TFW 2024 Timetable consultation.

[Jez]

Not sure if everyone has already seen this but there is a breakdown of the timetable changes and a FAQ section on the TFW website.

December 2024 timetable change FAQs | Transport for Wales

Transport for Wales | Buy Cheap Train Tickets and Check Train Times

tfw.wales

I was particularly interested to read the FAQ section as it gives the answers to some of the common questions. It sounds like 5 cars on Swansea-Manchester is planned to go ahead (on paper anyway!) and there is a detailed explanation of this including 2 car continuing to West Wales and people making sure they are in the correct part of the train if continuing West.

Interesting to note Swanline/Pembroke Dock is expected to use Platform 0 at Central. It does make sense as lots of terminating trains on platforms 1-4 can complicate things. RTT also suggest the hourly Maesteg-Ebbw Vale service going towards Ebbw Vale will use platform 0 whilst the Cheltenham Spa service will use one of the main platforms.

 

[Krokodil]

This is based on the current situation. I'm not sure how many times it needs to be said to you, but once the whole fleet is in, that should be very different.

It's not just the current situation, it's a view based on the future service plans the company circulated a couple of years ago. Of course your optimism may prove well-founded and they may have taken onboard the feedback made at the time. I'm not so optimistic.

5 cars is more than enough for Marches/Manchester

Set aside the South Wales-Manchester route for one moment. Are the planned formations on the other routes sufficient? North Wales-Manchester was intended to be mostly three car sets with the odd double. That wouldn't have been adequate.

Having the odd extremely busy service due to short notice demand like events or previous cancellations

I'm not even talking about sporting fixtures or disruption. Crowding is understandable in those circumstances. I'm talking about every train on Saturdays and Sundays, train after train on Mondays and Fridays during school holidays, 1V95 and 1W92 on a daily basis etc. On a race day, even a four car is going to be wedged, but that's an improvement on having a wedged three car even on days when there isn't an event on.

I do actually agree with your last comment, assuming it's relating to the Cambrian and Birmingham line. Madness that isn't seeing capacity increases.

Birmingham-Holyhead was definitely one of the ones I was thinking of. North Wales-Manchester is another - some peak services are to be strengthened east of Chester, but that doesn't help

Because other modern fleets are just as reliable?

The 231s appear to have got over their teething troubles and are now managing considerably better miles per casualty rates than the 197s.

But having a uniform fleet means that non-ERTMs 197's can step in to cover the capacity with swaps to keep them off the Cambrian.

Set-swaps are poor customer service. They should be a last resort rather than the default get-out-of-jail-free card.

You didn't specify that, so you're suggesting 4 car 197's? Then you're suggesting short forming the planned 2+3 5 car services to 1 4 car unit? Makes sense. 7 cars are too long for most of TFW's services & stations, so you'd need 2 cars and 4 cars to get 6 cars?

The Marches 2+3 sets would have 290 seats. A hypothetical all-standard (they've now abandoned Standard Plus) four car 197 would have 260 seats. So that's 30 less, but still 50 more than you used to have on a three car 175 (never mind all of the shorter units that used to work the route). While Marches services don't get quite the capacity uplift they would have had, North Wales-Manchester services gain 72 seats compared with an all-standard 197/1. Overcrowding is dreadful on these services. It's no use having a few trains with longer formations when the demand for leisure travel is spread more evenly than the commuter peaks so the shorter ones get hit too. Better to have consistent four-coach formations than mostly threes with the odd five. Incidentally four car sets are actually more useful on North Wales - Manchester services than five car sets because they can stop at Earlestown in the Down direction, and they can fit in the bay platform at Llandudno Junction - many services, particularly on Saturdays will shuttle from back to Junction between one Manchester trip and the next.

Your argument doesn't make sense, when the plan for most TFW services are to be 5 car (South Wales - Manchester & some North Wales - Manchester services).

I'm pretty sure that those two groups doesn't constitute "most" services outside of the South Wales Metro.

 

[WAB]

It's been discussed to death on here, once TFW has it's whole fleet in service there will be an overall huge lift in capacity, and also greater flexibility in switching untis around to maintain reasonable capacity. Currently that flexibility isn't there because the fleet is stretched by not having them all in service. The overall plan includes having some spare units around the whole network that can step in when needed, and flexibility to call upon some services that have layover time at certain locations. It will never always be ideal but no TOC is going to spend millions on a large 5+car train to have it sat around 'just in case'

The short-forms are down to the chronic and continuing unreliability of the 197s. Are you saying that it's actually the 150/158s which are causing the most issues right now? When the 150s/158s go, will the full set of diagrams being covered most of the time? Unless CAF turn things around very quickly, that seems unlikely.

There is ongoing overcrowding which needs consistent 5/6 car formations - not this obsessive coupling and decoupling to save a unit or two at the expense of reliability.

But having a uniform fleet means that non-ERTMs 197's can step in to cover the capacity with swaps to keep them off the Cambrian. It would make more sense to have had more ERTM's fitted units for flexibility.

TfW is very complacent about set swaps. They've been needed during the current situation but mid-journey set-swaps are very disruptive for passengers and cause delays/eat up traincrew resources. How many other TOCs are routinely doing this?

 

[Caaardiff]

The short-forms are down to the chronic and continuing unreliability of the 197s. Are you saying that it's actually the 150/158s which are causing the most issues right now? When the 150s/158s go, will the full set of diagrams being covered most of the time? Unless CAF turn things around very quickly, that seems unlunlikely

While the reliability of the 197s isn't great, the main issue is there are about 10-12 197s covering work they should never have been covering - Maesteg, Cheltenham and Ebbw Vale lines that should be 231s and Bidston line that should be all 230s.

With the 756 introductions it should hopefully cascade some 15x from the Valleys to cover other local South Wales work, depending on the retire date of some of the 150s.

TfW is very complacent about set swaps. They've been needed during the current situation but mid-journey set-swaps are very disruptive for passengers and cause delays/eat up traincrew resources. How many other TOCs are routinely doing this?

Agreed. But it's a backup. How many TOCs would just cancel trains instead of having a backup alternative?
In the next few years TFW will certainly regret not bolstering the number of ERTMs 197s.

 

[Krokodil]

and Bidston line that should be all 230s.

That's another thing where I'm not optimistic of any improvement in the future. I believe that the December timetable will see another attempt at making the 230s cover the full service. We shall see how that goes. If it doesn‘t go well then that's a permanent loss of 197 diagrams from mainline work.

 

[Lurcheroo]

That's another thing where I'm not optimistic of any improvement in the future. I believe that the December timetable will see another attempt at making the 230s cover the full service. We shall see how that goes. If it doesn‘t go well then that's a permanent loss of 197 diagrams from mainline work.

008 did work all day without issue the other day (and has apparently also received gen set mods).

 

[nwales58]

So you think it's a good idea to spend tax payer money on a more expensive fleet of train, and have several of them sat around doing nothing just in case of failures and disruption?

About 65% of private vehicle seats are empty on congested roads at peak periods. We could save public money by only providing 1/3-1/2 of the current road space for private cars.

Sweating the assets is good whilst not compromising what you are meant to achieve. Making expensive aircraft efficient by filling 95% of the seats is fine for a company who does not need to care that someone wants to get from Llangollen to Lleida tonight.

TfW's aims are supposed to be a high-quality integrated affordable passenger transport network. Define 'quality'.

 

[Krokodil]

Low 80s.

Of course it is better when you have a decent number of them to start with, these days a large class of DMU is 20 of something and 30 of something else.

In that context the 93% target seems absolutely laughable. Never mind "that's the current situation, it'll be better in the future".

 

[Starmill]

That's another thing where I'm not optimistic of any improvement in the future. I believe that the December timetable will see another attempt at making the 230s cover the full service. We shall see how that goes. If it doesn‘t go well then that's a permanent loss of 197 diagrams from mainline work.

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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Replied here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/how-could-tfw-replace-their-older-rolling-stock.277560/

 

[Bikeman78]

Out of curiosity, what's the typical availability of a DMU? One which has been in service long enough for teething troubles to have been ironed out, but isn't old enough for failures to increase and parts availability to become an issue.

Two examples I can think of.
Canton 142/143 26 diagrams for 30 units = 87%
Canton 150s 30 diagrams for 36 units = 83%

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

Because other modern fleets are just as reliable? IET's have their problems, and again, there'll be less of them.

The class 175s managed 15,000 miles per failure in their heyday. That ought to be the target. Roger Ford has mentioned repeatedly that the new trains over the past five to 10 years have struggled to reach the ultra reliability of trains built a decade earlier.

 

[Krokodil]

Performance figures for new DMUs, 2024/25, P4. Miles per 701D technical incident, moving annual average figure in brackets:

195/0 10,774 (8,732)
195/1 5,923 (5,525)
196 6,809 (5,409)
197 6,844 (5,048)
231 16,302 (3,708)

Everything in that list is improving, but the stand-out success is the 231s. After a very shaky start they appear to have settled in well. Contrast with the CAF fleets, the most established of which (195/0) have two-thirds of the reliability of the much newer 231s. I don't know what target the 197 order was based on but I feel fairly sure that it is not going to achieve it, nor will it achieve the availability targets. So in turn the future service plan will prove to be unachievable.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Performance figures for new DMUs, 2024/25, P4. Miles per 701D technical incident, moving annual average figure in brackets:

195/0 10,774 (8,732)
195/1 5,923 (5,525)
196 6,809 (5,409)
197 6,844 (5,048)
231 16,302 (3,708)

Everything in that list is improving, but the stand-out success is the 231s. After a very shaky start they appear to have settled in well. Contrast with the CAF fleets, the most established of which (195/0) have two-thirds of the reliability of the much newer 231s. I don't know what target the 197 order was based on but I feel fairly sure that it is not going to achieve it, nor will it achieve the availability targets. So in turn the future service plan will prove to be unachievable.

Well I think if 197’s could be brought up to the same rough standard as the 195/0’s then that would be a good start to seeing a significant improvement, even if it’s not what they were promised to achieve.

 

[Krokodil]

I would regard having a reliable toilet door as being a significant improvement. Anything else is a bonus.

 

[Lurcheroo]

I would regard having a reliable toilet door as being a significant improvement. Anything else is a bonus.

Hahah! It would be a good start I must say.

 

[jayah]

Performance figures for new DMUs, 2024/25, P4. Miles per 701D technical incident, moving annual average figure in brackets:

195/0 10,774 (8,732)
195/1 5,923 (5,525)
196 6,809 (5,409)
197 6,844 (5,048)
231 16,302 (3,708)

These metrics are largely irrelevant to the travelling public.

I can't remember the last time I was on a train that was delayed by a train fault, or even delayed by another train with a train fault.

Twenty five years ago it was a lottery if the train you got on would need fitters attention before could move, or if it would expire before it reached your stop.

About 15 years ago, Valley Lines had some of the highest PPM in the country despite the Pacers having some of the worst casualty figures.

Traincrew shortages, short formations, signalling, trespassers, lineside fires, passengers taken ill, bad weather - every other trip.

 

[Lurcheroo]

These metrics are largely irrelevant to the travelling public.

The numbers themselves are, as you say, irrelevant but the implications are certainly not.

 

[Starmill]

I would regard having a reliable toilet door as being a significant improvement. Anything else is a bonus.

Unfortunately the Northern units are not really any better for this I don't think. At least the TfW ones have a space saver toilet in some units which Northern's don't.

 

[Krokodil]

These metrics are largely irrelevant to the travelling public.

Reliability will affect the availability figures which in turn will constrain the future timetable.

Unfortunately the Northern units are not really any better for this I don't think.

I can't work out why we've ended up with toilet doors which are far less reliable than on older units.

Another thought on the dazzling availability projections, a trip to the lathe now takes two days when an older unit could be done in one. Something to do with the disassembly of the transmission. It'll be hard enough in these circumstances to match the availability of the old fleet, let alone exceed it.

 

[jayah]

The numbers themselves are, as you say, irrelevant but the implications are certainly not.

If 95% of delays and cancellations are caused by other things, I would suggest otherwise.

 

[jayah]

Reliability will affect the availability figures which in turn will constrain the future timetable.

An incident can be a very minor delay. It is likely most of these are at the low end of the scale and may have little or no effect on future availability.

Measuring the seats delivered vs. planned may be more useful, given there could be more minor delays caused by short formations and overcrowding, than by train faults.

I can certainly remember the last time I was delayed by the former but not the latter.

 

[Bikeman78]

An incident can be a very minor delay. It is likely most of these are at the low end of the scale and may have little or no effect on future availability.

Measuring the seats delivered vs. planned may be more useful, given there could be more minor delays caused by short formations and overcrowding, than by train faults.

I can certainly remember the last time I was delayed by the former but not the latter.

I'm inclined to agree. You have to have figures as dire as the class 777 for it to be a major problem. I have been directly affected by four failures this year.

The class 314s were statistically one of the worst EMUs averaging around 5000 miles per failure. However, they tended to run on short distance routes. Neilston is only 12 miles from Glasgow. A daily commuter could expect a fault roughly once per 200 working days. A fault is anything more than three minutes, so a lot of them would be a minor delay. I'd be surprised if people were getting kicked off a failure more than once every two years.

Similar story with the Pacers. A lot of faults were with the doors which could be resolved by rattling them a few times. That would keep them going until they could be swapped out. They rarely sat down and blocked the line.

 

[Jez]

With Swansea-Manchester meant to be 5 carriages on most services from the timetable change in a few weeks are TFW confident that they are finally able to deliver this? According to the FAQ's on the website it sounds like they are.

Also after looking at RTT it seems the arrival from Manchester loses 3 carriages at Swansea with the 2 car going to West Wales and the 3 car just sits in Swansea for an hour until the next 2 car comes from West Wales. E.g The 0945 at Swansea (from Crewe in this instance) then sits there until the next departure to Manchester at 1054.

Also it appears that the few trains that still go from West Wales to Cardiff the hours they dont go to Manchester will 2 cars throughout (.e from West Wales right through to Cardiff Central and return) which could see 2 cars on some busy Cardiff-Milford services.