How could TfW replace their older rolling stock?

[Bletchleyite]

Thought this would justify a thread in its own right:

In my view the 230s and 153s need a fleet replacement strategy to be lined up now, as each have just a few years of life left in them realistically. I know many enthusiasts appreciate them, and that's a view I sympathise with, but at the end of the day they're obsolete just like the 769s were. The Mark 4s won't be far behind them, although clearly those aren't as problematic yet.

One option here would be to do them all at once - order some 5-car long-distance-style* bi-mode units and deploy them in place of the Mk4s but also on a few other services (e.g. perhaps Manchester-North Wales?), and cascade 197s to replace 230s and 153s.

* Not fixated on door positions, but they'd have proper first class, a buffet and plenty of luggage and cycle provision.

 

[daodao]

Thought this would justify a thread in its own right:



One option here would be to do them all at once - order some 5-car long-distance-style* bi-mode units and deploy them in place of the Mk4s but also on a few other services (e.g. perhaps Manchester-North Wales?), and cascade 197s to replace 230s and 153s.

* Not fixated on door positions, but they'd have proper first class, a buffet and plenty of luggage and cycle provision.

TfW do not need any trains with first class or buffets/restaurants. They should mostly be multiple units, possibly with a few railcars for the most lightly used routes, but no locomotive-hauled trains are needed. Cycle provision isn't important given the mountainous countryside served by TfW. I agree that new trains shouldn't be pure diesel, unless they wish to buy a few more class 197 units soon.

 

[Harpo]

no locomotive-hauled trains are needed.

Based on what?

The only negative that I can see is having a fixed formation in the contemporary way which limits splitting or through working to less used lines (e.g. West Wales) etc..

Otherwise, the much quieter passenger environment, the opportunity to reduce wasteful intermediate cabs, and the potential to better serve North Wales with longer formations seem beneficial.

 

[craigybagel]

Thought this would justify a thread in its own right:



One option here would be to do them all at once - order some 5-car long-distance-style* bi-mode units and deploy them in place of the Mk4s but also on a few other services (e.g. perhaps Manchester-North Wales?), and cascade 197s to replace 230s and 153s.

* Not fixated on door positions, but they'd have proper first class, a buffet and plenty of luggage and cycle provision.

I've been advocating for that kind of future for a while. For all the hard work that's gone into the 67s and MKIVs, it's hard to see them lasting more than a few years - plus a solution that consumes less diesel and is better for the environment is always going to be desirable.

TfW do not need any trains with first class or buffets/restaurants. They should mostly be multiple units, possibly with a few railcars for the most lightly used routes, but no locomotive-hauled trains are needed. Cycle provision isn't important given the mountainous countryside served by TfW. I agree that new trains shouldn't be pure diesel, unless they wish to buy a few more class 197 units soon.

1st class has been very successful - despite it's less than stellar availability with the MKIV issues. It would be a shame and a waste to abandon that. No TOC needs 1st class - but if it generates extra income or attracts more passengers, then why not?

 

[HSTEd]

They should probably just order more Class 231.

I don't think TfW realistically have many, if any, requirements that cannot be met by a FLIRT

 

[Bletchleyite]

They should probably just order more Class 231.

I don't think TfW realistically have many, if any requirements, that cannot be met by a FLIRT

I'd go for units with a pantograph rather than pure DEMUs. There is a reasonable amount of under-wires running on Manchester-South Wales, for instance.

Something like a 6-section FLIRT with a 2-class interior similar to the Greater Anglia IC units would seem to fit well. Probably also only needs one door per section for long distance use.

 

[Lurcheroo]

They should probably just order more Class 231.

I don't think TfW realistically have many, if any requirements, that cannot be met by a FLIRT

I could see FLIRTs being an option TOC replace MK4’s for example like GA’s ones with a buffet, but they wouldn’t be 231’s.

 

[HSTEd]

I'd go for units with a pantograph rather than pure DEMUs. There is a reasonable amount of under-wires running on Manchester-South Wales, for instance.

Something like a 6-section FLIRT with a 2-class interior similar to the Greater Anglia IC units would seem to fit well. Probably also only needs one door per section for long distance use.

In hindsight the ordering of the Class 197s was probably a mistake.
If it was at TfW (and we should all be thankful that I am not!), I would probably be trying to make a deal with DfT to send them to Northern or LNWR and then obtain an all FLIRT fleet.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Agreed with @Bletchleyite, something which could replace 197s on certain routes to then cascade onto the 153/230 workings would make most sense. Some sort of bi-mode 5/6 car long distance MU sounds about right.

Initially I was thinking replace all of the Manchester - South Wales services (to provide a consistent product), but that would probably cause issues with how things work in South West Wales.

Then I thought what about more Stadler units to displace everything else in SW-Wales, leaving you with essentially Stadler in the South based at Canton etc. and CAF in the North. But I'm unsure if any of the Stadler units would be suitable for SW Wales?

Or maybe replace all the Cardiff - Manchester/Cardiff - North Wales diagrams with the new stock, which would replace the Mk4s and some 197s, but not sure if that would be enough 197s to replace the 153s and 230s?

Replacement stock for North Wales - Manchester Airport could be an option, but with CAF based at Chester, it makes sense to try and keep the 197s on that route, but perhaps try and release 197s from elsewhere to strengthen those services as well as MK4/153/230 replacement.

Finally, but most likely way to late now, totally different new stock for the Cambrian - with the ERTMS 197s being used elsewhere. Probably wouldn't be enough 197s to replace everything else that's needed either though.

TfW do not need any trains with first class or buffets/restaurants. They should mostly be multiple units, possibly with a few railcars for the most lightly used routes, but no locomotive-hauled trains are needed. Cycle provision isn't important given the mountainous countryside served by TfW. I agree that new trains shouldn't be pure diesel, unless they wish to buy a few more class 197 units soon.

They might not need first class, but it is incredibly popular on the Marches route. You could argue that no TOC needs first class, but that's another argument, for another day, in another thread.

Ordering railcars would be short sighted, inflexible and just creating another (probably troublesome) microfleet.

Cycle provision absolute is important. I can only assume you've never travelled on a TfW service if you think otherwise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cycle provision absolute is important. I can only assume you've never travelled on a TfW service if you think otherwise.

It's of note that while you do see some people out with their road bikes for the day a lot of cycle carriage on TfW is people cycling to the station, taking the train then cycling onwards as their only way to get to work, given that rural public transport provision can be poor and a lot of people on minimum wage jobs can't afford to run a car. You see a lot of that in rural areas (e.g. the Marston Vale too) - rather more of it indeed than leisure or serious road cycling.

Good cycle provision is therefore essential on TfW for reasons of social inclusion in a way it isn't on something like Avanti West Coast or LNER. I think 6 spaces would make sense. You can always put bags there or stand there if not needed for bikes.

 

[Trainbike46]

Thought this would justify a thread in its own right:



One option here would be to do them all at once - order some 5-car long-distance-style* bi-mode units and deploy them in place of the Mk4s but also on a few other services (e.g. perhaps Manchester-North Wales?), and cascade 197s to replace 230s and 153s.

* Not fixated on door positions, but they'd have proper first class, a buffet and plenty of luggage and cycle provision.

I think that makes sense - though you'd probably end up moving some existing units around a bit compared to present. Absolutely agreed cycle provision is essential

They should probably just order more Class 231.

I don't think TfW realistically have many, if any, requirements that cannot be met by a FLIRT

Agreed that class 755/756s would make sense, though they'd need to be bimode, not pure DMU, like the 231s

 

[6Gman]

TfW do not need any trains with first class or buffets/restaurants. They should mostly be multiple units, possibly with a few railcars for the most lightly used routes, but no locomotive-hauled trains are needed. Cycle provision isn't important given the mountainous countryside served by TfW. I agree that new trains shouldn't be pure diesel, unless they wish to buy a few more class 197 units soon.

Not sure that makes a lot of difference. Plenty of places where access by rail/bike is a reasonable option not least as roads tend to follow river valleys.

Indeed a bus enthusiast friend of mine once cycled Barmouth to Wrexham in order to tick off garages in Dolgellau and Corwen!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Nov 2024 ==

I'd go for units with a pantograph rather than pure DEMUs. There is a reasonable amount of under-wires running on Manchester-South Wales, for instance.

Something like a 6-section FLIRT with a 2-class interior similar to the Greater Anglia IC units would seem to fit well. Probably also only needs one door per section for long distance use.

I'm not familiar with FLIRTs but door layout is definitely significant at places like Shrewsbury and Crewe on the S Wales-Manchester services where you can sometimes have a 50% turnover of passengers.

 

[Lurcheroo]

In hindsight the ordering of the Class 197s was probably a mistake.

Even TFW have said that 197’s would probably not be the 1st choice if ordered today.

If they did ever get some fixed 5 car bi-modes (as CAF are doing for LNER) then I would hope that TFW would be keen to sort the ride quality out.

 

[Tetragon213]

Would a 231 or 756 not be pretty overkill for something like the Heart of Wales line?

I can't see an easy replacement for the 153s on lightly trafficked lines such as the HoW.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would a 231 or 756 not be pretty overkill for something like the Heart of Wales line?

I can't see an easy replacement for the 153s on lightly trafficked lines such as the HoW.

Cascaded 2-car 197s. Perhaps with the pointless catering cupboard removed and replaced with more bicycle/luggage storage.

 

[Tetragon213]

Cascaded 2-car 197s. Perhaps with the pointless catering cupboard removed and replaced with more bicycle/luggage storage.

Even a 197 feels like massive overkill for the HoW; iirc even the 1-coach 153s hardly fill up.

Does the 197 have drastically lower fuel consumption? Otherwise you'd get a drastic increase in running costs.

Maybe they should modify a few 197s into single coach trains

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even a 197 feels like massive overkill for the HoW; iirc even the 1-coach 153s hardly fill up.

Does the 197 have drastically lower fuel consumption? Otherwise you'd get a drastic increase in running costs.

Maybe they should modify a few 197s into single coach trains

HoW will now be running, at least in part, with double 153s (one cycle one and one normal one). It used to be 2-car 150s so 2-car isn't unknown in the past. I don't know about fuel consumption but the mechanical transmission of the 197 should theoretically have less energy wastage at low speed compared to the hydraulic transmission of 15x that barely gets into direct drive due to the low speeds.

 

[stadler]

They should just simply order some more 197s and use them to replace all the 153s and 230s in the fleet. They already have a large fleet of 197s that operate in the same area so they would be the most suitable. It would allow a common fleet rather than more smaller microfleets. So if i was them i would maybe order another ten 197s which should be enough.

 

[craigybagel]

I'd go for units with a pantograph rather than pure DEMUs. There is a reasonable amount of under-wires running on Manchester-South Wales, for instance.

Something like a 6-section FLIRT with a 2-class interior similar to the Greater Anglia IC units would seem to fit well. Probably also only needs one door per section for long distance use.

I'd go for 8 rather than 6 to give similar capacity to a MK4 rake. I suspect such an arrangement would require 2 power cars in the middle rather than 1 however, and an extra powered bogie somewhere. Is the FLIRT product flexible enough? If any builder can do it, it's Stadler

In hindsight the ordering of the Class 197s was probably a mistake.
If it was at TfW (and we should all be thankful that I am not!), I would probably be trying to make a deal with DfT to send them to Northern or LNWR and then obtain an all FLIRT fleet.

197s are a good compromise unit for nearly the entirety of the TfW network. I don't see why they'd be in a rush to replace them.

Finally, but most likely way to late now, totally different new stock for the Cambrian - with the ERTMS 197s being used elsewhere. Probably wouldn't be enough 197s to replace everything else that's needed either though.

Why not the Cambrian? ERTMS aside it's pretty similar to everywhere else on the network, and 197s should be fine - so long as enough of them are available.

Even a 197 feels like massive overkill for the HoW; iirc even the 1-coach 153s hardly fill up.

Does the 197 have drastically lower fuel consumption? Otherwise you'd get a drastic increase in running costs.

Maybe they should modify a few 197s into single coach trains

I'd be surprised if with it's modern engine and transmission, a 197 can't offer improved fuel economy over a 153 - especially at HOWL speeds. And even if it doesn't, you'll still get a saving through efficiencies in getting rid of the small fleet of 153s. You wouldn't need to keep 3 traincrew depots trained up on an extra fleet, or have to keep sending units overnight to Crewe and back for maintenance.

 

[Topological]

They should just simply order some more 197s and use them to replace all the 153s and 230s in the fleet. They already have a large fleet of 197s that operate in the same area so they would be the most suitable. It would allow a common fleet rather than more smaller microfleets. So if i was them i would maybe order another ten 197s which should be enough.

That is what I would do.

If this obsession with first class persists then maybe the new ones can have the first class in a carriage with an accessible toilet.

I do agree that when the Mk4 arrives in Manchseter to form the 16:30 the first class is in use, but to what extent is it just because people want a seat? That particular train always arrives very full.

Something which removes the need for Marches trains to split at Cardiff would be a good idea.

(I do see the environmental arguments for a bi-mode, but replacing the full Marches fleet seems drastic)

 

[anthony263]

Even TFW have said that 197’s would probably not be the 1st choice if ordered today.

If they did ever get some fixed 5 car bi-modes (as CAF are doing for LNER) then I would hope that TFW would be keen to sort the ride quality out.

Could be good for welsh government too if they bought some 5 or 6 carriage 897s if caf built them at Newport

 

[Lurcheroo]

If this obsession with first class persists then maybe the new ones can have the first class in a carriage with an accessible toilet.

I do agree that when the Mk4 arrives in Manchseter to form the 16:30 the first class is in use, but to what extent is it just because people want a seat? That particular train always arrives very full.

The MK4 1st class is an absolutely delightful way to travel. The 197 1st class (or standard plus as it was going to be called) was certainly nicer than standard and I would definitely use it if it was available.

There are plenty of threads and comments about poor seats, poor ride quality, generally declining quality of intercity rail travel and the MK4’s offer a very comfortable experience in not just 1st class but also standard class.

If we want to pull people out of cars and onto trains then the option of 1st class really needs to be there for those who wish use it.

As said above, it is well used and draws in additional income for TFW.
Anytime m at Shrewsbury and one passes through I always see at least a good handful of people in there regardless of direction.

TFW is also now on that seat frog app so a limited number of people can get some bargain upgrades too.

 

[craigybagel]

I do agree that when the Mk4 arrives in Manchseter to form the 16:30 the first class is in use, but to what extent is it just because people want a seat? That particular train always arrives very full.

Back in 175 days the 1630 was booked a 3 car and coped well, it was usually busy but not full. The demand for 1st on it now isn't from people displaced from standard looking for space, it's genuine demand for a premium product.

Could be good for welsh government too if they bought some 5 or 6 carriage 897s if caf built them at Newport

897s will need adapting for TfW, and not just the carriage numbers. With the exception of the Inverness services (which I don't believe these are planned to be used on) LNER's non electrified routes are relatively low speed and flat - hence the way they're able to drag electric only 800s with 802s on those sections and keep to time. TfW need a train that can spend all day climbing hills at 90mph without overhead wires to help. We've not seen the performance figures for the 897s yet but I very much doubt they'll be able to cope with the Marches.

If you're going for Bi-Mode at TfW, you only need 100mph top speed - but you need the ability to get there in both modes. And at present in the UK that means Stadler.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why does anyone think TfW (the WG agency) is in a position to acquire more rolling stock?
They can't afford to run their existing fleet, so there's no prospect of more.
They have to live with poor procurement decisions made by them and their agents (KeolisAmey).
The new fleets are not yet fully in service, and they'll have to achieve that and get the contracted reliability out of them before considering new stock.
I could see the Mk4 fleet being dumped on reliability grounds (to the annoyance of their fans on here), and the 230s, but the other new fleets are here to stay.

 

[Topological]

I appreciate my opinion differs, but if there is limited platform/train length then the first priority should be platforming as many standard class seats as possible.

First class and buffets are not efficient use of space on a 5 carriage train.

(And yes this is a critique of the 5-car 80x, but at least they are designed for London services and usually work in pairs)

 

[craigybagel]

Why does anyone think TfW (the WG agency) is in a position to acquire more rolling stock?
They can't afford to run their existing fleet, so there's no prospect of more.
They have to live with poor procurement decisions made by them and their agents (KeolisAmey).
The new fleets are not yet fully in service, and they'll have to achieve that and get the contracted reliability out of them before considering new stock.
I could see the Mk4 fleet being dumped on reliability grounds (to the annoyance of their fans on here), and the 230s, but the other new fleets are here to stay.

Most of us I think are sensible enough to accept that this isn't going to happen instantly. But in 5 years or so, like it or not, the discussion about replacing the MKIVs, 153s and 230s will need to be had. Hopefully the finances will be in better shape then to allow such a thing.

.I appreciate my opinion differs, but if there is limited platform/train length then the first priority should be platforming as many standard class seats as possible.

First class and buffets are not efficient use of space on a 5 carriage train.

(And yes this is a critique of the 5-car 80x, but at least they are designed for London services and usually work in pairs)

You're clutching at straws now. Most of the platforms served by the MKIVs will happily take all 5 passenger cars.

You're unhappy with the MKIVs because as part of their introduction there was a reduction in the number of services working across Cardiff. That's a fair and valid point. But it's a minor disadvantage in contrast to the advantages in bringing in the premium service. And even if the service was all standard class only, all 197s, there's still some pretty good arguments to splitting the service at Cardiff anyway.

 

[Topological]

Most of us I think are sensible enough to accept that this isn't going to happen instantly. But in 5 years or so, like it or not, the discussion about replacing the MKIVs, 153s and 230s will need to be had. Hopefully the finances will be in better shape then to allow such a thing.

You're clutching at straws now. Most of the platforms served by the MKIVs will happily take all 5 passenger cars.

You're unhappy with the MKIVs because as part of their introduction there was a reduction in the number of services working across Cardiff. That's a fair and valid point. But it's a minor disadvantage in contrast to the advantages in bringing in the premium service. And even if the service was all standard class only, all 197s, there's still some pretty good arguments to splitting the service at Cardiff anyway.

Of the stations I use on a Mk4 these days:

Pontypool and New Inn (will fit, i think, though there is an announcement at the moment)
Abergavenny (No)
Hereford (Yes)
Leominster (No)
Ludlow (No)
Craven Arms (not many stop, but no)
Church Stretton (not many stop, but no)
Shrewsbury (Yes)
Whitchurch (not many stop, but no)
Wem (not many stop, but no)
Nantwich (not many stop, but no)
Crewe (Yes)
Wilmslow (Yes)
Stockport (Yes)
Manchester Piccadilly (Yes, though Platform 10 only just)

Newport, Cardiff, Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway, Neath and Swansea are all served by GWR 10 cars so the 5 car fits easily.

It is fair to say I abandoned travelling from Swansea because the service is not reliable enough for my needs. Pontypool gives a good car park just off the M4 and is served by the early/late trains. Pontypool is also £30 cheaper.

 

[Kite159]

When the production line in Newport is still open, the sensible thing will be more 2 coach 197s. Maybe modified to remove the catering cupboard.

It would save money in the long-run as the depots won't have to carry various spare parts for the ageing 153s & 230s and will allow more flexibility.

Bi-modal stock probably won't be a good fit considering the percentage run under the wires, using Manchester - Swansea for an example, under the wires from Manchester to Crewe* then nothing until Newport where there is a short section of overheads to Cardiff (*yes I know the wires extend a bit towards Shrewsbury, but most likely if TfW were running bi-mode stock they will likely change between diesel & AC when at Crewe station). If the percentage under wires was more then it would be worthwhile.

 

[craigybagel]

Of the stations I use on a Mk4 these days:

Pontypool and New Inn (will fit, i think, though there is an announcement at the moment)
Abergavenny (No)
Hereford (Yes)
Leominster (No)
Ludlow (No)
Craven Arms (not many stop, but no)
Church Stretton (not many stop, but no)
Shrewsbury (Yes)
Whitchurch (not many stop, but no)
Wem (not many stop, but no)
Nantwich (not many stop, but no)
Crewe (Yes)
Wilmslow (Yes)
Stockport (Yes)
Manchester Piccadilly (Yes, though Platform 10 only just)

Newport, Cardiff, Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway, Neath and Swansea are all served by GWR 10 cars so the 5 car fits easily.

It is fair to say I abandoned travelling from Swansea because the service is not reliable enough for my needs. Pontypool gives a good car park just off the M4 and is served by the early/late trains. Pontypool is also £30 cheaper.

Ludlow, Leominster and Abergavenny are the only stations with an all day service where they don't fit, and even then only in one direction in the case of Abergavenny. Most of the stations that require SDO, including Ludlow, will still platform 3 out of 4 standard coaches so I don't see the issue. Abergavenny in the down direction is a pain I'll admit, but again it's hardly a reason to give up on 1st class altogether.

 

[WAB]

I've been advocating for that kind of future for a while. For all the hard work that's gone into the 67s and MKIVs, it's hard to see them lasting more than a few years - plus a solution that consumes less diesel and is better for the environment is always going to be desirable.

I have to agree. Also the complexities of the mk IV maintenance requirements along with their long layovers in Cardiff will hasten their demise.

What is clear to me is that:

• 58 carriages of TfW's mainline fleet are up for replacement in the next few years.
• Inherited fleets from other regions are unlikely due to politics, and there aren't many regional DMUs with a reasonable remaining lifetime becoming available any time soon.
• By the same token, TfW have been fairly candid about their experience with CAF and the 197s, and will be reluctant to order more.

My favoured plan would be a fleet of 5-car equivalent intercity FLIRTs to do the West Wales-Manchesters, which would release 197s to cover shortforms on other routes and replace the 153s/230s.