, but is that really a massive loss?

An option would be to move Voyagers from XC and replace those with new build, given that there are hardly any wires, but used old tat could be too political, particularly old tat that is often villified.

If these replaced all Manchester-South Wales services plus possibly Manchester-Holyhead and the "WAG", would that free up enough 197s to be workable for everything else?

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think there is scope for five car units with a coach of first class for the longer distance services, to be used on all of those and thus to make a more consistent product. It would mean the loss of direct Manchester to west of Swansea services, but is that really a massive loss?

An option would be to move Voyagers from XC and replace those with new build, given that there are hardly any wires, but used old tat could be too political, particularly old tat that is often villified.

If these replaced all Manchester-South Wales services plus possibly Manchester-Holyhead and the "WAG", would that free up enough 197s to be workable for everything else?

It has its merits.
I think your mention of Holyhead to Manchester and Holyhead to Swansea in addition to Swansea to Manchester is enough demand to warrant a new design.

Otherwise - First hurdle is it will not use up all the XC Voyagers. So another operators ideas might look mre attractive to the ROSCO. Perhaps TfW should be hanging on for XC to start replacing their Voyagers but I feel no time soon is the answer.

Not sure how much first class provision is necessary - some at least (if consistent and reliable).

Makes sense to treat West of Swansea as separate - would allow more reliability into South West Wales but there will be those wishing for through services to Cardiff. Perhaps terminating at Newport but I doubt there is capacity there or on the South Wales main line (perhaps roll something like the Cheltenham and/or Bristol services into it something splitting at Swansea with one or two portions going further West.

 

[3RDGEN]

That's reliability, which is one metric. What is the availability - i.e. what proportion of the fleet is in use each day?

Don't believe they publish the availability figures to the public but until the 197's have both depots in place you can't make a final judgement however not sure Northern hit their targets given the short forms and issues they have. 195 & 196 are TOC maintained so CAF have an easy way out by blaming them but 197 is in house maintenance so long-term there's no one else to blame. It's already mentioned but even when Machynlleth opens Chester will still have a significant increase in vehicles/units on the 175 fleet so not sure how that will work out as the fleet becomes due more overhaul activities.