Arriva Trains Wales Query

[anthony263]

Stopping at those stations would let the M4 surge ahead again. I think they should be openned for trains/trams from the likes of Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen to Swansea docks though.

Wrong, without speed restrictions would be even faster. Look at tommorow (Sat 21st April 2012) on East Coast journey planner for trains from Port Talbot Parkway to Llanelli avoiding Swansea with no changes and you'll see it can be done in 29 minutes already. Take away those speed restrictions, as you suggest, and Cardiff - Llanelli could fall some way less than an hour, even less if you make parts of the district line 90mph.

Good points and I will have a look at the engineering work tommorow especially if I can get another trip on the Swansea district Line.

 

[tbtc]

Precisely my point, going to Carmarthen from Cardiff via Swansea is so slow that most passengers you see at Swansea on the Manchester - Milford/Carmarthen trains are getting on or off there. I assume the service as it is is justified, and there probably aren't many passengers who travel through Swansea.

According to a survey I've seen, there's more demand for travel from Pembrokeshire to Cardiff and England than to Swansea, if rail could capture that market you should be able to justify some extra trains without Swansea stops, given that the (smaller) Pembrokeshire to Swansea market sustains the current Swansea services. A Swansea district line service wouldn't need a 4-car LHCS rake though, a single 158 would be plenty to start with, which is why putting the LHCS on Manchesters would be more sensible aside from the LHCS lacking an accessible toilet

It's a tricky one.

I can see the logic in XC no longer serving Gloucester, as Gloucester's hourly service to both Birmingham and Bristol (and also Nottingham etc) is probably about enough, so the longer distance trains don't need to divert/reverse at Gloucester.

But Swansea is a big place to ignore (esp when the Cardiff - Swansea service seems to have been ignored compared to improvements elsewhere in Wales).

I appreciate that there's demand from Pembrokeshire to Cardiff/ England (though it's obviously hard to serve all of the English market with one service), but how many Pembrokeshire - Cardiff passengers would be attracted to a "District Line" service compared to the number of Pembrokeshire - Swansea and Swansea - Cardiff passengers that would be lost?

There's always an opportunity cost in running a service (e.g. I've no problem with the patriotic Holyhead - Cardiff services on their own, but they do come at the cost of stopping other services like Bangor - Manchester or Cardiff - Liverpool as the stock can only be used on one service at a time).

As a local example to me, you could run a faster service from Sheffield to Leicester/London via the Erewash Valley route (bypassing both Derby and Nottingham). But that would mean losing the Sheffield - Derby and the Derby - Leicester/London markets. Improving one market probably isn't worth giving up the other two for.

 

[Michael.Y]

That would be the strengthened set I saw on easter Monday presumably?

Nah - this was a couple of weeks ago; when a failed 158 caused us to break down at Hereford. I think I mentioned it in one of the threads...

 

[Greenback]

It's a tricky one.

I can see the logic in XC no longer serving Gloucester, as Gloucester's hourly service to both Birmingham and Bristol (and also Nottingham etc) is probably about enough, so the longer distance trains don't need to divert/reverse at Gloucester.

But Swansea is a big place to ignore (esp when the Cardiff - Swansea service seems to have been ignored compared to improvements elsewhere in Wales).

I appreciate that there's demand from Pembrokeshire to Cardiff/ England (though it's obviously hard to serve all of the English market with one service), but how many Pembrokeshire - Cardiff passengers would be attracted to a "District Line" service compared to the number of Pembrokeshire - Swansea and Swansea - Cardiff passengers that would be lost?

There's always an opportunity cost in running a service (e.g. I've no problem with the patriotic Holyhead - Cardiff services on their own, but they do come at the cost of stopping other services like Bangor - Manchester or Cardiff - Liverpool as the stock can only be used on one service at a time).

As a local example to me, you could run a faster service from Sheffield to Leicester/London via the Erewash Valley route (bypassing both Derby and Nottingham). But that would mean losing the Sheffield - Derby and the Derby - Leicester/London markets. Improving one market probably isn't worth giving up the other two for.

I agree. Swansea (and Neath) would be ignored by Swansea District Line services, which would not be a good use of resources. There are through passengers to and from Cardiff and West Wales, but there are also quite a few that use Neath and Swansea!

On the services from Pembroke Dock, more people seem to change to the London train at Swansea, but with the services to and from Manchester it's usually more sensible to change at Cardiff. But these services are more of a lot of shorter distance flows strung together than catering for a huge market for through journeys.

When it comes to faster journeys between Carmarthen and Cardiff, I have asked before about how much difference this will really make. With a relatively low population density west of Swansea, the likelihood is that not that many people live near to s station in West Wales. Even if the journey is speeded up by 15-20 minutes, will that be enough to tempt more people out of their cars, especially since they will probably have to drive to their nearest station in any case? Add in the fact that they may not be going to anywhere near a station in Cardiff as well, and you add on even more travel time at that end of the journey.

 

[anthony263]

Considering a station at Morriston on the Swansea district lIne would allow easy acess to Morriston town Centre, Morriston Hospital, DVLA & the Swansea Valley I think there could be a justification for an hourly service using the Swansea district line so long as it isnt diverting existing services from Swansea or Neath.

A 2 carriage class 158/175 should be plenty enough to cope with passenger nukmbers

 

[Rhydgaled]

It's a tricky one.

I can see the logic in XC no longer serving Gloucester, as Gloucester's hourly service to both Birmingham and Bristol (and also Nottingham etc) is probably about enough, so the longer distance trains don't need to divert/reverse at Gloucester.

But Swansea is a big place to ignore (esp when the Cardiff - Swansea service seems to have been ignored compared to improvements elsewhere in Wales).

I appreciate that there's demand from Pembrokeshire to Cardiff/ England (though it's obviously hard to serve all of the English market with one service), but how many Pembrokeshire - Cardiff passengers would be attracted to a "District Line" service compared to the number of Pembrokeshire - Swansea and Swansea - Cardiff passengers that would be lost?

There's always an opportunity cost in running a service (e.g. I've no problem with the patriotic Holyhead - Cardiff services on their own, but they do come at the cost of stopping other services like Bangor - Manchester or Cardiff - Liverpool as the stock can only be used on one service at a time).

As a local example to me, you could run a faster service from Sheffield to Leicester/London via the Erewash Valley route (bypassing both Derby and Nottingham). But that would mean losing the Sheffield - Derby and the Derby - Leicester/London markets. Improving one market probably isn't worth giving up the other two for.

I agree with your points about opportunity cost and such, and Swansea services (particularly towards Cardiff) should be improved as well. A regular Swansea district line service must not be at the cost of current frequency into Swansea from either side, but an hourly SDL service to Cardiff could allow the hourly trains between south-west-Wales and Manchester to turn into seperate services from each side terminating at Swansea, hence justifing longer trains east of Swansea. Personally I think an enhanced Swansea - Cardiff service is probably more important than a frequent SDL service* but the full capability of the SDL, and it's future potential, must not be reduced in the meantime.

*There are a couple of SDL services which should come first. In order of priority, and assuming I've remembered everything, I think service improvments (excluding train lengthenings) in the area should run thus:

1. Upgrade the rolling stock on the current Fishguard day boat train to something suitable like a 158 or 175, make it call additionaly at Bridgend and Port Talbot Parkway and time it at 1hr 22-25min between Cardiff and Carmarthen
2. Introduce a 17:54-ish Cardiff - Carmarthen fast train, calling at Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway and Llanelli, timed at 1hr 22-25mins and continuing into Pembrokeshire after making connections with the 17:39 ex-Cardiff (one would do Fishguard, the other Milford Haven, hence helping passengers for Pembrokeshire avoid the overcrowded 17:39 service from Cardiff and eliminating the evening change at Clarbeston Road for Fishguard.)
3. Introduce a morning service from Fishguard, Milford Haven or Carmarthen to Cardiff via the SDL, with the same limited calling pattern and journey time as above. In particular I was thinking 07:56 from Fishguard and 08:50 from Carmarthen.
4. Electrify the GWML all the way to Swansea and increase the Swanline service to hourly
5. Electrify the ValleyLines
6. Introduce a semi-fast (Neath, Port Talbot, Pyle, Bridgend) electric service between Swansea and Cardiff, and combine it with the Taunton -Cardiff (cutting Bristol - Taunton off if the wires aren't there).
7. Not sure on the order of the next few
   • Increase SDL express to every 2-hours
   • Use released 150s from ValleyLines (or 156s obtained in exchange for those 150s) to:
     • Increase Swansea - Carmarthen frequency to 2tph
     • Increase Carmarthen - Milford Haven service to hourly
     • Increase Carmarthen - Tenby/Pembroke Dock service to hourly
     • Increase Carmarthen - Fishguard & Goodwick service to every 2-hours
8. Increase SDL express to hourly

At the end that would be 5 passenger tph heading west from Cardiff, plus the Maesteg so 6tph. Of those, 4tph would go to Swansea (one of which would be all stops) only 1tph would bypass Swansea.

 

[tbtc]

I agree with your points about opportunity cost and such, and Swansea services (particularly towards Cardiff) should be improved as well

Personally I think an enhanced Swansea - Cardiff service is probably more important than a frequent SDL service

(Hopefully I'm not quoting you out of context here)

My thinking is as follows:

A few Welsh posters like to compare Scotland to Wales (in terms of devolution/ railways etc).

At privatisation the main service between the two biggest places in Scotland was a half hourly 158 via Falkirk High (plus an hourly 156 stopper via Shotts and bi-hourly ECML services to Glasgow Central)

Now the main Edinburgh - Glasgow service is 170s every fifteen minutes (six coaches at busy times), plus EMUs every fifteen minutes via the reopened Bathgate - Airdrie route plus half hourly services via Shotts (half being semi-fast, with 158s on a number of duties) and the bit-hourly ECML service now being XC rather than East Coast (but still linking to Newcastle/ York etc)

IIRC at privatisation the service between the two biggest places in Wales was the hourly HST to Paddington plus an hourly 158 plus a handful of "Swanline" stoppers (please correct me if I'm wrong here - I was living in Scotland at the time).

Now the main Cardiff - Swansea service is still the hourly HST with the hourly 158 being replaced by an hourly 175 and the "Swanline" services being 150s (instead of 153s?). IIRC some FGW services were cut to provide capacity on the Cardiff - London side of the route(?)

Not a big improvement between the two most important Welsh places (compared to the tenfold increase in capacity on Cardiff - Holyhead, significant improvements for Fishguard, the proposed hourly Cambrian or the general increase in services on other lines in the UK). The same could be said of much of the Valley Lines (not sharing in the enhancements that comparable routes elsewhere in the UK have seen)

Hence my lack of enthusiasm for some of the other schemes proposed in Wales. Hope that makes sense.

 

[Penmorfa]

(Hopefully I'm not quoting you out of context here)


Not a big improvement between the two most important Welsh places (compared to the tenfold increase in capacity on Cardiff - Holyhead, significant improvements for Fishguard, the proposed hourly Cambrian or the general increase in services on other lines in the UK). The same could be said of much of the Valley Lines (not sharing in the enhancements that comparable routes elsewhere in the UK have seen)

Hence my lack of enthusiasm for some of the other schemes proposed in Wales. Hope that makes sense.

There has been a big increase in Holyhead - Cardiff services. This has been cancelled out by the cutting of services to Crewe. Remember we had an hourly Holyhead or Bangor to Crewe service using class 37's and 5 Mark 2's (happy days ). Overall seats are probably about the same as 10 years ago.

 

[tbtc]

There has been a big increase in Holyhead - Cardiff services. This has been cancelled out by the cutting of services to Crewe. Remember we had an hourly Holyhead or Bangor to Crewe service using class 37's and 5 Mark 2's (happy days ). Overall seats are probably about the same as 10 years ago.

...and cutting the Holyhead - Manchester services too...

If all of Wales had seen the same improvement in long distance links then that'd be great

 

[Greenback]

I don't have the figures to hand, and I can't be bothered to look for the exact numbers, but a good proportion of the population of Wales must lie along the South Wales Main Line between Cardiff and Swansea. I'd like to include Llanelli, but I think that would be pushing it a bit, although the residential hinterland of Swansea and Llanelli almost meet up.

Given this, I do think that services deserve to be improved!

 

[billabob]

I think they are still a set down of the 175's after the accident in Wales a few months back. There have been an increasing number of 158 units in 2/4 car formations running though crewe where I am near. The other week a 150 of which I didn't get the number of ran up to Manchester Picc from South Wales-A long ride on a 150!

 

[Michael.Y]

The other week a 150 of which I didn't get the number of ran up to Manchester Picc from South Wales-A long ride on a 150!

150s and 158s on the CDF-MAN are a common occurrence at 0650ish off Cardiff on weekdays.

 

[Gareth Marston]

(Hopefully I'm not quoting you out of context here)

My thinking is as follows:

A few Welsh posters like to compare Scotland to Wales (in terms of devolution/ railways etc).

At privatisation the main service between the two biggest places in Scotland was a half hourly 158 via Falkirk High (plus an hourly 156 stopper via Shotts and bi-hourly ECML services to Glasgow Central)

Now the main Edinburgh - Glasgow service is 170s every fifteen minutes (six coaches at busy times), plus EMUs every fifteen minutes via the reopened Bathgate - Airdrie route plus half hourly services via Shotts (half being semi-fast, with 158s on a number of duties) and the bit-hourly ECML service now being XC rather than East Coast (but still linking to Newcastle/ York etc)

IIRC at privatisation the service between the two biggest places in Wales was the hourly HST to Paddington plus an hourly 158 plus a handful of "Swanline" stoppers (please correct me if I'm wrong here - I was living in Scotland at the time).

Now the main Cardiff - Swansea service is still the hourly HST with the hourly 158 being replaced by an hourly 175 and the "Swanline" services being 150s (instead of 153s?). IIRC some FGW services were cut to provide capacity on the Cardiff - London side of the route(?)

Not a big improvement between the two most important Welsh places (compared to the tenfold increase in capacity on Cardiff - Holyhead, significant improvements for Fishguard, the proposed hourly Cambrian or the general increase in services on other lines in the UK). The same could be said of much of the Valley Lines (not sharing in the enhancements that comparable routes elsewhere in the UK have seen)

Hence my lack of enthusiasm for some of the other schemes proposed in Wales. Hope that makes sense.

I can remember someone saying the aim of the Great Western IC Franchise was to empty the M4. Not west of Cardiff though!

Bridgend pop c45K, Port Talbot c 20K, Neath c30K plus their hinterlands. Llanelli c 40K. County of Swansea c300K. There's easily a population catchment west of Cardiff for the South Wales Mainline in excess of half a million. Last Swanline service I saw had a 2 car Pacer on it- says it all.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Now the main Cardiff - Swansea service is still the hourly HST with the hourly 158 being replaced by an hourly 175 and the "Swanline" services being 150s (instead of 153s?). IIRC some FGW services were cut to provide capacity on the Cardiff - London side of the route(?)

Not a big improvement between the two most important Welsh places (compared to the tenfold increase in capacity on Cardiff - Holyhead, significant improvements for Fishguard, the proposed hourly Cambrian or the general increase in services on other lines in the UK).

I agree, the service between Cardiff and Swansea has not been improved at all (save some Manchesters now being 3-car), and it should be improved. However, Fishguard needed a service improvment more, since it didn't really have a service to speak of (for locals) before. The Fishguard service also hasn't had an impact on other routes, and the extra SDL services I propose must not be at the cost of reduced frequency services to Swansea. The 2-hourly Holyhead - Cardiff on the other hand is costing Wrexham, and the part of the north Wales coast line west of Llandudno Junction, services to Crewe or Manchester, which I don't think is right.

For Holyhead-Cardiff, I think two LHCS express services each way, 7-days a week, as additional trains would have been a good move. The 2-hourly normal trains should be operating from Cardiff and Holyhead to Crewe/Manchester, with connections between them. Rather than reversing at Chester they would extend from there to Crewe/Manchester, that would be better than what we have I think, but would require a few more (suitable) trains.

I think they are still a set down of the 175's after the accident in Wales a few months back.

They are two 175s down. The one that hit a road vehicle on a level crossing near Whitland won't be back for a while, and the one that has been stolen for WAG2. I think every servicable 175 was diagramed, so that's two 175 diagrams which are covered by something else at the moment (I think a 158 on one of the normal 2-hourly Holyhead-Cardiff diagrams vice the WAG2 175, and it is probably a 150 that's covering for the broken 175). If they really need 20 158s for the Cambrian and Holyhead - Birmingham strengthening though, both missing 175s will probably be covered by 150s from May 14th.

I hope they hurry up and fix those DVTs and get the mark3s in so franchise workings can have the 175 back from WAG2. Just a shame the unit it releases will probably be a 150 by then, so nothing decent for the Fishguard boat train unless those mark2s get put into use to release a 2-car 175 or Gerald is extended through to Fishguard.

 

[anthony263]

I agree, the service between Cardiff and Swansea has not been improved at all (save some Manchesters now being 3-car), and it should be improved. However, Fishguard needed a service improvment more, since it didn't really have a service to speak of (for locals) before. The Fishguard service also hasn't had an impact on other routes, and the extra SDL services I propose must not be at the cost of reduced frequency services to Swansea. The 2-hourly Holyhead - Cardiff on the other hand is costing Wrexham, and the part of the north Wales coast line west of Llandudno Junction, services to Crewe or Manchester, which I don't think is right. .

I hope they hurry up and fix those DVTs and get the mark3s in so franchise workings can have the 175 back from WAG2. Just a shame the unit it releases will probably be a 150 by then, so nothing decent for the Fishguard boat train unless those mark2s get put into use to release a 2-car 175 or Gerald is extended through to Fishguard.

I agree with your latter remark about running WAG1 through to Fishguard Harbour if it goes over to MK3 & 67 operation with DVT.

That would make summer interesting especially with the summer saturday HST to Pembroke Dock

 

[Rhydgaled]

I agree with your latter remark about running WAG1 through to Fishguard Harbour if it goes over to MK3 & 67 operation with DVT.

That would make summer interesting especially with the summer saturday HST to Pembroke Dock

Yeah, would make things interesting. The Fishguard Flyer deserves better than a 150 (or Pacer as it had yesterday), but it doesn't really justify the length of a LHCS train, and 158 would be perfect but they are all going up north. I wonder where that leaves the train I went to photograph yesterday, the Saturdays only 13:08 Milford Haven to Manchester Piccadilly, the only service I know of into Pembrokeshire that's booked for a 158 (might be some on Sundays, I've no idea). My guess is the 13:08 on Saturdays will be left in the incapable hands of a 150, but maybe that sole 158 will stay.

 

[Penmorfa]

...and cutting the Holyhead - Manchester services too...

If all of Wales had seen the same improvement in long distance links then that'd be great

There have been very few Holyhead - Manchester services in recent years. Llandudno - Manchester has been hourly since the 158's appeared - early 1990's. The only train I can think of to have been taken off was the 'Irish Mancunian', this started at Stockport in the morning and was a boat train connection.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There have been very few Holyhead - Manchester services in recent years. Llandudno - Manchester has been hourly since the 158's appeared - early 1990's. The only train I can think of to have been taken off was the 'Irish Mancunian', this started at Stockport in the morning and was a boat train connection.

The up night train has gone, hasn't it?
Frequency in North Wales is much the same as in 1997, but the stock is better. More changing at Chester.
VT also run 5-6 services along the coast instead of the previous 3 HSTs, and hourly to Chester.
Chester-Manchester has slowed since the Chester-WBQ locals were taken off.
The Irish Mail name has gone, and not much attention seems to be paid to ferry traffic (not all the fault of the railway).

Marches frequency is up 50% and with longer/better trains.
Cambrian capacity is up east of Mach, also Shrewsbury-Birmingham (now BHI rather than BHM).
Borderlands has 150s instead of 153s.

 

[merlodlliw]

The up night train has gone, hasn't it?
Frequency in North Wales is much the same as in 1997, but the stock is better. More changing at Chester.
VT also run 5-6 services along the coast instead of the previous 3 HSTs, and hourly to Chester.
Chester-Manchester has slowed since the Chester-WBQ locals were taken off.
The Irish Mail name has gone, and not much attention seems to be paid to ferry traffic (not all the fault of the railway).

Marches frequency is up 50% and with longer/better trains.
Cambrian capacity is up east of Mach, also Shrewsbury-Birmingham (now BHI rather than BHM).
Borderlands has 150s instead of 153s.

I recall the Manchester boat train , it left Exchange & later Victoria at 2225 for Holyhead boat connections, this train left Holyhead around 1645 for Manchester, I caught both sections for many years to/from Rhyl.
I also recall the 1155 ex Victoria for both Holyhead & Llandudno splitting at the Junction along with a couple more direct Manchester/Holyhead services.

Bob

 

[Penmorfa]

I recall the Manchester boat train , it left Exchange & later Victoria at 2225 for Holyhead boat connections, this train left Holyhead around 1645 for Manchester, I caught both sections for many years to/from Rhyl.

The through service from Manchester ended when the sprinters came in, if I recall correctly. In its last fling it ran from Scarborough. There is still a Manchester connection to the last 'boat' train. Interestingly this is shown as non stop to Chester FX, so could run via Northwich. Conversely the Birmingham - Holyhead train it connects into runs via Stafford and Crewe. So both trains are ATW oddities, route wise. West of Chester it is a frequent candidate for bustitution for engineering possessions.

 

[tbtc]

There have been very few Holyhead - Manchester services in recent years

Didn't FNW run loco hauled services from Holyhead to Manchester?

 

[Penmorfa]

Didn't FNW run loco hauled services from Holyhead to Manchester?

yes but FNW finished in September 2003, so not in 'recent years'.

 

[SIGGY56]

I was giving the run round facility at Llandudno too much credit by mentioning a ground frame. It is actually two hand thrown points, released from the signalbox. One can be seen in this photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/penmorfas/7070109533/in/photostream

Thats correct - the correct term is that the points are handworked and are actually "bolt locked" from the signalbox (lever 2). They are locked in the normal position from the box but if they are required to be used. Communication is usually done by bell system between the points and the box. After the movement is made the hand points must be in the normal position before they can be locked from the signalbox again. They had similar ones between Platform 3 and 4 when a middle siding was used as an engine release. This all went in 1967 I believe and any run round movements thereafter had to propel out to the sidings to run round.

 

[Michael.Y]

I should like Rhydgaled and any other exponents of LHS to examine the following video to see how much of a palarver running an engine around to the front of a train is, even with run-around loops and spare track etc. OK a complicating factor here is the 37 on the back providing backup, but still, the point stands. Can you imagine if this scene was repeated day in day out up and down the ATW network with 37s, 57s, 67s etc? It wouldn't work, especially with delays, quick turnaround times etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xesC9RhzuGk

 

[Rhydgaled]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xesC9RhzuGk

That was a charter I expect. It would be very silly to do that for a regular service, if you have a loco on each end and both are powering you can just go out the way you came in without having to run either loco round the stock. Top&tail with both locos powering, or push-pull with a DVT/DBSO can't be much harder to operate than a DMU can it. Intercity 125s are basicly top&tail LHCS, and reverse at Swansea on a daily basis (Carmarthen trains, plus the summer Saturdays to Pembroke Dock which reverse at Carmarthen too). I think they are allowed just 7 minutes for that reversal in Swansea, less than the turn round you'd want to have at the terminal point of any route.

In day-to-day service with a single loco, after arriving, you would need just three moves of the loco (forward to the buffers, reverse direction round the train, and set back onto the other end).

I don't see any rational way of preserving quality Intercity services from Carmarthen and Pembroke to London with an electrified GWML other than an IC225-style push-pull set with a diesel loco taking over at Swansea.*

*Electrifing to Carmarthen should solve it, with a diesel loco draging an EMU from there to Pembroke when necessary, provided said EMU has coaches that fit the loading guage, but isn't a rational medium term aim. You could maintain Intercity services in the medium term (until 2035, when you'd be stuck if you don't electrify west of Swansea or use the push-pull loco-swap concept) by using Intercity 125s (from Portsmouth rather than London).

As regards the shorter-term, and the ATW mark2s, I think I've already said if you can get Wales a number of extra class 158s by December 2013 I'd probablly shut up about using the mark2s. Putting the mark2s to use just isn't worth the effort if you have enough 158s, but we don't. So, bring in fairly long rakes of mark2s on busy 3-car 175 services to reduce crowding and those 3-car 175s can then replace some 2-car 175s (lengthening those services). Then, the released 2-car 175s can send the 150s on long-distance services back to the ValleyLines and introduce a 07:56 Fishguard & Goodwick - Whitland - Carmarthen - Llanelli - Port Talbot Parkway - Bridgend - Cardiff Central service over the Swansea District Line and a 17:54 return.

Just a shame that 07:56 from Fishguard probably can't be a 158. If it was, then:

• The 175 that forms the 08:04 from Fishguard to Manchester (which would start from Carmarthen if my suggested 07:56 from FGW was put in place with a 175) could be put back on the morning Pembroke Dock service it used to run
• The 150/153 from that Pembroke service could then replace the morning Fishguard - Clarbeston Road service with an earlier Fishguard - Carmarthen service (connecting with the 07:30 to London)
• This 150/153 would then go to Haverfordwest and form a Haverfordwest - Swansea service (coupling to the 158 forming the 07:56 FGW-CDF service as far as Carmarthen).
• The 158 would depart for Cardiff at about 08:50, with the 150/153 from Haverfordwest picking up the 09:00 departure for Swansea.

 

[Michael.Y]

It would be very silly to do that for a regular service

Yes, yes it would.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Yes, yes it would.

Some themes on anti LHCS:

Trains have to turn around very quickly - why? Current practice is driven by not enough stock trying to run very frequent off peak services, the ultimate end product is at Wrexham Central where the unit that arrives from Bidston has to depart before its official arrival time when the old charter minutes are factored in.

LHCS doesn't fit with the asset sweating utilization pattern of today's railway.
We must turn around quickly so we can burn increasingly expensive fuel up carrying a light off peak load many of whom are on giveaway AP tickets. One of the reasons why the railways costs are so high.

LHCS is not wrong or impractical just different and can be done if planned properly. Once staff get use to it again it will happen fairly smoothly.
A few years back there was much sucking of teeth about splitting/joining DMU's and concern over delays. ATW do it at Machynlleth and Shrewsbury several times a day - no one bats an eyelid, EMT do it Nottingham all day long now.

 

[Welshman]

It's not even necessary for the engine to run round if it steps back at the terminus.

Train draws in - leading engine uncouples the same time as another engine couples on the other end -new engine takes train out and original engine follows up to the signal and into the headshunt to await next train.

It certainly can be done, given the will, and the reinstatement of the headshunt.

That's how the steam-operated "Jazz" service at Liverpool St worked prior to the suburban electrification, and the only constraint on a speedy reversal was the time taken for passengers to alight and board.

 

[jones_bangor]

Clearly the run-around is the major issue.

It's a shame track access charges are so high for LHCS - are these really justified?

 

[tbtc]

It's a shame track access charges are so high for LHCS - are these really justified?

Maybe that's an argument for the WAG running the infrastructure west of the border, allowing them to decide what track access charges to impose for various types of stock?