Bustitution on Cambrian to accommodate private charter

[Horizon22]

A very popular thing to say, for sure! But I haven't seen any evidence of people claiming or implying that this was malicious.

Someone said "gross incompetence" and I wouldn't suggest there's any of that or perhaps it isn't a big a deal as 100+ posts on a rail forum suggests it is! Things could be improved sure, but I could give you countless examples of that.

 

[Starmill]

Someone said "gross incompetence" and I wouldn't suggest there's any of that or perhaps it isn't a big a deal as 100+ posts on a rail forum suggests it is! Things could be improved sure, but I could give you countless examples of that.

If you're displeased in some way by the number of posts in the thread, perhaps you should look at the number you yourself have made? Otherwise I'd suggest if that's your view you may be happier if you didn't post in the first place?

 

[Horizon22]

If you're displeased in some way by the number of posts in the thread, perhaps you should look at the number you yourself have made? Otherwise I'd suggest if that's your view you may be happier if you didn't post in the first place?

I’m not unhappy but as I said earlier I think it’s very much a storm in a teacup. People can discuss what they wish, doesn’t necessarily reflect the real world importance!

 

[Lurcheroo]

Various posters seem to be saying that because few passengers use the service, it doesn't matter if they are arbitrarily inconvenienced. Frankly, I find this attitude that passengers don't matter quite appalling. Even if only one person is affected, that person deserves to be considered.

I haven't noticed anyone saying that it doesn’t matter, more that, due to it being such a low number they can appreciate that you’ll never have a perfect solution with the current Cambrian infrastructure and this is the best overall outcome.
No one is saying passengers don’t matter. And especially not TFW.

But they have been considered ??
There’s a replacement bus, or their ticket will be accepted on an earlier or later train ? Is that not considered ? Or does it just not fit your narrative?

Additionally if you buy an advanced ticket in the TFW app, you will be alerted to any changes to any service you are booked on.

 

[Watershed]

due to it being such a low number they can appreciate that you’ll never have a perfect solution with the current Cambrian infrastructure

Agreed. But...

and this is the best overall outcome.

...this is far from the best overall outcome. Posters have mentioned several ways in which a more optimal outcome could be provided at very little cost.

No one is saying passengers don’t matter. And especially not TFW.

Actions speak louder than words. At the moment TfW's actions suggest that they either don't recognise that their approach could be improved upon, or they just don't care.

But they have been considered ??
There’s a replacement bus, or their ticket will be accepted on an earlier or later train ?

The former is the bare minimum and not really an adequate substitute for a train service, especially in the eastbound direction where onward connections are liable to be missed. The latter is merely a restatement of the default position. TfW can't exactly be praised for either action.

Or does it just not fit your narrative?

What "narrative" are you suggesting people have? That passengers ought to be put before operational convenience?

Additionally if you buy an advanced ticket in the TFW app, you will be alerted to any changes to any service you are booked on.

That's as may be, but it's unacceptable to be selling Advance tickets in the first place for trains you have no intention of running. Let alone walk-up tickets, the sale of which (in conjunction with an itinerary on the affected trains) could easily be inhibited.

 

[Bald Rick]

well, that answers the RailUK philopsical thought experiment:

”If a train doesn‘t run and nobody is actually inconvenienced, does it make a sound?”

 

[43066]

well, that answers the RailUK philopsical thought experiment:

”If a train doesn‘t run and nobody is actually inconvenienced, does it make a sound?”

Seemingly only on here!

 

[al78]

well, that answers the RailUK philopsical thought experiment:

”If a train doesn‘t run and nobody is actually inconvenienced, does it make a sound?”

If a train doesn't run and nobody is actually inconvenienced, did it ever exist?

 

[Starmill]

I’m not unhappy but as I said earlier I think it’s very much a storm in a teacup. People can discuss what they wish, doesn’t necessarily reflect the real world importance!

What's happening is that various people including me, @Watershed and @yorkie have all made good points about how to get the basics right. You're interjecting making noises of disagreement with that, but refusing to explain why. When challenged, you've repeatedly used expressions like "storm in a teacup" which at the end of the day have no real meaning.

Ultimately, if you want to disagree, that's your perogative, but if the best you can do is say "I don't agree because this is a storm in a teacup" it's pretty much certain you won't be able to persuade anyone of your view, isn't it?

Therefore, at the end of the day, it's difficult to see why you replied if you won't engage beyond a meaningless soundbite? I note for example that you have acknowledged that it's mainly a question of principles rather than practice, and you want to be engaged on the latter only and not the former, but you can say that about nearly every discussion on the forum! I agree there's clearly room for discussion on both points here, and I believe that's exactly what happened before you intervened. Did you reply just to make yourself sound clever and knowing?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2024 ==

Additionally if you buy an advanced ticket in the TFW app, you will be alerted to any changes to any service you are booked on.

This wouldn't be arise the schedule had been managed correctly in the first place, of course.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2024 ==

The former is the bare minimum and not really an adequate substitute for a train service, especially in the eastbound direction where onward connections are liable to be missed. The latter is merely a restatement of the default position. TfW can't exactly be praised for either action.

One thing which TfW could've done is offered an express bus departing 30 minutes earlier than the train from Aberystwyth, Bow Street and Machynlleth. This may then have an outside chance of making the booked connections at Shrewsbury. Tight but doable and better to have the choice.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2024 ==

That's as may be, but it's unacceptable to be selling Advance tickets in the first place for trains you have no intention of running.

This point can't be emphasised enough given so many people aren't quite following. There's a lot of difference between something going wrong at the last minute that wasn't reasonably foreseeable, such as flooding, and a train not running for a pre-planned, known reason.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2024 ==

Posters have mentioned several ways in which a more optimal outcome could be provided at very little cost.

Isn't it funny how all of the people sniping from the sidelines at those suggestions haven't actually got any of their own? It makes me curious as to the motivations of people who do that, could it be people on the payroll at TfW Rail or Network Rail, or another TOC, who simply give blind partisan defences of their employer's actions? I guess we'll never know for certain, unless people choose to divulge, but it is suspicious. In any line of work in any industry, better the critical friend than the supporting partisan, in my view.

 

[Horizon22]

What's happening is that various people including me, @Watershed and @yorkie have all made good points about how to get the basics right. You're interjecting making noises of disagreement with that, but refusing to explain why. When challenged, you've repeatedly used expressions like "storm in a teacup" which at the end of the day have no real meaning.

Ultimately, if you want to disagree, that's your perogative, but if the best you can do is say "I don't agree because this is a storm in a teacup" it's pretty much certain you won't be able to persuade anyone of your view, isn't it?

My point is that several people are insinuating this is all simpler to fix than it is, that the outcome is worse than people claim it to be, the impact is worse than it actually is and that people are being incompetent. 5 weeks notice whilst not standard, is still ample. Could it be improved? Yes - and I agreed with several points but highlighted those resolutions may cause new issues - but as I've said a number of times, this is a novel issue. I don't know how much resource TfW or NR have put into this, what sort of discussions they've had and how it has involved the customer information teams. Someone might want to contact TfW and highlight the issue - I don't know if it will reach any conclusions but they might find a better way to deal with it at both a station and wider digital level.

The main reason I disagree is in similar terms to @Bald Rick.

well, that answers the RailUK philopsical thought experiment:

”If a train doesn‘t run and nobody is actually inconvenienced, does it make a sound?”

Striving for perfection is all well and good - and there may be "quick wins", but train operators have bigger fish to fry. Anyway, I will leave it there.

 

[Starmill]

Striving for perfection is all well and good - and there may be "quick wins", but train operators have bigger fish to fry.

Unfortunately, an accurate schedule is an absolute basic. Nobody's suggested striving for perfection is necessary. Bald Rick's post is to my reading intended as a joke. If you're taking it seriously I'd ask that you have some evidence that nobody is inconvenienced by the change to schedule on any of the at least 6 relevant days? I think we can be near certain you don't have any evidence of that but feel free to show I'm wrong?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2024 ==

but as I've said a number of times, this is a novel issue.

And you've been wrong every time. TfW applied for these rights nearly ten years ago now. That's certainly enough time to arrange the process correctly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2024 ==

5 weeks notice whilst not standard, is still ample.

Not according to TfW it's not. Otherwise they'd never show any schedules for sales more than five weeks ahead. If that's what they want to do then they absolutely can do that. Again, we've been over this before, I can only think you're repeating incorrect information in bad faith at this point?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2024 ==

simpler to fix than it is

It seems like a simple fix would go a long way, at near zero cost, to me. Perhaps you could explain why these suggestions aren't simple?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

well, that answers the RailUK philopsical thought experiment:

”If a train doesn‘t run and nobody is actually inconvenienced, does it make a sound?”

Schrodinger's CAF?

 

[MadMac]

I seem to recall an incident a few years back when a train came to an emergency stop because the trainpipe had been broken. The traincrew went back, and found the rear brake pipe hanging off, so they put it back on, and the train proceeded. What they failed to realise was that the train had divided, and they had left a couple of wagons behind. I think it happened somewhere in Europe? On wagons, where the only train continuity proving is the brake pipe, how do you guard against this kind of thing?

The number of radio messages necessary to transmit from both front and rear of the train would not be an issue on a lightly-trafficked line like the Cambrian. But it would be an issue on a high-frequency, high traffic density metro line where there could be a LOT of messages being transmitted. And even if you did it, you would still need to ensure that the right cab was transmitting after trains are joined or divided.

As I said previously, rear of train proving is proving to be a real issue for mixed traffic railways. The only systems that I am aware of that are implementing anything like level 3 are metro-type networks with fixed-formation multiple-unit type trains.

Camden Road Tunnel.

 

[Starmill]

I seem to recall an incident a few years back when a train came to an emergency stop because the trainpipe had been broken. The traincrew went back, and found the rear brake pipe hanging off, so they put it back on, and the train proceeded. What they failed to realise was that the train had divided, and they had left a couple of wagons behind. I think it happened somewhere in Europe? On wagons, where the only train continuity proving is the brake pipe, how do you guard against this kind of thing?

The number of radio messages necessary to transmit from both front and rear of the train would not be an issue on a lightly-trafficked line like the Cambrian. But it would be an issue on a high-frequency, high traffic density metro line where there could be a LOT of messages being transmitted. And even if you did it, you would still need to ensure that the right cab was transmitting after trains are joined or divided.

As I said previously, rear of train proving is proving to be a real issue for mixed traffic railways. The only systems that I am aware of that are implementing anything like level 3 are metro-type networks with fixed-formation multiple-unit type trains.

This is well put. I don't know how the supposed ETCS-ready class 197 achieves it in technical terms, but for a DMU it would be easily feasible to electronically monitor the coupler states to a signalling compatible degree. As you suggest, proving a train complete when it's formed primarily of wagons or coaching stock that gets shunted around a lot is a far broader task than in 197s.

 

[DelW]

The other issue is that, once people realise that they can get on what would normally be a very expensive (steam?) charter train merely by showing up at Shrewsbury with a much cheaper ticket for the cancelled TfW service, you can expect a fair few people will choose to do that instead of buying tickets for the charter train. That could have an even bigger impact on making the charter service uneconomic to run.

It won't be steam (or not yet anyway) as there are no steam locos with ETCS. I believe Tornado is due to test an experimental device later this year, which may or may not prove to be both practical and/or economic.

 

[Lurcheroo]

this is far from the best overall outcome. Posters have mentioned several ways in which a more optimal outcome could be provided at very little cost.

Unless I’ve missed it (which I genuinely might have) no one has proposed a better outcome, apart from I, where additional loops are needed to accommodate the service train and the charter train.
Allowing fare paying passengers on the charter train isn’t going to work and can only be done in 1 direction.
Perhaps you are referring to how it had been managed ? That’s fair, it definitely could have been managed slightly better, but sounds like that needs to be orchestrated by the charter, TFW and NR all together, but doesn’t change the outcome of, train cancelled, bus replacement and charter runs.

Isn't it funny how all of the people sniping from the sidelines at those suggestions haven't actually got any of their own? It makes me curious as to the motivations of people who do that, could it be people on the payroll at TfW Rail or Network Rail, or another TOC, who simply give blind partisan defences of their employer's actions? I guess we'll never know for certain, unless people choose to divulge, but it is suspicious. In any line of work in any industry, better the critical friend than the supporting partisan, in my view.

I find it funnier how those of us who live near and use the Cambrian daily are spoken down to by people who quite often have even the facts wrong.

The former is the bare minimum and not really an adequate substitute for a train service, especially in the eastbound direction where onward connections are liable to be missed. The latter is merely a restatement of the default position. TfW can't exactly be praised for either action.

No they’ve done nothing special, but the inconvenienced absolutely have been considered.
Quite frankly there’s not many other options in terms of the actual movement of people.

What "narrative" are you suggesting people have? That passengers ought to be put before operational convenience?

Actually more that some people on this forum find any reason to skate any particular TOC (not just TFW) and can’t look at something more holistically.

This is well put. I don't know how the supposed ETCS-ready class 197 achieves it in technical terms, but for a DMU it would be easily feasible to electronically monitor the coupler states to a signalling compatible degree. As you suggest, proving a train complete when it's formed primarily of wagons or coaching stock that gets shunted around a lot is a far broader task than in 197s.

So they’re ERTMS-ready. ETCS is just a part of ERTMS. You have brake pipe continuity so a division would apply the brake due to loss of air pressure. You also have the ‘coupling relay’ which monitors the state of a micro switch. Issues have arisen where a train had remained complete but the coupler has moved enough when doing things like going over points that the micro switch has opened and the coupling relay has dumped the brakes.

 

[Craig1122]

Those checking on Journey Check, as advised by TfW will not see it cancelled, if it has been removed from the timetable. As I previously posted, I travelled on that day, and didn't see these cancellations when I checked Journey Check.

And this is a good wider point about the current 'Timetable of the day' situation. I've been caught out before by this. Quick check on the NRES app of the station departure board, nothing is cancelled so good to go. Get to the station and realise it isn't running that day so therefore isn't shown as cancelled. A technical distinction as far as the intending traveller is concerned but one that avoids paying delay compensation.

 

[Krokodil]

Not according to TfW it's not. Otherwise they'd never show any schedules for sales more than five weeks ahead. If that's what they want to do then they absolutely can do that. Again, we've been over this before, I can only think you're repeating incorrect information in bad faith at this point?

According to the DfT, 22:00 the night before is a perfectly acceptable deadline for deciding which trains a TOC is going to bother to run without being penalised for a cancellation.

 

[Starmill]

According to the DfT, 22:00 the night before is a perfectly acceptable deadline for deciding which trains a TOC is going to bother to run without being penalised for a cancellation.

It's funny you mention it, because in those cases, plus the cases of P-coded services due to train crew shortage, a similar very lengthy debate always ensues. I suspect it's because the principle at stake is broadly shared, although of course in this case it's clearly to everyone's mutual advantage to take one TfW each way out in favour of the tour, wheras it's in nobody's interest to consistently run with far too few staff.

As it happens, while my view would obviously stay the same that the tours should still be permitted, next year if the full hourly service does become established, it will show up a lot more having a two hour gap on certain days only.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2024 ==

And this is a good wider point about the current 'Timetable of the day' situation.

It's frustrating that this has been confused even more by "correcting" the Conditions to remove that term but muddy the waters further in terms of the actual meaning.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2024 ==

Actually more that some people on this forum find any reason to skate any particular TOC (not just TFW) and can’t look at something more holistically.

I would disagree with that strongly. For example all but one person has either not commented or expressed support for the running of the charter.

 

[Krokodil]

How soon can a Q path be activated? Is it something that can only be done on the day, or could the TfW service be in the working timetable as a Q path and only activated to appear in public-facing systems once it is known to be running?

 

[Starmill]

How soon can a Q path be activated? Is it something that can only be done on the day, or could the TfW service be in the working timetable as a Q path and only activated to appear in public-facing systems once it is known to be running?

It's quite often done on the day yes.

 

[Krokodil]

It's quite often done on the day yes.

I know that it can be done on the day (very common for freight), I was just wondering if it was possible to activate Q paths five weeks ahead. Better to add a previously unadvertised train five weeks ahead than to remove a previously advertised one.

 

[Lurcheroo]

I would disagree with that strongly. For example all but one person has either not commented or expressed support for the running of the charter.

As usual, you misunderstand.

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

I'm guessing that's a non-issue for DMUs and EMUs these days since they tend to be built with carriages so well joined together into single trainsets that it's going to be basically impossible for them to split up?

There was a thread on here last year about a Sprinter that split in two, somewhere like Leeds? It can happen, you can’t just assume that a multiple is going to remain complete.

If there was electrical continuity down the train, Time Domain Reflectivity would possibly be an easy way the check the length - we use it to test how long cables are so we can check that what you’ve pulled through isn’t split somewhere.

 

[Starmill]

As usual, you misunderstand.

As usual, sniping from you but nothing constructive.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2024 ==

There was a thread on here last year about a Sprinter that split in two, somewhere like Leeds? It can happen, you can’t just assume that a multiple is going to remain complete.

If there was electrical continuity down the train, Time Domain Reflectivity would possibly be an easy way the check the length - we use it to test how long cables are so we can check that what you’ve pulled through isn’t split somewhere.

Indeed, it absolutely is an issue where autocouplers are involved, and maybe some cases even where they're not. As multiple units are often used in multiple, they will inevitably be part of the mix on lots of units even if they don't have them within the vehicles of that unit.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2024 ==

I know that it can be done on the day (very common for freight), I was just wondering if it was possible to activate Q paths five weeks ahead. Better to add a previously unadvertised train five weeks ahead than to remove a previously advertised one.

Oh, of course. Sorry! In that case it'd probably be simpler for that pair of services only to be 'unadvertised express' on the relevant days and then changed to advertised as and when. That ought to keep it's stock and crew diagrams in place too. It could simply be left out of the PDFs. Some TOCs have even done the plan with the services in doubt as 5xxx and then "warmed them up" closer to the day.

 

[Krokodil]

An alternative would be to make charters a regular thing (so that the public train never runs on a Tuesday for example). Wasn't it FM Rail who ran trains to Minehead Butlins? Run bucket & spade trips for the public in the school holidays, and enthusiast trips can run in the off-season.

Do it on holiday camp changeover days and it might take the pressure off of TfW's 158 fleet.

 

[Starmill]

An alternative would be to make charters a regular thing (so that the public train never runs on a Tuesday for example). Wasn't it FM Rail who ran trains to Minehead Butlins? Run bucket & spade trips for the public in the school holidays, and enthusiast trips can run in the off-season.

Do it on holiday camp changeover days and it might take the pressure off of TfW's 158 fleet.

There would be huge value in a few hotels and holiday parks along the route offering accommodation specially aligned to the tour days, absolutely, and a combined booking valid for both. Shame something commercial can't be arranged, although charter operators do sometimes have some difficulty trying to please the coalition of railway enthusiasts who are mainly there for the traction and more general holidaymakers who enjoy the novelty of 'old-fashioned' trains and carriages but are there really for a day out.

 

[Krokodil]

There would be huge value in a few hotels and holiday parks along the route offering accommodation specially aligned to the tour days, absolutely, and a combined booking valid for both. Shame something commercial can't be arranged, although charter operators do sometimes have some difficulty trying to please the coalition of railway enthusiasts who are mainly there for the traction and more general holidaymakers who enjoy the novelty of 'old-fashioned' trains and carriages but are there really for a day out.

And of course this is a route that did see regular steam at one point.