Curious priorities

[daveo]

Shrop - In your line of work (if you are employed) how would you feel if your employer gave full details of your decisions and the rationale in response to a random question from a customer? I suspect you would not be too happy.

 

[Falcon1200]

But what mystery regulating decision could there be?

None of us knows! As I said.....

 

[Shrop]

Shrop - In your line of work (if you are employed) how would you feel if your employer gave full details of your decisions and the rationale in response to a random question from a customer? I suspect you would not be too happy.

My last line of work before I retired was in traffic management, for a local authority. A large part of my role was addressing queries from the public about the bad parking and bad driving of road users.
Believe me, just about every decision I made to address the complaints, was questioned ad nauseum by Joe and Joanne Public, and by Councillors.
So no, I wasn't unhappy about it, it was part of the job to be transparent and to have my recommendations etc questioned.

 

[Topological]

The option of changing at Bristol Parkway is even less "Intercity" in quality than TfW's Mark 4 sets. You are subjected to two of the worst long-distance train designs we've ever had going via Bristol.

Quality and service are very different things.

I actually find the TfW ex-LNER sets tired, but that is subjective.

The 1/2 buffet carriage does not even have plugs.

It remains the case that the Intercity link from Cardiff to Manchester involves changing at Bristol Parkway. (Edit, you could take the one a day Cardiff - Edinburgh and change at either Cheltenham or Birmingham New Street)

 

[Shrop]

It is probably worth remembering that the express and the stopper are both TfW.

As @30907 rightly notes the Mk4 sets get long layovers in Cardiff and can therefore handle some delays better than diagrams with tight turn arounds.

I also dispute the notion of express on what is essentially a regional railway. For an "Intercity" journey to Manchester, connection at Bristol Parkway is required.

Is there something wrong with calling these workings "Express"? Yes they stop at most stations south of Ludlow, but let's face it, the stops on this section are still no more frequent than they are between Birmingham and Southampton, for example. Then north of Ludlow, most of the stations are missed out, as in "Express".

Quality and service are very different things.

I actually find the TfW ex-LNER sets tired, but that is subjective.

The 1/2 buffet carriage does not even have plugs.

It remains the case that the Intercity link from Cardiff to Manchester involves changing at Bristol Parkway. (Edit, you could take the one a day Cardiff - Edinburgh and change at either Cheltenham or Birmingham New Street)

Your comments sound almost resentful of the services that the Class 67 sets provide. Is that an unfair take on what you're saying?

 

[Lewisham2221]

Quality and service are very different things.

I actually find the TfW ex-LNER sets tired, but that is subjective.

The 1/2 buffet carriage does not even have plugs.

It remains the case that the Intercity link from Cardiff to Manchester involves changing at Bristol Parkway. (Edit, you could take the one a day Cardiff - Edinburgh and change at either Cheltenham or Birmingham New Street)

If you want to get held up on defining things based on if they fell under the old "InterCity" brand, perhaps.

Same number of intermediate stops. One is a direct journey, with a shorter end-to-end journey time. The other takes longer and involves changing trains. I'm not sure I'd refer to either of them as intercity!

Anyway, back on topic...

But what mystery regulating decision could there be? That the guard on the Shrewsbury service didn’t want to wait an extra 5 minutes to get home?

There's been a few potential reasons already suggest by @Falcon1200

Were there any (potentially) conflicting movements due which the Cardiff service might (potentially) have been held longer for?

Had any holds been requested for connection purposes, which didn't need as long anticipated? (Admittedly unlikely in this case as the service was already delayed).

Was the stopper requested to go first for train crew diagramming reasons? It's far from ideal, but some diagrams have quite tight breaks and/or connections between working different services. It could have been a decision made to prevent knock-on delays to other services.

It could be that the station dispatching the stopper gave TRTS before those dispatching the express did, and the signaller saw the TRTS and signalled the train out.

Basically, there's loads of reasons that it could have been. But none of us here know the actual reason on this specific occasion.

 

[Shrop]

Was the stopper requested to go first for train crew diagramming reasons? It's far from ideal, but some diagrams have quite tight breaks and/or connections between working different services. It could have been a decision made to prevent knock-on delays to other services.

I can only reiterate that a Class 197 running to a Class 156 diagram would have stood every chance of reducing the deficit to almost nothing by Shrewsbury, even if the Cardiff train had been allowed out first.

It could be that the station dispatching the stopper gave TRTS before those dispatching the express did, and the signaller saw the TRTS and signalled the train out.

The signaller should have been aware that the Class 197 had every capability of reducing or eliminating the deficit while forming the stopping train. The same unit generally provides the entire stopping service all day long, so the fact that it was a 197 would surely have been known well in advance. If this wasn't known, then it suggests a big gap in what should be the joined up thinking of the service providers.

Basically, there's loads of reasons that it could have been. But none of us here know the actual reason on this specific occasion.

Yes, but this just comes back to my point as above, which is worth reiterating. Ie - it could also be that there are worrying gaps in what should be the joined up thinking of the service providers. When you think how much advance planning goes into timetabling of services, it would be very remiss to have sizeable gaps at the delivery point of these services

 

[Topological]

I can only reiterate that a Class 197 running to a Class 156 diagram would have stood every chance of reducing the deficit to almost nothing by Shrewsbury, even if the Cardiff train had been allowed out first.

The signaller should have been aware that the Class 197 had every capability of reducing or eliminating the deficit while forming the stopping train. The same unit generally provides the entire stopping service all day long, so the fact that it was a 197 would surely have been known well in advance. If this wasn't known, then it suggests a big gap in what should be the joined up thinking of the service providers.

Yes, but this just comes back to my point as above, which is worth reiterating. Ie - it could also be that there are worrying gaps in what should be the joined up thinking of the service providers. When you think how much advance planning goes into timetabling of services, it would be very remiss to have sizeable gaps at the delivery point of these services

I am not sure where it is all up to now, but I did think a lot of the stoppers were booked as active travel units on the long-term plan.

The 197 is an excellent train though and very good at making up time. Shorter dwells too. A 197 on the ex-Manchester would have performed better to catch up time towards Cardiff (Though worth saying there that the long block sections limit options once the Holyhead-Cardiff was in front)

 

[Shrop]

Though worth saying there that the long block sections limit options once the Holyhead-Cardiff was in front

The long block sections would only be an issue for the first few miles. After that the stops are what take up the time.
That is a big concern when the stopper is in front and has to wait for time before departing each of the 6 intermediate stops, as every single one adds delay to the fast train. If the stopper is behind, then the 197 comes into its own and makes up lost time without further delaying the fast train.
So yes, there are long block sections but they would probably account for very little if the fast train is in front. If the fast train is behind, then this compounds the delay massively, as happened here.
I can't believe that the rail authorities aren't already aware of this, and surely they all talk to each other?

 

[Topological]

The long block sections would only be an issue for the first few miles. After that the stops are what take up the time.
That is a big concern when the stopper is in front and has to wait for time before departing each of the 6 intermediate stops, as every single one adds delay to the fast train. If the stopper is behind, then the 197 comes into its own and makes up lost time without further delaying the fast train.
So yes, there are long block sections but they would probably account for very little if the fast train is in front. If the fast train is behind, then this compounds the delay massively, as happened here.
I can't believe that the rail authorities aren't already aware of this, and surely they all talk to each other?

The longest blocks are south of Shrewsbury, with the longest being south of Hereford. My point was that a 197 on the Manchester would be able to catch up more time between Shrewsbury and Cardiff than the Mk4 could. The limit on the 197 would then be following the Holyhead - Cardiff 197 through those long blocks. The 197 would still claw back a couple of minutes versus the Mk4.

Likely the better performance of a 197 on a non-stop Crewe to Shrewsbury helps each time it has to stop and restart because the stopper in front is actually using a station.

All else equal you would put a fast train in front of a stopper, but obviously here there was some "all else" that was not equal.

 

[Shrop]

The longest blocks are south of Shrewsbury, with the longest being south of Hereford. My point was that a 197 on the Manchester would be able to catch up more time between Shrewsbury and Cardiff than the Mk4 could. The limit on the 197 would then be following the Holyhead - Cardiff 197 through those long blocks. The 197 would still claw back a couple of minutes versus the Mk4.

Likely the better performance of a 197 on a non-stop Crewe to Shrewsbury helps each time it has to stop and restart because the stopper in front is actually using a station.

All else equal you would put a fast train in front of a stopper, but obviously here there was some "all else" that was not equal.

All not forgetting that in this case the 197 on the stopping service was only running as far as Shrewsbury before then returning to Crewe ...

 

[Topological]

All not forgetting that in this case the 197 on the stopping service was only running as far as Shrewsbury before then returning to Crewe ...

You are obviously willfully ignoring the point.

The service which was late, and hence held behind the stopper, was operated by a 67 plus Mk4 set, on a route which is operated with 197s as well. My point was that if the 67 plus Mk4 set had been a 197, or ideally pair of 197s, it would have performed better post regulation. The better performance post regulation would make the impact of the decision to hold the "express" less impactful on the passengers on the "express".

That TfW have sets that need longer dwells and have poorer performance on the majority of the route is a question to address, but not on this thread.

In this case it seems reasonable to accept there was a reason to let the stopper run on time. As a regular on the line, I just wish that when such decisions are made, the stock I was travelling on was optimised for regional transport.

 

[WTT Gremlin]

All not forgetting that in this case the 197 on the stopping service was only running as far as Shrewsbury before then returning to Crewe ...

I can only reiterate that a Class 197 running to a Class 156 diagram would have stood every chance of reducing the deficit to almost nothing by Shrewsbury, even if the Cardiff train had been allowed out first.

The signaller should have been aware that the Class 197 had every capability of reducing or eliminating the deficit while forming the stopping train. The same unit generally provides the entire stopping service all day long, so the fact that it was a 197 would surely have been known well in advance. If this wasn't known, then it suggests a big gap in what should be the joined up thinking of the service providers.

Yes, but this just comes back to my point as above, which is worth reiterating. Ie - it could also be that there are worrying gaps in what should be the joined up thinking of the service providers. When you think how much advance planning goes into timetabling of services, it would be very remiss to have sizeable gaps at the delivery point of these services

I have an observation and an enquiry.

The observation, it needs noting that the stopper to Shrewsbury 2J60 has a 4 minute turnround (Standard TPR minimum) before 2K62 departs, therefore any delay in arriving will likely cause delay to departure.

The enquiry, please may you share the data source for a 197 being able to make up that much time vs a 156?

 

[Shrop]

I have an observation and an enquiry.

The observation, it needs noting that the stopper to Shrewsbury 2J60 has a 4 minute turnround (Standard TPR minimum) before 2K62 departs, therefore any delay in arriving will likely cause delay to departure.

The enquiry, please may you share the data source for a 197 being able to make up that much time vs a 156?

So far as I'm aware the Class 156 has 285hp per 38 tonne coach coach, while the 197 has 503hp per 46 tonne coach. This would equate to 7.5hp/tonne for the 156 and 10.9hp/tonne for the 197. These calculations are based on a quick Google search, please do correct any errors in them.
This would make the 197 almost 50% more powerful per tonne than the 156, and it's hardly likely that this doesn't translate into significantly better performance. Couple this with my own experiences of riding the 156 sets and finding that while they keep pretty well to time, they don't make up much if starting out late. Meanwhile when riding 197s, they dwell in stations for about a minute longer at every stop, and if starting out late the delays are soon recovered.
Surely you don't need any more technical data than this? I'm happy with my assertions, but I'm also happy to listen to any counter-arguments!

 

[Lewisham2221]

So far as I'm aware the Class 156 has 285hp per 38 tonne coach coach, while the 197 has 503hp per 46 tonne coach. This would equate to 7.5hp/tonne for the 156 and 10.9hp/tonne for the 197. These calculations are based on a quick Google search, please do correct any errors in them.
This would make the 197 almost 50% more powerful per tonne than the 156, and it's hardly likely that this doesn't translate into significantly better performance. Couple this with my own experiences of riding the 156 sets and finding that while they keep pretty well to time, they don't make up much if starting out late. Meanwhile when riding 197s, they dwell in stations for about a minute longer at every stop, and if starting out late the delays are soon recovered.
Surely you don't need any more technical data than this? I'm happy with my assertions, but I'm also happy to listen to any counter-arguments!

A minor point - they're 153s, not 156s, with TfW.

But yes, a 197 can easily recover some time on the Crewe - Shrewsbury stoppers. They have better acceleration, better braking and a higher top speed - although I've no idea how much time, if any, they manage to spend above 75mph when on the locals. As you say, they can easily dwell for a minute or more longer at each stop.

 

[Shrop]

A minor point - they're 153s, not 156s, with TfW.

But yes, a 197 can easily recover some time on the Crewe - Shrewsbury stoppers. They have better acceleration, better braking and a higher top speed - although I've no idea how much time, if any, they manage to spend above 75mph when on the locals. As you say, they can easily dwell for a minute or more longer at each stop.

Ah, thanks for the correction. However I believe the 153s are just about the same power as the 156s

 

[Harpo]

So far as I'm aware the Class 156 has 285hp per 38 tonne coach coach, while the 197 has 503hp per 46 tonne coach. This would equate to 7.5hp/tonne for the 156 and 10.9hp/tonne for the 197.

Highly important in our world. Not a consideration in the real one. But I’m sure another round of ‘yes, but’ will follow.

 

[amahy]

You are obviously willfully ignoring the point.

The service which was late, and hence held behind the stopper, was operated by a 67 plus Mk4 set, on a route which is operated with 197s as well. My point was that if the 67 plus Mk4 set had been a 197, or ideally pair of 197s, it would have performed better post regulation. The better performance post regulation would make the impact of the decision to hold the "express" less impactful on the passengers on the "express".

That TfW have sets that need longer dwells and have poorer performance on the majority of the route is a question to address, but not on this thread.

In this case it seems reasonable to accept there was a reason to let the stopper run on time. As a regular on the line, I just wish that when such decisions are made, the stock I was travelling on was optimised for regional transport.

While the 67/Mk4 sets aren’t as fast accelerating as 197s, there is zero difference once they get up to speed. In this case, the Cardiff service was limited stop, (non stop to Shrewsbury), so would probably only take one or two extra minutes to get up to speed compared to a 197, then the stopper behind would have a clear run. Even with long signal blocks, the stopper behind would’ve had a clearer run than the 67/Mk4 set had running behind the stopper!

 

[Topological]

While the 67/Mk4 sets aren’t as fast accelerating as 197s, there is zero difference once they get up to speed. In this case, the Cardiff service was limited stop, (non stop to Shrewsbury), so would probably only take one or two extra minutes to get up to speed compared to a 197, then the stopper behind would have a clear run. Even with long signal blocks, the stopper behind would’ve had a clearer run than the 67/Mk4 set had running behind the stopper!

It is without doubt that being behind a stopper creates more need to stop than if you are in front of it. But there was a very good reason why that happened. Once it had happened then for each of those extra stops a 197 will outperform a Mk4.

My post also directly relates to the full journey to Cardiff over which there are multiple long blocks, many stations (Ludlow, Leominster, Hereford, Abergavenny, Cwmbran, Newport) even given that this is one of the trains that misses out Church Stretton and Craven Arms. All decision impact the Manchester to Cardiff service far beyond just the Crewe to Shrewsbury section.

I appreciate some people just love the nostalgia of reject 1990s stock on the Marches, but here is yet another example of why the line is better operated with a uniform fleet of regional DMUs.

 

[Lewisham2221]

but here is yet another example of why the line is better operated with a uniform fleet of regional DMUs.

Not really. The MK4 service was already late. It then got put behind the stopper (for whatever reason) meaning it gained more delay. It was then given additional stop orders. It was never going to regain any significant amount of time regardless of what stock was operating it.

 

[Topological]

Not really. The MK4 service was already late. It then got put behind the stopper (for whatever reason) meaning it gained more delay. It was then given additional stop orders. It was never going to regain any significant amount of time regardless of what stock was operating it.

The 197s have a shorter dwell time and faster acceleration. For each stop they gain time over the Mk4. There are multiple stops. It always follows that the 197 will perform better. Whether you consider that gain significant or not is pretty immaterial. For someone who uses the line regularly, every minute gained is significant.

I get that people like the fact there is no engine under the carriages, and that the doors are in vestibule ends, but the statistics on performance do not go away.

There are situations, for reasons we do not know, that the Crewe-Shrewsbury stopper runs ahead of the Manchester - Cardiff. That is a fact. Bemoaning the existence of the facts is one thing, having stock optimised for those facts is another.

I would rather we used stock that was suited to shorter dwells and faster acceleration and then allowed a better service between Whitchurch, Wem, Nantwich and Manchester using the time saved.

For example today's 09:53 from Cardiff is a 197, serves Craven Arms, Church Stretton, Whitchurch and Nantwich and arrives at Manchester Piccadilly at 13:11 in the working timetable. The 10:53 Mk4 from Cardiff misses those stations and arrives at 14:11.

 

[amahy]

The 197s have a shorter dwell time and faster acceleration. For each stop they gain time over the Mk4. There are multiple stops. It always follows that the 197 will perform better. Whether you consider that gain significant or not is pretty immaterial. For someone who uses the line regularly, every minute gained is significant.

I get that people like the fact there is no engine under the carriages, and that the doors are in vestibule ends, but the statistics on performance do not go away.

There are situations, for reasons we do not know, that the Crewe-Shrewsbury stopper runs ahead of the Manchester - Cardiff. That is a fact. Bemoaning the existence of the facts is one thing, having stock optimised for those facts is another.

I would rather we used stock that was suited to shorter dwells and faster acceleration and then allowed a better service between Whitchurch, Wem, Nantwich and Manchester using the time saved.

For example today's 09:53 from Cardiff is a 197, serves Craven Arms, Church Stretton, Whitchurch and Nantwich and arrives at Manchester Piccadilly at 13:11 in the working timetable. The 10:53 Mk4 from Cardiff misses those stations and arrives at 14:11.

I don’t think the stock is the issue here. The main issue is poor timetabling and long term lack of investment in the Marches line

Despite being faster than 67/Mk4s, 197s still have major issues, such as poor reliability, poor air conditioning and overly bright interior lights, and being too short. I know the plan is for all Manchester to Cardiffs to be 5 car, but the fact that they are 2 and 3 car sets always gives TfW the excuse to short form. You can get away with 3 cars on most services, but certain busy peak time trains are regularly short formed to 2 car, resulting in overcrowding. The passenger experience on the 67/Mk4s is far superior to that of a 197, but these trains also have reliability issues.

The ideal situation would be a capacity upgrade and re signalling of the Marches line to enable a timetable recast. In this case, the whole reason the 67/Mk4 set was late coming back from Manchester was due to the stupidly short turnaround time the Marches line service has at Manchester of only 17 minutes, which is not long enough for a nearly 4 hour long service. The Avanti London to Manchester runs take 1:30 less than the Cardiff to Manchester, but have almost double the turnaround time. If the Marches line runs had longer, more appropriate turnarounds, similar to that of Avanti’s services, this delay would’ve most likely been avoided. Additionally, the Shrewsbury to Crewe shuttle should be made hourly, enabling all Marches line services to run fast between Crewe and Shrewsbury.

In reality, this probably isn’t happening anytime soon, so an easier solution would’ve been to terminate the Cardiff to Manchester short at Crewe or Wilmslow, given it was 22 minutes late going north.

 

[Topological]

I don’t think the stock is the issue here. The main issue is poor timetabling and long term lack of investment in the Marches line

Despite being faster than 67/Mk4s, 197s still have major issues, such as poor reliability, poor air conditioning and overly bright interior lights, and being too short. I know the plan is for all Manchester to Cardiffs to be 5 car, but the fact that they are 2 and 3 car sets always gives TfW the excuse to short form. You can get away with 3 cars on most services, but certain busy peak time trains are regularly short formed to 2 car, resulting in overcrowding. The passenger experience on the 67/Mk4s is far superior to that of a 197, but these trains also have reliability issues.

The ideal situation would be a capacity upgrade and re signalling of the Marches line to enable a timetable recast. In this case, the whole reason the 67/Mk4 set was late coming back from Manchester was due to the stupidly short turnaround time the Marches line service has at Manchester of only 17 minutes, which is not long enough for a nearly 4 hour long service. The Avanti London to Manchester runs take 1:30 less than the Cardiff to Manchester, but have almost double the turnaround time. If the Marches line runs had longer, more appropriate turnarounds, similar to that of Avanti’s services, this delay would’ve most likely been avoided. Additionally, the Shrewsbury to Crewe shuttle should be made hourly, enabling all Marches line services to run fast between Crewe and Shrewsbury.

In reality, this probably isn’t happening anytime soon, so an easier solution would’ve been to terminate the Cardiff to Manchester short at Crewe or Wilmslow, given it was 22 minutes late going north.

We already get terminated at Wilmslow far too often. That is not a solution to anything.

Possibly the only advantage of the Mk4 sets is that TfW do seem to push them through to Manchester more often than the 197s. I always feel more confident that a 20 minute late train at Shrewsbury will make it to Piccadilly when it is a Mk4 set.

The 197s do have issues, mostly because of another shortsighted TfW decision to use Chester as the base. Chester is too small meaning a long queue for units to be fixed. However, the huge advantage is that a single unit can run, unlike a defective Mk4 set which results in a cancellation. Again most people prefer getting to where they are going than needing to wait another hour.

The debate has been done to death, but as my example of the 09:53 and 10:53 from Cardiff illustrate, we can have a better service for more stations and/or better recovery time, by using suitable stock.

 

[amahy]

We already get terminated at Wilmslow far too often. That is not a solution to anything.

The 197s do have issues, mostly because of another shortsighted TfW decision to use Chester as the base. Chester is too small meaning a long queue for units to be fixed. However, the huge advantage is that a single unit can run, unlike a defective Mk4 set which results in a cancellation. Again most people prefer getting to where they are going than needing to wait another hour.

The debate has been done to death, but as my example of the 09:53 and 10:53 from Cardiff illustrate, we can have a better service for more stations and/or better recovery time, by using suitable stock.

While terminating at Wilmslow is inconvenient, at least there are other travel options between Wilmslow/Crewe and Stockport/Manchester. While this didn’t happen on this occasion, a not to stop order for any of the smaller stations between Newport and Crewe is far more inconvenient than terminating short. As stated in my previous post, the obvious long term solution is a longer turnaround at Manchester, which for some reason hasn’t happened, despite this being an obvious long term problem with the timetable.

It is not the fact that Mk4 sets are fixed formation trains that causes unreliability and cancellations. Many TOCs across the country run longer, fixed formation trains with good punctuality and reliability, the most commonly used example being Thameslink, where short forms have been completely eradicated, and there are almost never cancelled diagrams due to unit failures.

Again, as stated in my previous post, 197s are not suitable stock for travelling hours at a time. While the air con could be fixed with a better maintenance arrangement, they still face issues with poor ride quality caused by lack of proper suspension, and overly bright interior lights. I am light sensitive, and find myself with a headache if I spend too long on a 197. I know other people who have raised this issue 2 years ago with TfW, who have done nothing to rectify this. Many guards also agree that they are too bright.

 

[Topological]

While terminating at Wilmslow is inconvenient, at least there are other travel options between Wilmslow/Crewe and Stockport/Manchester. While this didn’t happen on this occasion, a not to stop order for any of the smaller stations between Newport and Crewe is far more inconvenient than terminating short. As stated in my previous post, the obvious long term solution is a longer turnaround at Manchester, which for some reason hasn’t happened, despite this being an obvious long term problem with the timetable.

It is not the fact that Mk4 sets are fixed formation trains that causes unreliability and cancellations. Many TOCs across the country run longer, fixed formation trains with good punctuality and reliability, the most commonly used example being Thameslink, where short forms have been completely eradicated, and there are almost never cancelled diagrams due to unit failures.

Again, as stated in my previous post, 197s are not suitable stock for travelling hours at a time. While the air con could be fixed with a better maintenance arrangement, they still face issues with poor ride quality caused by lack of proper suspension, and overly bright interior lights. I am light sensitive, and find myself with a headache if I spend too long on a 197. I know other people who have raised this issue 2 years ago with TfW, who have done nothing to rectify this. Many guards also agree that they are too bright.

How often do you travel the route?

Not making it to Manchester is a big issue.

IF ticket acceptance is arranged with Avanti, and the Avanti is on time, you lose about 20 minutes going to Manchester. If not then it is almost an hour delay. I have managed the 60 minutes+ delay repay most of the times my train has been spun at Wilmslow.

Going southbound the xx:06 Northern to Crewe allows connection with the Marches train. That means being at Piccadilly 25 minutes early. Otherwise that is another 60 minutes + delay repay incoming.

I am lucky because I can track the northbound service and be at Piccadilly in time for the Crewe train if needed. Others do not have that luxury.

Ultimately, I get that the 197s are new stock and new stock is not built like the old stuff. However, they are excellent trains to spend 4 hours on because TfW did actually choose good seats for them.

The Mk4s problem is that they are old. End doors which slow dwells and are connected to an unreliable locomotive. For whatever reason that also means there are often door system failures on the set. The fixed formation is just the problem that 1 set out means the whole service out.

I msut confess I never thought I would see Thameslink held up as an example of reliability.

 

[amahy]

How often do you travel the route?

Not making it to Manchester is a big issue.

IF ticket acceptance is arranged with Avanti, and the Avanti is on time, you lose about 20 minutes going to Manchester. If not then it is almost an hour delay. I have managed the 60 minutes+ delay repay most of the times my train has been spun at Wilmslow.

Going southbound the xx:06 Northern to Crewe allows connection with the Marches train. That means being at Piccadilly 25 minutes early. Otherwise that is another 60 minutes + delay repay incoming.

I am lucky because I can track the northbound service and be at Piccadilly in time for the Crewe train if needed. Others do not have that luxury.

I used to travel between Manchester and Ludlow and return every month or so, but now mainly only travel between Crewe and Ludlow and return every few months. Not making it to Manchester is no bigger issue than missing out the smaller stations, as some of them have less than an hourly service, which means a very long wait if a train is cancelled - much shorter than having to change at Crewe. A simple (but not ideal) solution for going southbound from Manchester would be to tell passengers sooner of the cancellation, and the option of catching the xx:06 Northern to Crewe. Certain passengers might not make it, but at least this would give some a chance of making the earlier train. If this is such a big issue, why has there never been a timetable change to rectify this?

Ultimately, I get that the 197s are new stock and new stock is not built like the old stuff. However, they are excellent trains to spend 4 hours on because TfW did actually choose good seats for them.

The Mk4s problem is that they are old. End doors which slow dwells and are connected to an unreliable locomotive. For whatever reason that also means there are often door system failures on the set. The fixed formation is just the problem that 1 set out means the whole service out.

I msut confess I never thought I would see Thameslink held up as an example of reliability.

I agree that 197 seats and legroom are good, but they only make up a small part of the passenger experience, and there are other issues that I mentioned in my previous post. There is no reason why a modern train needs to be built with overly bright lights, rubbish air conditioning, and next to no suspension!

The Mk4s aren't that old compared with other, reliable trains in the UK, such as the class 158s. The 175s had end doors, which operated the route for 15-20 years, and so did the 158s which operated the route before the 175s.

Thameslink isn't the most reliable TOC in the world, but the use of fixed formation sets there has completely eradicated unscheduled overcrowding caused by shortforms. There is no reason why TOCs should be ordering short trains so they have the excuse to short form. They should order the length of train that they intend to use on the service.

 

[Shrop]

Not making it to Manchester is a big issue.

IF ticket acceptance is arranged with Avanti, and the Avanti is on time, you lose about 20 minutes going to Manchester. If not then it is almost an hour delay. I have managed the 60 minutes+ delay repay most of the times my train has been spun at Wilmslow.

Going southbound the xx:06 Northern to Crewe allows connection with the Marches train. That means being at Piccadilly 25 minutes early. Otherwise that is another 60 minutes + delay repay incoming.

I am lucky because I can track the northbound service and be at Piccadilly in time for the Crewe train if needed. Others do not have that luxury.

Ultimately, I get that the 197s are new stock and new stock is not built like the old stuff. However, they are excellent trains to spend 4 hours on because TfW did actually choose good seats for them.

The Mk4s problem is that they are old. End doors which slow dwells and are connected to an unreliable locomotive. For whatever reason that also means there are often door system failures on the set. The fixed formation is just the problem that 1 set out means the whole service out.

This, along with previous comments sounds like an anti-Mk4 crusade. No-one disputes that it's nice having a through service, but you seem like you blame the Mk4s when trains are turned round at Wilmslow, as though this would never have happened if the train had been formed of 197s.

This post is about a stopping service 197 being permitted (wrongly in my view) to run in front of a non-stop Mk4 set, but you've somehow turned this into implying that such situations wouldn't have arisen if all services had been made up of 197s, and there weren't any Mk4 trains.

You also seem to ignore that quite a lot of passengers enjoy the Mk4 trains for what they are, in preference to the 197s, even if you don't.

Please don't lose sight of my concern that permitting a stopping train to run in front of a non-stop train is fundamentally wrong unless there are exceptional circumstances, and despite my asking, no-one has provided any convincing reasons why the situation I described was exceptional. The fact that it happened to be a Mk4 set being held for a 197 to run in front is purely coincidental to the main point that it was a stopper holding up a non-stop train, which was also running a much longer distance.

However, there is another perspective, if I was cynical. This is that there is an underlying desire among some people, to make the Mk4 sets look worse than they are. Let's start with these pathings that I've questioned. This situation could easily be portrayed to make the Mk4 sets look bad if all the information you have, is (for example) that you're a passenger at Shrewsbury waiting for the delayed train, you're not aware of why, and someone next to you says "Look at this, here's the Mk4 set running late yet again".

In this case, when the Mk4 set eventually reached Shrewsbury behind the 197 set, it was held further to permit another 197 set to run non stop to Cardiff to make up some of its own lost time, while the Mk4 set was forced to incur yet further delays by making the stops that the 197 set should have done south of Shrewsbury.

Now it's obvious to those who know all the facts, that the Mk4 set had plenty of reasons for being delayed, but then there are always various ways of presenting "facts", depending on what is included and what isn't, as part of the story. (Ask any Government Minister). Someone in rail management seeking to present a case to remove Mk4 trains might be quite economical with the reasons for their late arrivals. It would hardly be the first time that situations have been presented "to suit".

I could go on, but maybe that's enough cynicism for now!!!