I dont think they want it to fail. But its a new service so makes sense to cancel when there is no other choice due to a shortage of trains at the moment. As there is an alternative service to Cardiff which people managed with for years.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
TFW 2024 Timetable consultation.
- Thread starter Lurcheroo
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
TFW did give me a chuckle a little while ago with this poster at Ebbw Vale, suggesting using the train instead of the car to get to Abergavenny. It would take around 2 hours with the trip south to change at Newport before heading north again.
It’s about 15 minutes in the car.
It’s about 15 minutes in the car.
Attachments
Dai Corner
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 6,990
Or about an hour on the 78 bus.
Athe
Member
I've tried to have a look at the draft allocations available via FOI for December. Below are what I think are the number of diagrams each day by type, but I'm not fully sure how many of each type are actually available! I've only included diagrams that are doing service work:
8 x 231 Diagrams (11 in fleet)
16 x 250 Diagrams (30 in fleet)
10 x 756/1 Diagrams
8 x 153/1 Diagrams
4 x 153/5 Diagrams
6 x 153/9 Diagrams
5 x Loco Diagrams
28 x 197/0 Diagrams
22 x 197/1 Diagrams (including SP Diagrams)
2 x 230 Diagrams (5 in fleet)
19 x 158 Diagrams (24 in fleet)
8 x 231 Diagrams (11 in fleet)
16 x 250 Diagrams (30 in fleet)
10 x 756/1 Diagrams
8 x 153/1 Diagrams
4 x 153/5 Diagrams
6 x 153/9 Diagrams
5 x Loco Diagrams
28 x 197/0 Diagrams
22 x 197/1 Diagrams (including SP Diagrams)
2 x 230 Diagrams (5 in fleet)
19 x 158 Diagrams (24 in fleet)
Very interesting. Assuming no Cambrian units are included that’s 50 out of 56 197s which is pretty steep especially given the current problems. Indeed, it was reported 126 is still in the factory.
Obviously there’s some slack in the 150s.
It would be interesting to know when the C6 overhauls are due as that’s when they will be withdrawn.
there are:
- 24 x 756’s (none are accepted yet)
For 153’s this is what I can work out, someone may correct me.
- 15 x 153/1’s
- 5 x 153/5’s
- 9 x 153/9’s
-7 x MK4 rakes
-51 x 197/0’s (21 are ETCS fitted so 30 currently in service)
- 26 x 197/1’s (14 have SP and 2 are still yet to be accepted into service making the available total right now 24).
So for the 197’s it seems like the expected level is to only have 2 of each type (2car and 3car) out of service each day, whereas the 231’s are planned for 3 out.
Many Thanks for posting these. 197 availability is going to have to increase significantly to cover all those diagrams. Especially 28 out of 30 2 cars in service.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Hopefully the remaining 3 car 197s will be in service by December.
I would be interesting in seeing the 153 diagrams. Obviously the 153/5 are for the Heart of Wales paired up with a 153/1 I assume? But what else?
MP393
Member
Crewe - Shrewsbury locals I believe
Kite159
Veteran Member
Hopefully not running as a solo 153/5, although knowing TfW anything is possible.
berneyarms
Established Member
March.
Original proposal said cancelled Dec-Mar.
Here is an ECS that runs SX until 28 Mar
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:W29714/2025-01-15/detailed
I deduce that a late SX service to Mach (and therefore the return working) resumes Monday 31 March, but obviously cannot say what time.
berneyarms has done better though
So there is talk that a Pwllheli crew and a Mach crew will have to swap over at Tywyn around 17:30 to allow the 19:20 arrival at Pwllheli to be shunted to the sidings.Original proposal said cancelled Dec-Mar.
Here is an ECS that runs SX until 28 Mar
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:W29714/2025-01-15/detailed
I deduce that a late SX service to Mach (and therefore the return working) resumes Monday 31 March, but obviously cannot say what time.
berneyarms has done better though
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 5,963
I didn't think that would be allowed?
Posts in this thread:
TfW ‘Active Travel’ Class 153 progress updates
Do we know what progress (if any) is being made on this by TfW?
www.railforums.co.uk
state that they must be coupled to a /3 to provide the accessible toilet (post 11) and
only one type of cab will be in use (post 22 et seq) - though possibly that could be overridden in some circumstances.
Correct about not being able to run on Their own due to needing a PRM toilet.I didn't think that would be allowed?
Posts in this thread:
TfW ‘Active Travel’ Class 153 progress updates
Do we know what progress (if any) is being made on this by TfW?
state that they must be coupled to a /3 to provide the accessible toilet (post 11) and
only one type of cab will be in use (post 22 et seq) - though possibly that could be overridden in some circumstances.
I think the idea is that as the 2 cans are rather different, 1 is significantly preferred by drivers so makes sense to bury the 2 that are less preferred in the middle.
No doubt that it won’t always happen for some reason or another.
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 5,963
I'd thought that if they will always be kept as two coach sets, maybe the inner cabs might be permanently taken out of use to save on maintenance costs. There'd be a loss of flexibility though, and that might outweigh any savings. It'll all become clear in time no doubt, though it's a pity the /5 active cars missed this summer's holiday season.
I don’t believe so.
Yes they certainly have but they should be ready for next year at least!
Fantasy timetable planning. As I've said elsewhere any timetable planning to couple diesel units in multiple always operates with short formations being routine.
The list of established DMU fleets running at consistent 93% availability is probably a page marked as intentionally blank.
We told management this when they talked about the amazing new trains they were ordering and we complained that they were predominantly two coach units. "But we can couple them up" - yeah, and you can also uncouple them and we're the ones who get the abuse.
Coupling is justified for situations like the Cambrian or the West Highland Line. Otherwise it's just a random fault generator and wastes space in the units by duplicating facilities which would have been extra seating on a fixed formation four car unit.
anthony263
Established Member
Should havehad Caf build a. I mode version of the 397s for the south wales to Manchester route or of the 185s were available used them on it. Swansea to Milford haven certainly needs 3 carriage trains
It's often forgotten that a marginal 16 seats per four car set can actually be quite significant. Even if it's only 5% of seats on the set.
Only on the day. Too many people ordering slightly higher capacity units e.g. 810 vs 222 thinking this will solve their problems.
The curtailed demand on many of these route is more like half and these 5,10,15% capacity uplifts every 25yrs don't even touch the sides.
No argument here, the other aspect of relying on pairs of units vice fixed formations that I listed is the ability to short-form and halve the capacity at a stroke. Train doesn't get cancelled so the statistics look good but that's no comfort to the passengers left behind. Whereas with fixed-formation trains the only way to avoid a cancellation is to have a large enough fleet that allows you to have some spare cover for the event of a unit shortage. Unfortunately "sweating the assets" and "providing a good service" are incompatible.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
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.
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?
Instead you can run a larger fleet of trains that has the flexibility to fit your networks requirements, and having the ability to still run a train, albeit short formed, instead if cancelling it completely and making people wait at least an hour for the next service?
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'
Do you think that it is a good idea to spend taxpayers' money compensating people who have been disrupted due to an insufficient fleet? How much does the railway lose in income because the guard cannot get through to check tickets? How many customers are saying "never again" after being wedged into yet another short-formed train? How much extra cost is incurred in building a driving vehicle vs a centre car (there's a lot of expensive equipment in that cab)?
People are already having to wait an hour for the next service because they either cannot physically get on crowded trains, or the train doesn't even stop in order to avoid it being mobbed. Having two-coach units was idiotic, there is almost no diagram where one is adequate for the whole day.
Yes, around 50%. Roughly equivalent to the amount of demand being suppressed, with little room for further growth. Not that all routes are expected to see any extra capacity.
It's not quite that simple in practice, if you rely on lots of coupling and uncoupling you will have a very fragile operation.
Not forgetting poor reliability and low availability.
Always assuming that the ambitious availability projections work out. 21 197s doing the work of 24 158s? I'll believe that when I see it.
Who said anything about 5+ car trains? I'm talking about using four car units instead of pairs of twos.
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.
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.
This is based on the current situation...
That's an ambitious forecast of future demand. 5 cars is more than enough for Marches/Manchester. Having the odd extremely busy service due to short notice demand like events or previous cancellations doesn't warrant running longer trains around that most of the time will be fairly quiet.
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.
Because other modern fleets are just as reliable? IET's have their problems, and again, there'll be less of them.
Agreed, madness. It's based on 19 in service each day, whereas 158's used to be 20 for 24 units as there was a Cardiff-Holyhead diagram.
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.
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?
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).
- Status