Franchising Devolution to Wales

[Gareth Marston]

Some of my fellow countrymen have to wake up and face the reality that the main route between north and south Wales runs through the Marches. The people that live along the marches are not two blokes in chicken shack but a fairly reasonable amount especially compared with the numbers living in Mid and North Wales. They have as much right as anyone else to have a service that suits there need - the franchise cannot be just for the benefit of internal welsh links - whether there's hundreds of spare DMU's and its nationalised or the opposite.

The money being used to dual the A465 could probably pay to reinstate the line between Merthyr and Newtown - using the Borders railway in Scotland as a cost yardstick. Wales would then be on the way to having an internal north to south line to do what it pleases with. Wales plc cannot expect to spend all its money on a road in South Wales and then have full control over a railway line and services running through 3 English county's.

The franchise is Wales and Borders not Wales only.

 

[D1009]

I've read this thread with interest as someone old enough to remember when the Marches was a cross country route from the north west to the south west. These days, is it not simply the case that there is a lot more demand from the Hereford direction to Cardiff than to Bristol? Yes there was a very well used Manchester Penzance train a few years ago, but that was a single 158 which was an exploitation in the early days of privatisation to win business off XC, otherwise known as an ORCATS raid.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I've read this thread with interest as someone old enough to remember when the Marches was a cross country route from the north west to the south west. These days, is it not simply the case that there is a lot more demand from the Hereford direction to Cardiff than to Bristol? Yes there was a very well used Manchester Penzance train a few years ago, but that was a single 158 which was an exploitation in the early days of privatisation to win business off XC, otherwise known as an ORCATS raid.

That may have been the motivation from the TOC concerned but the 3 trains a day (Portsmouth and Waterloo also had Marches trains) happen to have been well used also and were talking 10 years ago - the demand the rail travel has substantially increased since then.

 

[PHILIPE]

It was the SRA (prior to DFT) who pulled the rug from under these trains via Bristol, not the TOC

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Oh no they are not,your quote " It only runs Inter-City services across south Wales, which are, like it or not, designed for the London " how wrong you are.
I dont class FGW 150s from Cardiff as Inter City to Bristol
Bob[/QUOTE]

I repeat, FGW only runs Inter-City across south Wales, regardless of whatever else it does.

 

[Michael.Y]

Discounting the political skulduggery that some accuse a future WG-controlled franchising authority of, there are three obstacles that I can see to the Marches getting direct services to Bristol or Liverpool at present.

1) Lack of rolling stock / lack of suitable rolling stock
2) Franchise map
3) Elbowing in on FGW / LM territory.

1) - With a limited fleet of 175s the mainstay of the Marches runs but not being corridor units, they pretty much run in single units apart from extraordinary occasions. As such, forgetting pipe dreams about Mk2s and 37s, the logical extrapolation of one of these situations is to run a corridor-capable unit (150/3/8) to Hereford, detach one half, and run half and half to Bristol and Cardiff / West Wales. Three problems with that - one, you'd need a traincrew based at Hereford or paxing down from Salop or up from Cardiff. Two - you end up delaying one half of the unit while the first unit travels the 10 minutes to Pontrilas. Three - the 158s, the only 90mph capable units, are 99% earmarked for Cambrian services as no other units can work them. So you'd end up with less 75mph Sprinter set running premium services. I can't see this eventuality occurring unless a major cascade of 158s occurs soon. The only other option is to run a SEPARATE service from Hereford to Bristol, which would still involve a change for those coming down from further north.

2) The current franchise map does not include routes to Bristol or Liverpool in the W&B area. This would need an application to the ORR to change.

3) Would FGW be keen on a neighbouring TOC duplicating their services to Bristol at peak time from Newport and thus being in competition for trade? The market for Marches-Bristol and beyond exists and could certainly justify a direct train, but I can't see FGW being happy about losing out on revenue, especially to a TOC they are in competition with for their franchise.

This whole discussion has been about just one aspect of a theoretical future eventuality which opens up all sorts of possibilities. It may be that a WG-controlled authority WOULD encourage trade into Wales from the Westcountry (avoiding the Severn Bridge tolls for example) and from across the Mersey into North Wales, two areas which share so much cultural and social history - Mike Peters sang passionately about it in Spirit of '76 for example. FWIW I think it would be MADNESS to ostracise the Marches, however as I have pointed out before I think it's as well served if not better served than some of the other outreaches of the W&B network. If the Marches are so worried about their services and/or the links they provide, their voice should be heard by lobbying / writing their MPs or local passenger groups. Then we can see where the demand really lies.

However, I should point out, to my simple mind it's conceivable the hard data for journeys from Marches stations to Bristol and beyond exists and will be analysed for any future franchise map redrawing decisions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It was the SRA (prior to DFT) who pulled the rug from under these trains via Bristol, not the TOC

Indeed, what is now the ORR. However the point being made is that given the amount of political will coming from Cardiff Bay towards the current (and indeed any future!) TOC which has led to the 8 direct HHD-CDF trains per day, those based east of the dyke are skeptical that any future WG-connected franchise awarding body would be any less influenced. I'm a bit less cynical about the whole thing.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The money being used to dual the A465 could probably pay to reinstate the line between Merthyr and Newtown - using the Borders railway in Scotland as a cost yardstick. Wales would then be on the way to having an internal north to south line to do what it pleases with.

Reinstate? Merthyr to Brecon, if I've mapped it right on Google Earth, was an incredibly curcuitous route. The road user on the A470 (probably even the T(C)4 bus) would probably be so much faster as to trash any hope of rail being competitive. The same is true, to a lessor extent, of the Aberystwyth - Carmarthen route (although some of the route north of Lampeter was nice and straight, which should allow for some fast running if the line is rebuilt), although the TC1 bus is still conspiculous by its absence.

Instead, I think a new rail line should try to follow the valley the A470 uses between Merthyr and Brecon (the builders of the road probably identified that as the best route). I suppose it might be too steep for a normal railway, particlarly on the north side of the summit, but if so would operating that section as a rack railway enable a solution? Whatever, there'd probably be a lot more tunnels and viaducts required to build fit-for-purpose internal Welsh rail links than the Scotish borders railway reopenning, which would make it even more expensive than the mental Heads Of The Valleys road project. However, the rail links I would propose would spread benifits over a massively wider area than the Heads Of The Valleys road dualing.

By the way, there's an article in the March 2013 Modern Railways showing how several south-east Wales rail schemes have a BCR that beats the A465 dualling. If anyone's interested I'll post the BCRs mentioned.

It is my opinion that, if Wales gets a Barnet consequential of £2bn from HS2 as some have suggested, and this £2bn is all aimed in one direction, it should be put towards a north-south Y-shaped rail network, encorporating the Cambrian lines and running from Merthyr to Newtown, Welshpool to Gobowen and Porthmadog to Bangor. Whatever, none of it should be thrown at roads (or air travel). (My Y-Network proposal would involve about 112 route miles of new/reopened railway, according to Google Earth measurements, which would come to about £1,120m at the rate of around £10m per mile estimated from the Scotish borders project, but as I said earlier some sections would be much more challanging. With the necessary improvments to the Cambrian lines (particularly the coast line), the cost is such that the Barnet consequential from HS2 is probably the only chance of doing it all in one).

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Oh no they are not,your quote " It only runs Inter-City services across south Wales, which are, like it or not, designed for the London " how wrong you are.
I dont class FGW 150s from Cardiff as Inter City to Bristol
Bob

Agreed Bob, but that doesn't suit some people's agenda...[/QUOTE]

What agenda? The last FGW departure for Cardiff is at 20.28 on Weekdays and 1928 on Saturdays. Perhaps you think that that is an adequate service.

 

[Rhydgaled]

forgetting pipe dreams about Mk2s and 37s

The fact is that ATW OWN mark2s. Anything else would require leasing fees and is probably not available (a few more mark3s maybe, but everything else is either in use or requires electrification). Therefore, I see the mark2s as the ONLY way Wales & Borders franchise services can be improved in the short term, anything else is most definately a pipe-dream (unless electrification and EMUs of some sort, being confirmed as going to happen, cannot be discribed as a pipe-dream, but that's still some way off).

Given my experience that the Manchester - South Wales services (judging by my own experience) and Manchester - North Wales services (judging by comments in this thread) are both in desperate need of improvement, use of the mark2s on one of these routes now would be pretty darn helpful (as well as directly lengthening the busiest handful of 3-car 175 services, it'd cascade 3-car sets to take over 2-car diagrams and this in turn would release some 2-car 175s to either take over class 150 diagrams that shouldn't be 150s or release 158s to do that).

 

[Michael.Y]

Stock is used as and when it is needed. For example, the 17:21 CDF-HHD can be either a 3-car or a 2-car. Usually the 09:21 CDF-HHD is a 2-car, but has been a 3-car. It's not as simplistic as your post makes out.

And as for using Mk2s and 37s, well it's simply too much hassle for "short term" relief. You saw how long it took to train drivers and guards on 67+DVT work. The track access charges would be crippling. Slam-door stock at unmanned stations on the Marches? Is single door opening possible on Mk2 stock? And what would you do about runaround... or would you have two Tractors either end? Sorry - it's just not realistic to me.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

The money being used to dual the A465 could probably pay to reinstate the line between Merthyr and Newtown - using the Borders railway in Scotland as a cost yardstick. Wales would then be on the way to having an internal north to south line to do what it pleases with. Wales plc cannot expect to spend all its money on a road in South Wales and then have full control over a railway line and services running through 3 English county's.The franchise is Wales and Borders not Wales only.

A fraction of that money could be used to complete the short extensions to Ebbw Vale Town and Aberdare to Hirwaun but it is the decision of a Transport Minister who represents a constituency in North East Wales.

As for Merthyr - Newtown via Moat Lane; how do you propose to restore the line out of Merthyr? It has been completely obliterated and part of it is now an open cast mining site. A more plausible solution might be to rebuild from Cwmbargoed.

Another option would be to use the Central Wales to a reinstated spur at Builth Road but it would need to include a new spur put in at Gowerton to avoid having to reverse at Llanelli. If such a service were to serve Cardiff then the Swansea District Line could be used but a new Parkway type station would be needed somewhere in north Swansea.

 

[Greenback]

Some of my fellow countrymen have to wake up and face the reality that the main route between north and south Wales runs through the Marches. The people that live along the marches are not two blokes in chicken shack but a fairly reasonable amount especially compared with the numbers living in Mid and North Wales. They have as much right as anyone else to have a service that suits there need - the franchise cannot be just for the benefit of internal welsh links - whether there's hundreds of spare DMU's and its nationalised or the opposite.

Agreed. Political control of the franchise would, in my view, mean what tbtc has suggested - the franchise will be more concerned with Cardiff and Wales than the English towns and cities that it serves.

I don't think it fair that Welsh residents will be able to lobby their elected members in the WG for better services while those living in Hereford, Cheshire, Shropshire etc will not have the same opportunities to influence the services that they use.

The franchise is Wales and Borders not Wales only.

Exactly. Although I think that Hereford to Bristol services are a bit of a side issue to this discussion as there is no allowance made for them under the present franchise map, it does illustrate that there ar eother interests at play, not just getting from one part of Wales to another.

Geographically, Wales is a far different kettle of fish to Scotland, and an all Wales franchise can't work without the involvement of the borders area.

I've read this thread with interest as someone old enough to remember when the Marches was a cross country route from the north west to the south west. These days, is it not simply the case that there is a lot more demand from the Hereford direction to Cardiff than to Bristol? Yes there was a very well used Manchester Penzance train a few years ago, but that was a single 158 which was an exploitation in the early days of privatisation to win business off XC, otherwise known as an ORCATS raid.

Indeed it was. I think there is some justification for replacing the Cardiff - Holyhead paths with a Bristol - Shrewsbury service of some description on the southern half of the route. However as I noted above there is no provision for this type of servie in the current franchise set up.

It was the SRA (prior to DFT) who pulled the rug from under these trains via Bristol, not the TOC

Yes, that is correct. IIRC it was when the franchise map was redrawn.

 

[merlodlliw]

What agenda? The last FGW departure for Cardiff is at 20.28 on Weekdays and 1928 on Saturdays. Perhaps you think that that is an adequate service.

[/QUOTE]

From where do these trains start from to Cardiff?, out of interest Gwenllian

 

[Gwenllian2001]

From where do these trains start from to Cardiff?, out of interest Gwenllian[/QUOTE]

Sorry, my omission, Swansea.

 

[rf_ioliver]

A fraction of that money could be used to complete the short extensions to Ebbw Vale Town and Aberdare to Hirwaun but it is the decision of a Transport Minister who represents a constituency in North East Wales.

A (larger) fraction of that could rebuild Carmarthen-Lampeter-Aberystwyth !

t.

Ian

 

[tbtc]

Discounting the political skulduggery that some accuse a future WG-controlled franchising authority of, there are three obstacles that I can see to the Marches getting direct services to Bristol or Liverpool at present.

1) Lack of rolling stock / lack of suitable rolling stock

The stock previously used on direct services from Bristol to the Marches stations was used for a bi-hourly Cardiff - Holyhead. I think we are always going to disagree about which would be the bigger priority here...

Is it true that the Cardiff - Holyhead service may be going hourly?

It may be that a WG-controlled authority WOULD encourage trade into Wales from the Westcountry (avoiding the Severn Bridge tolls for example) and from across the Mersey into North Wales

I doubt that they'd be too keen on using "their" franchise to link Bristol to Hereford (or improve services from Chester to Manchester etc) though - if it's not directly benefitting Wales then they won't be interested.

That's not a dig at the fine people of Cardiff Bay, of course - I've said the same about Centro running the London Midland franchise (they'd only be interested in the West Midlands part) and I'm similarly apprehensive about PTEs in northern England being responsible for the next "Northern" TOC (they'd ignore bits of Derbyshire, Cumbria, Lincolnshire etc).

 

[northwichcat]

That's not a dig at the fine people of Cardiff Bay, of course - I've said the same about Centro running the London Midland franchise (they'd only be interested in the West Midlands part) and I'm similarly apprehensive about PTEs in northern England being responsible for the next "Northern" TOC (they'd ignore bits of Derbyshire, Cumbria, Lincolnshire etc).

Derbyshire does seem to be TfGM's favourite neighbouring non-PTE area. Glossop, Hadfield and Dinting stations get TfGM investment and the peak time Buxton-Manchester services get TfGM sponsored strengthening.

Although, saying the local stations on Manchester-Sheffield stoppers beyond Chinley don't get a very good service but then Chinley has benefited from TfGM supported improvements.

 

[TDK]

It was the SRA (prior to DFT) who pulled the rug from under these trains via Bristol, not the TOC

This is correct however it was a Franchise trade off as the original Wales & Borders/Wales and West franchise I believe run by National Express used to runs services to Liverpool Lime Street (Given to LM), Bristol TM (given to Wessex), London Waterloo ceased and the W & B franchise that was won by ATW gained a lot of the FNW routes including Holyhead and Manchester via Warrington, the Blainau branch and the Llandudno shuttles. At the time there wasn't an option. All this talk of running services to Bristol etc just is not going to happen, fisrtly the ORR would never agree it, The franchise does not have the stock and Mk.2.s are just out of the question due to the need for engine run rounds etc. The only way this would ever happen would be on an open access agreement that will be blocked by the ORR.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Clearly were thinking beyond the existing franchise as the thread title implies rather than how we can send a limited number of 2 car 175's to everywhere.

The SRA didn't think through the current franchise in many ways- for example the appalling punctuality on the Cambrian in the first 5 years was a direct consequence of the way it was split from Central.

Franchise boundaries -Remember were talking about the search to find the magic formula to make franchising work, "neat" boundaries were all in vogue 10 years ago as were long franchises between the last general election and last November. The W&B franchise boundaries are just a legacy from franchising version 1.7 or whatever it was at that time.

The ORR have put the station footfall figures on their website back to 97/98 my local station - Newtown- had footfall growth of 23% up to 2002/2003 yet we got a "no growth" franchise for the next 15 years on what basis? Wales and the Borders got a bum deal I want the next franchise or whatever to have the right premise behind it and be inclusive to Wales and the Borders.

 

[EbbwJunction1]

Can I clarify the differences between the two organisations that are causing some people here some grief?

The Welsh Government (formerly the Welsh Assembly Government) is the Civil Service department which is responsible for the areas that have been devolved to Wales. It is the successor to the pre-devolution Welsh Office.
The "Gerald of Wales" train is labelled "Welsh Government" because it's funded by the Welsh Government.

The National Assembly for Wales (also known as "The Senedd") is the Welsh version of the House of Commons. The members are known as Assembly Members (or AMs).

I work for the former .... but not for the latter!

 

[krus_aragon]

Agreed. Political control of the franchise would, in my view, mean what tbtc has suggested - the franchise will be more concerned with Cardiff and Wales than the English towns and cities that it serves.

I don't think it fair that Welsh residents will be able to lobby their elected members in the WG for better services while those living in Hereford, Cheshire, Shropshire etc will not have the same opportunities to influence the services that they use.

A voice for the Marches is an absolute must. The lack of answerability the WG have to Cheshire and Shropshire etc. sits ill with me now, let alone with the next franchise due to be drawn up in Cardiff Bay.

Might it be better to, for example, form an arm's length board to operate the Wales and Borders franchise, with members appointed by both the Welsh and English regions? A Wales and Borders Railways Board (WBRB), perchance.

 

[northwichcat]

Clearly were thinking beyond the existing franchise as the thread title implies rather than how we can send a limited number of 2 car 175's to everywhere.

My personal opinion is that the trains without corridor connectors should not be used doubled up on services where a trolley service is provided. Refurbished 158s and newer stock with corridor connectors should be used on such services where both catering and doubling up is required.

Look what could happen if a 4 car 170 operates Hull-Manchester. You board the front train at Hull and sit near the front intending to travel to Manchester. The catering trolley doesn't get on until Leeds and then boards the rear train. At Huddersfield the trolley switches to the front train and by the time it's worked to the front you're almost at the end of your journey. (I realise 4 car 170s workings are rare on Hull-Manchester before anyone says anything about how they wish 4 car 170s worked on North TPE routes.)

Put a pair of 170s, 175s or 185s on a Calder Vale service, for instance, (which doesn't have a trolley service) and you don't have the same problem.

 

[krus_aragon]

On further thought, Dŵr Cymru (Welsh Water) is a good example to look at. Plaid and Labour(?) advocate putting the franchise in the hands of a not-for-profit body such as Dŵr Cymru post-2017. But Dŵr Cymru's customer base extends some distance into England: They provide services in Herefordshire, while Severn Trent serve much of Montgomeryshire instead. This distribution of water service providers by drainage basin across political borders appears to be largely uncontroversial, so surely the same should be somehow possible with railway franchises?

 

[northwichcat]

A voice for the Marches is an absolute must. The lack of answerability the WG have to Cheshire and Shropshire etc. sits ill with me now, let alone with the next franchise due to be drawn up in Cardiff Bay.

If you look at my earlier post about which council represents the stations served in Cheshire/North West by ATW: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1389333#post1389333 How could Halton council, for instance, who have one station that is served by the franchise make themselves heard against a big mighty Welsh government? Then if you let Cheshire West council get involved because Chester, Helsby and Frodsham are served by the franchise, TfGM and Merseytravel will demand to get involved as well.

 

[tbtc]

On further thought, Dŵr Cymru (Welsh Water) is a good example to look at. Plaid and Labour(?) advocate putting the franchise in the hands of a not-for-profit body such as Dŵr Cymru post-2017. But Dŵr Cymru's customer base extends some distance into England: They provide services in Herefordshire, while Severn Trent serve much of Montgomeryshire instead. This distribution of water service providers by drainage basin across political borders appears to be largely uncontroversial, so surely the same should be somehow possible with railway franchises?

Without trying to sound negative (despite a few soggy holidays there!), water isn't a scarce resource in Wales/ Borders (unlike DMUs!).

You couldn't run a water board that diverts resources from English taps to provide extra water to Welsh taps.

That said, it makes sense to have water companies based on the "drainage basin" geography, just as I think it'd make sense to have TOC boundaries based on travel patterns (like FNW, Central Trains, W&W), rather than trying to fit around political boundaries.

 

[Gareth Marston]

If you look at my earlier post about which council represents the stations served in Cheshire/North West by ATW: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1389333#post1389333 How could Halton council, for instance, who have one station that is served by the franchise make themselves heard against a big mighty Welsh government? Then if you let Cheshire West council get involved because Chester, Helsby and Frodsham are served by the franchise, TfGM and Merseytravel will demand to get involved as well.

Plus CENTRO, Birmingham City Council, Sandwell, Wolverhampton, Telford & Wrekin, Shropshire, Herefordshire and Gloucester - sounds like a plan to me!

 

[Rhydgaled]

Is it true that the Cardiff - Holyhead service may be going hourly?

This report on Wrexham - Chester redouble (.pdf) was posted by LNW-GW Joint on another thread the other day. I've only given it a very brief skim through, but it seems to suggest an hourly Holyhead - Cardiff service, with the additional workings having fewer stops than the present 2-hourly service and operated using class 67s and DVTs.

I doubt that they'd be too keen on using "their" franchise to link Bristol to Hereford (or improve services from Chester to Manchester etc) though - if it's not directly benefitting Wales then they won't be interested.

Though I'm pretty sure Holyhead - Manchester and Llandudno - Crewe services would be more benifitial for most of north Wales than Holyhead - Cardiff and Holyhead - Wrexham - Shrewsbury - Birmingham services.

The franchise does not have the stock and Mk.2.s are just out of the question due to the need for engine run rounds etc.

And as for using Mk2s and 37s, well it's simply too much hassle for "short term" relief. You saw how long it took to train drivers and guards on 67+DVT work. The track access charges would be crippling. Slam-door stock at unmanned stations on the Marches? Is single door opening possible on Mk2 stock? And what would you do about runaround... or would you have two Tractors either end? Sorry - it's just not realistic to me.

I think we all agree that no-growth was wrong, and at a guess you would probably agree all ATW's Manchester services should have at least 3 coaches. It is my opinion that the mark2s are the only prospect of relief, and not as unworkable as you seem to make out.

Short-term? Relatively, I'm thinking they'd be needed at least until the franchise end, so another 5 years. Worth a few months staff training if you ask me.

Track-access? How much are 37s, 47s and mark2s per vehicle? How much are 175s per vehicle? Quite apart from the fact there are no more 175s, the coaches being lighter should at least partly make up for the track-access cost of the locos. The lack of lease cost on the mrk2s would help make up for track-access charges too.

Unmaned stations? Gerald is slam-door stock, do all stations it serves/has served have train dispatch staff?

Lastly, and most importantly, run-round. My orriginal suggestion, years ago, was 47/7s and DBSOs, but I later found out the DBSOs no longer have the right TDM. However, the ATW mark2s I believe are the ones Arriva trains used on the Settle-Carlise with a single 37 at each end working in multiple. I assume that, rather than being deadweight, this means both 37s were providing power. I'd suggest doing the same, though if DBSOs are an option for Wales (Northern, another no-growth franchise, is supposedly going to introduce a 37 + mrk2s + DBSO train, and they have to lease the whole thing whereas ATW already own part of several trains) that's even better.

My personal opinion is that the trains without corridor connectors should not be used doubled up on services where a trolley service is provided. Refurbished 158s and newer stock with corridor connectors should be used on such services where both catering and doubling up is required.

Look what could happen if a 4 car 170 operates Hull-Manchester. You board the front train at Hull and sit near the front intending to travel to Manchester. The catering trolley doesn't get on until Leeds and then boards the rear train. At Huddersfield the trolley switches to the front train and by the time it's worked to the front you're almost at the end of your journey. (I realise 4 car 170s workings are rare on Hull-Manchester before anyone says anything about how they wish 4 car 170s worked on North TPE routes.)

Put a pair of 170s, 175s or 185s on a Calder Vale service, for instance, (which doesn't have a trolley service) and you don't have the same problem.

It's not just catering. Revenue protection would have to be duplicated, and not having corridor connections would make a right mess of portion working. In my opinion, no unit without corridor connections should be worked in multiple unless revenue protection (and catering if provided) is provided in all units and they remain in multiple for the whole journey, no portion working.

 

[TDK]

My personal opinion is that the trains without corridor connectors should not be used doubled up on services where a trolley service is provided. Refurbished 158s and newer stock with corridor connectors should be used on such services where both catering and doubling up is required.

Look what could happen if a 4 car 170 operates Hull-Manchester. You board the front train at Hull and sit near the front intending to travel to Manchester. The catering trolley doesn't get on until Leeds and then boards the rear train. At Huddersfield the trolley switches to the front train and by the time it's worked to the front you're almost at the end of your journey. (I realise 4 car 170s workings are rare on Hull-Manchester before anyone says anything about how they wish 4 car 170s worked on North TPE routes.)

Put a pair of 170s, 175s or 185s on a Calder Vale service, for instance, (which doesn't have a trolley service) and you don't have the same problem.

170 can be 4-car because the 168's are. Unfortunately the FNW franchise now defunct did not predict the demand as Chiltern did. The 175's should have been 4 car sets like some of the 168's but FNW didn't have the same vision. 172's are the way forward only if the WG can afford them but at £1m per coach I doubt very much there will ever be any on the Welsh Franchise and also the maintenance of these units would be a problem. ATW had the chance of having the 180's but could not merit having 125mph units on routes with mostly a maximum speed of 90mph. 158's are not the way forward but a fleet of 172's with corridors is obviosly fitted with ERTMS! It is a shame that the 3 car 175's cannot be made into 4 car sets but I don't think Alstom are still able to build them.

 

[Rhydgaled]

172's are the way forward only if the WG can afford them

I think the only existing routes that a 172 would be appropriate for in the Wales franchise that aren't included in the electrification programme are Cardiff - Cheltenham and Wrexham - Bidston. Additional services which could use them could be an extra Cardiff - Shrewsbury/Crewe/Chester stopping service, to balance out the stops at Craven Arms and Church Stretton and perhaps drop a few stops from Manchester - South Wales. Also Bristol/Cardiff - Abergavenny/Hereford stoppers to boost frequency on that section.

158's are not the way forward

I disagree, 158s are what the franchise needs most at the moment in my opinion.

It is a shame that the 3 car 175's cannot be made into 4 car sets but I don't think Cordia are still in business to build them.

Alstom built them I think, but how about cutting half the cabs off 2-car sets and making them into additional centre cars to make 4-car 175s?

 

[northwichcat]

It's not just catering. Revenue protection would have to be duplicated, and not having corridor connections would make a right mess of portion working. In my opinion, no unit without corridor connections should be worked in multiple unless revenue protection (and catering if provided) is provided in all units and they remain in multiple for the whole journey, no portion working.

Catering is the passenger inconvenience. The problem about providing 2 x trolleys on one service is many services don't have catering throughout, so TOCs may reduce the length of time catering is available further to 'free up' some trolleys.

On the Calder Vale services that I mentioned there should really be an additional ticket inspector on peak time services even if it's a 4/5 car 158 with corridor connectors.

Portion working helps increase unit efficiency. TPE can't justify a 6 car evening peak working from Manchester Airport to Barrow or Manchester Airport to Edinburgh but they can justify a 6 car portion working which splits at Preston. There aren't paths available to run the Barrow service 10 minutes ahead of the Edinburgh.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

170 can be 4-car because the 168's are. Unfortunately the FNW franchise now defunct did not predict the demand as Chiltern did. The 175's should have been 4 car sets like some of the 168's but FNW didn't have the same vision.

I understand FNW anticipated putting class 180s on North Wales services as well as using them on open access Rochdale/Blackpool to London services but the increased competition protection which Virgin got meant the open acess services were withdrawn and no 180s ever went to FNW.