TfW Class 67+Mk4 sets: trip planning/experiences, diagram updates etc

[BillStampy]

Morning

Will 1W96 tonight be loco or DVT leading from Chester to Holyhead please ?

Thank you

Dave

DVT tonight.

 

[Welshguy1048]

DVT tonight.

@BillStampy

Thank you

Dave

 

[FrodshamJnct]

Plan for tomorrow is:

67029 on 1V91 etc
67017 on 1W13 and 1V39
67025 on 1V31 1W55 1V42 then 1W96
67012 on 1W63
67020 on a Hereford test run
67008 to move to Crewe ATC

 

[FrodshamJnct]

Plan for tomorrow is:

67029 on 1V91 etc
67017 on 1W13 and 1V39
67025 on 1V31 1W55 1V42 then 1W96
67012 on 1W63
67020 on a Hereford test run
67008 to move to Crewe ATC

Update - 1V31 is now 197101.

 

[Topological]

Update - 1V31 is now 197101.

So 6 sets are doing 2 diagrams plus one service. Is that a new low?

Like the general public who don't follow rail data sites, I look forward to visiting the buffet on the timetabled Mk4 on 1V62. I know that it is a 197, but only because I do check these things.

75% of this working week it has been a 2-car on 1W12 to provide cover for the Mk4s. Another example of the discomforting experience the general public get from the unreliability of the sets.

The lived experiences of Mk4s.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tfw-class-67-mk4-sets-trip-planning-

experiences-diagram-updates-etc.274261/page-119#post-7445336

 

[Lewisham2221]

So 6 sets are doing 2 diagrams plus one service. Is that a new low?

Like the general public who don't follow rail data sites, I look forward to visiting the buffet on the timetabled Mk4 on 1V62. I know that it is a 197, but only because I do check these things.

75% of this working week it has been a 2-car on 1W12 to provide cover for the Mk4s. Another example of the discomforting experience the general public get from the unreliability of the sets.

The lived experiences of Mk4s.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tfw-class-67-mk4-sets-trip-planning-

experiences-diagram-updates-etc.274261/page-119#post-7445336

Just to give some context, almost every day this week the number of 197 diagrams that have either been covered by a 150 (possible due to the Rhymney line closure) or uncovered (hence short formed) has far outnumbered the number of 197s subbing for other classes.

 

[Topological]

Just to give some context, almost every day this week the number of 197 diagrams that have either been covered by a 150 (possible due to the Rhymney line closure) or uncovered (hence short formed) has far outnumbered the number of 197s subbing for other classes.

At any given availability level for 197s the need to cover for Mk4 will impact. The point that the shortforms would be less if the covering 197s were available stands.

It also stands that the decision to use Chester as the depot is binding on TfW. First it lowered maintenance on the 175s, then added mileage to the 150s that were covering the 175s and now means that there are stored Cambrian 197s that could be used otherwise. All of this has seen TfW paying leasing on trains that cannot be used. That is another ship that sailed a long time ago.

There is also the further point that the various classes of new train for the Cardiff Metro are not in use yet which would again change the picture. Hopefully there is an end in sight there. I am sure the Cheltenham passengers will be glad not to need to use 150s.

I think we all want all classes of train to be performing better. But as this is the Mk4 thread then the availability of Mk4s is the focus. No issues with another class change the position with the Mk4s (would that they did)

 

[Aaron24]

At any given availability level for 197s the need to cover for Mk4 will impact. The point that the shortforms would be less if the covering 197s were available stands.

It also stands that the decision to use Chester as the depot is binding on TfW. First it lowered maintenance on the 175s, then added mileage to the 150s that were covering the 175s and now means that there are stored Cambrian 197s that could be used otherwise. All of this has seen TfW paying leasing on trains that cannot be used. That is another ship that sailed a long time ago.

There is also the further point that the various classes of new train for the Cardiff Metro are not in use yet which would again change the picture. Hopefully there is an end in sight there. I am sure the Cheltenham passengers will be glad not to need to use 150s.

I think we all want all classes of train to be performing better. But as this is the Mk4 thread then the availability of Mk4s is the focus. No issues with another class change the position with the Mk4s (would that they did)

Yes this the mk4 thread but you keep bringing up 197s. So make your mind up!

 

[Lewisham2221]

At any given availability level for 197s the need to cover for Mk4 will impact. The point that the shortforms would be less if the covering 197s were available stands.

It also stands that the decision to use Chester as the depot is binding on TfW. First it lowered maintenance on the 175s, then added mileage to the 150s that were covering the 175s and now means that there are stored Cambrian 197s that could be used otherwise. All of this has seen TfW paying leasing on trains that cannot be used. That is another ship that sailed a long time ago.

There is also the further point that the various classes of new train for the Cardiff Metro are not in use yet which would again change the picture. Hopefully there is an end in sight there. I am sure the Cheltenham passengers will be glad not to need to use 150s.

I think we all want all classes of train to be performing better. But as this is the Mk4 thread then the availability of Mk4s is the focus. No issues with another class change the position with the Mk4s (would that they did)

I'm just pointing out that the 197 situation this week has been such that even if all 5 of the loco-hauled diagrams had been loco-hauled, there's absolutely no guarantee that 1W12 would not have been short formed.

 

[Topological]

Yes this the mk4 thread but you keep bringing up 197s. So make your mind up!

I mention the class of train that is covering for the Mk4s. On the Marches that means the 197. If the 197s were not being used to cover then I would focus on the trains that were being used as cover instead.

Because it is the 197s it means that there are impacts on other 197 diagrams which become relevant.

It might be tangential to then talk about other routes where the 197s were not in use because of the shuffling, but personally I would say it was in scope.

I focus on the Marches because that is the direct "experience".

I'm just pointing out that the 197 situation this week has been such that even if all 5 of the loco-hauled diagrams had been loco-hauled, there's absolutely no guarantee that 1W12 would not have been short formed.

True, having been on enough 150s up the Marches whilst there were 197s on the Maestegs, I do know that TfW may well have chosen to shortform 1W12 anyway and put the saved 197 (that was no longer covering the Mk4) on something near Cardiff.

One thing is definite. Having a regular 5 car service on the Marches has been a very welcome uplift.

 

[MP393]

HD03 is planned now to come out for 1V42, 13:10 Crewe to Cardiff after earlier issues on it’s prep now being resolved

Update - 1V31 is now 197101.

 

[Welshguy1048]

@sd0733
@37052 xb mr
@MP393
@BillStampy

Morning

What is due to be on 1W96 tonight ? - and will it be loco or DVT leading from Chester to Holyhead please ?

Thank you

Dave

 

[37052 xb mr]

@sd0733
@37052 xb mr
@MP393
@BillStampy

Morning

What is due to be on 1W96 tonight ? - and will it be loco or DVT leading from Chester to Holyhead please ?

Thank you

Dave

67025 set 3 loco MAN end
So DVT leading

 

[Welshguy1048]

67025 set 3 loco MAN end
Do DVT leading

@37052 xb mr

Thank you

Appreciate all your help

Dave

 

[BillStampy]

67017 has shut down on 1V39 and has reportedly come to a stand at Whitchurch station.

 

[nineteenninety]

67017 has shut down on 1V39 and has reportedly come to a stand at Whitchurch station.

67005 Is en-route to rescue it

 

[mikestone1952]

Dragged back to Crewe - 16.30 over five hours after it first left.

 

[nineteenninety]

Dragged back to Crewe - 16.30 over five hours after it first left.

Going straight to ETD

 

[eisenach]

TfW's information leaves a lot to be desired. Thank goodness for knowing about RTT.

I was planning on catching the 14h20 from Leominster to Hfd for a hospital appointment. Fortunately, I was half an hour early, and saw that the delayed Milford Haven train was due at 14h00. There was a lot of people on the platform (for Leo !), and the platform display shewed the 14h20 as being 10 minutes late. I considered letting the first go if it was very full, to catch the second, but checked RTT. It was still in Crewe !

I got caught up in last week's 67 failure in Cwmbran as well, travelling back from Hfd to Leo after another appointment.

 

[williamn]

Sorry to ask a rookie question 119 pages in, but what exactly is the problem with these trains? It just seems endless. At what point does TfW give up and order more 197’s?

 

[sd0733]

Sorry to ask a rookie question 119 pages in, but what exactly is the problem with these trains? It just seems endless. At what point does TfW give up and order more 197’s?

Simple answer to a huge chunk of the problem is the locos. Theres no desire whatsoever to get rid of the coaches.
More 197s are extremely unlikely as it stands, they have their own share of problems.

 

[BillStampy]

Simple answer to a huge chunk of the problem is the locos. Theres no desire whatsoever to get rid of the coaches.
More 197s are extremely unlikely as it stands, they have their own share of problems.

Another issue is finding an appropriate locomotive to replace the 67s, although with all the new builds around I'm sure they could find something to do the job. I feel most things would do better than the 67s at this point.

 

[sd0733]

Another issue is finding an appropriate locomotive to replace the 67s, although with all the new builds around I'm sure they could find something to do the job. I feel most things would do better than the 67s at this point.

Like you say the new build locos open up possibilities. Without saying more than I can things are happening behind the scenes.

 

[BillStampy]

Like you say the new build locos open up possibilities. Without saying more than I can things are happening behind the scenes.

It's not a big surprise that TfW want to get things sorted out. I'm just thankful I haven't gotten myself caught up in any MK4 failures just yet (unless you include a window wiper fault!)

 

[D6130]

Another issue is finding an appropriate locomotive to replace the 67s, although with all the new builds around I'm sure they could find something to do the job. I feel most things would do better than the 67s at this point.

What about the 68s which are about to be displaced from Chiltern by their ex-TPE classmates that have been adapted to work with the Mark 5a stock? Certainly they would have to be modified to work with the Mark 4 stock....but I would imagine that the cost of such modifications would be far outweighed by the reduction in delay penalty payments incurred by the ailing 67s.

 

[Tom125]

did class 67 locos suffer from reliability issues from the start of their working lives or is this a relatively recent issue with them?

 

[BillStampy]

What about the 68s which are about to be displaced from Chiltern by their ex-TPE classmates that have been adapted to work with the Mark 5a stock? Certainly they would have to be modified to work with the Mark 4 stock....but I would imagine that the cost of such modifications would be far outweighed by the reduction in delay penalty payments incurred by the ailing 67s.

I'm not an expert on Chiltern's 68s but two things:

1, how many spare 68s would there be, because you need quite a lot to keep the fleet going.
2, how reliable have they been at Chiltern, I would assume a significant bit better seeing how they replaced the 67s in the first place on Chiltern.

 

[JasmineDM]

What about the 68s which are about to be displaced from Chiltern by their ex-TPE classmates that have been adapted to work with the Mark 5a stock? Certainly they would have to be modified to work with the Mark 4 stock....but I would imagine that the cost of such modifications would be far outweighed by the reduction in delay penalty payments incurred by the ailing 67s.

I asked this question a week or two back in this thread -- the consensus in the answers was that much effort has already going into modifications and in particular driver training for the 67s, which would need to be repeated almost from scratch to make the 68s compatible with mk4s, and to train the drivers on them. See page 111 of the discussion, in particular below:

As they are right now, no they're not fully compatible with the MKIVs, but then neither were the 67s originally. Could they be modded in the same way? Probably. Would they? There's been no signs of that happening yet.

The vast majority of the 3 week traction course for TfW drivers on 67/MKIVs is dedicated just to the locos. Converting about 160 drivers to 68 would not come cheap, even before you factor all the other expenses of switching over the locos. And a lot of money has already been sunk into the 67s.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Any investment in new/different locos would have to make sense for the remaining lifetime of the Mk4s, already around 35 years old with many miles on the clock.
Would TfW go for loco-hauled replacements? Probably not.

 

[Topological]

Any investment in new/different locos would have to make sense for the remining lifetime of the Mk4s, already around 35 years old with many miles on the clock.
Would TfW go for loco-hauled replacements? Probably not.

There is a good thread on options for replacement that ran this summer: TfW Replacement Thread

With all the critiques of micro-fleets, it always amazes me that there is such a staunch defence of the Mk4s. Of course, it is a loco and coaches... From a travelling public perspective, the same requirements for reliability and being rescued when things go wrong apply irrespective of where the engine is.

My experience on the 197 substitute yesterday was very good. However, that was thanks to another waste of money, the Standard Premium section that many people avoid sitting in because they think it is a premium price. Had I been relying on getting a seat in the part that looks like Standard then the first part of the journey would not have been so comfortable. The 18:30 from Manchester empties as it goes south to the point even 2-cars can cope from Hereford.

TfW are providing a perfect case study of the sunk cost fallacy.