Good gravy there feels like a lot of 'oh look at those lucky lot in the south while we get nothing in the north' kind of comments here. Ugh.
The person who suggested Cardiff to Manchester passengers should be rerouted to XC via Birmingham, well I won't say what originally came to mind but I will say that idea is the most foolish I've seen this week. More foolish than the proposal to reopen Dumfries to Stranraer!
It is pretty clear that everyone will argue for their favoured line.
[abridged]
Ultimately arguing about which lines should be cut is something of a moot point though. TfW should be held accountable for allowing this to happen with poor maintenance and ill thought out transition to the new 197s.
For the record, I would like to add that I absolutely agree with the observations of the two posters quoted. There have been some truly barmy suggestions over the last few days, but the suggestions by those playing “fantasy route planner” take the cake, biscuit and tin. Let’s have some context and try to be a bit more rational.
A cold splash of reality to start - nothing that’s posted here will change the situation for anyone, North / South / Borderlands / Marches / Valleys. The route planners in TFW Headquarters aren’t going to call any of us up for advice - and as cynical as I am about almost everything and especially how TfW (and previously ATW) usually manage services, I agree with Topo’s analysis that it’s obvious they’re trying their best to manage a tough situation and deliver the best compromise that helps the most people have the minimum inconvenience. It won’t be perfect but it should only be temporary; we may even be through the worst of it but the next few weeks will prove it.
Some posters are personally inconvenienced and your anger at the situation is understandable. However, personal feelings don’t add to the wider discussion and can cloud judgement - it’s hard to see the bigger picture when you’re focussing only on problems affecting yourself.
It’s right that TfW’s feet are held to the fire about whether this was foreseeable and how they’ve managed it, but the best time to do post-match analysis is (unsurprisingly) after the situation is resolved and stabilised. Changing horses mid-stream rarely leads to a better outcome, and even if we could change things (which it’s obvious, we can’t) there’s no guarantee it would be any better. It could even make things worse, when other factors we aren’t able to see are taken into account.
The first few pages were really informative and I have kept up with this forum for updates, but the last few pages have read overall as general complaints about (seemingly) everything TfW do (or don’t do), including their planning, maintenance and general performance. The original point of this thread is long forgotten. If the discussion continues between the last few posters, the thread will rapidly reach the point described in Godwin’s law.
Let’s bring it back to the OP topic - why there are shortages of 175, what’s known about the situation and when it will be resolved.
In terms of why, the potential underlying cause of changing maintenance regime from Alstom-managed to another provider is fascinating. I simply can’t understand how this was agreed without a robust change control process in place. Does it point to management systems failures (which would be nothing short of scandalous, as these always precede major accidents) or a simple cost-pressure or managed-retirement approach for the 175 fleet? Are there too few people in engineering management / planning who could advise on change control?
It’s surprising given the relatively short time since the 175 fleet were repainted to TfW colours that might consider running them down so quickly; I expected TfW might try to extend leases as they’re a micro fleet, not too old (compared to much of their fleet) and almost synonymous with the railway in Wales these days. I would have expected them to drop to lower-link reasonable distance services, like Maesteg, Cheltenham, Fishguard or Ebbw Vale instead of being made (potentially permanently) homeless.
Or - with my tin-foil hat firmly in place - is this all part of a deliberate negotiating strategy, where they systematically decrease the value of the asset (financially and in public / market perception) in order to improve re-negotiation leverage with the leasing company for a short-term extension? That would of course be hugely underhand and I’d be sure it isn’t the case, but I always like to present balanced thoughts!
