TfW withdrawals (Now just 150/158s to go)

[Western 52]

I didn't realise 150237 was withdrawn. I had it on 31 August Swansea to Pembrey and Burry Port. It did seem a bit run down though.

 

[150249]

I didn't realise 150237 was withdrawn. I had it on 31 August Swansea to Pembrey and Burry Port. It did seem a bit run down though.

Yesterday was its last day I believe

 

[Spaceship323]

I didn't realise 150237 was withdrawn. I had it on 31 August Swansea to Pembrey and Burry Port. It did seem a bit run down though.

See post #999 by @Bikeman78

 

[Western 52]

Here's a photo of 150237 on what must have been one of it's final workings, the 2105 Swansea to Milford Haven on 31 August at Swansea.

 

[BillStampy]

Yesterday was its last day I believe

Believe its last service was the 1919 Barry Island - Cardiff Central yesterday.

 

[The_Train]

I know this is probably not the thread, but can anyone advise which routes the 150s tend to operate on now please?

 

[50002Superb]

Probably best to look on RTT

 

[sd0733]

I know this is probably not the thread, but can anyone advise which routes the 150s tend to operate on now please?

Pretty much everywhere in the valleys. There's pairs of 153s and 231s on some runs but the majority is still 150s.
They currently have no booked work into West Wales although that's not to say they won't appear covering for 153s or 197s on various routes.

The 1 diagram they've actually got off the valleys takes them to Cheltenham and Maesteg:
07:02 Cardiff to Maesteg
08:01 Maesteg to Cheltenham
10:42 Cheltenham to Maesteg
13:15 Maesteg to Gloucester
15:57 Gloucester to Maesteg
18:17 Maesteg to Cheltenham
20:42 Cheltenham to Cardiff.

Even though it's booked 150 it could swap, so always worth a check on RTT before heading off!

 

[The_Train]

Pretty much everywhere in the valleys. There's pairs of 153s and 231s on some runs but the majority is still 150s.
They currently have no booked work into West Wales although that's not to say they won't appear covering for 153s or 197s on various routes.

The 1 diagram they've actually got off the valleys takes them to Cheltenham and Maesteg:
07:02 Cardiff to Maesteg
08:01 Maesteg to Cheltenham
10:42 Cheltenham to Maesteg
13:15 Maesteg to Gloucester
15:57 Gloucester to Maesteg
18:17 Maesteg to Cheltenham
20:42 Cheltenham to Cardiff.

Even though it's booked 150 it could swap, so always worth a check on RTT before heading off!

Thanks for that. I'll keep a check on RTT

 

[Steveswan10]

150251 going from Canton To Crewe Electric TMD for tire Turning (5M51)

 

[Cardiff123]

So TfW start withdrawing 150s and like clockwork services are short formed or cancelled
Most Penarth - Coryton / Caerphilly services have been single 153s all week, the Ebbw Vale - Newport shuttle is cancelled today and there's a single 153 working Maesteg - Cheltenham today.

 

[Western 52]

So TfW start withdrawing 150s and like clockwork services are short formed or cancelled
Most Penarth - Coryton / Caerphilly services have been single 153s all week, the Ebbw Vale - Newport shuttle is cancelled today and there's a single 153 working Maesteg - Cheltenham today.

Same thing happened when they withdrew the 175s before there was anything to replace them, so no surprise I guess!

 

[Cardiff123]

Same thing happened when they withdrew the 175s before there was anything to replace them, so no surprise I guess!

Makes you wonder whether TfW (or any TOC) should have a plan in place to make sure there are enough replacements in passenger service before withdrawing DMUs.
But I'm sure there's a complicated railway explanation as to why this isn't possible as it sounds far too simple

 

[computerSaysNo]

Makes you wonder whether TfW (or any TOC) should have a plan in place to make sure there are enough replacements in passenger service before withdrawing DMUs.

As far as I'm aware they did have that plan, but have been let down by manufacturers and other companies not delivering contracted products on time, and it was said elsewhere (not sure if on this thread) that the 150s needed a once-in-every-10-years exam in order to continue running which was absolutely not economical.

Writing this I'm wondering whether the people writing the contracts for new and refurbished trains ought to have included a clause to the effect of "if x number of trainsets are not delivered by y date, the date that our existing trainsets are due an extensive exam which we do not plan on completing, then the contractor must pay for said exam on x number of existing trainsets (x being the number of units which should have been in service but aren't) such that the total number of carriages available for service does not decrease". But I wonder then I'd they'd done that whether they'd then get no companies bidding.

 

[Cardiff123]

As far as I'm aware they did have that plan, but have been let down by manufacturers and other companies not delivering contracted products on time, and it was said elsewhere (not sure if on this thread) that the 150s needed a once-in-every-10-years exam in order to continue running which was absolutely not economical.

Plenty of 756s have been sat in sidings in Barry for months now, but if I remember correctly from posts in this forum, TfW don't have staff trained on them for them to run in passenger service.
So in the meantime no doubt 150s will continue to be withdrawn and so more services will be operated by 153s or cancelled.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Makes you wonder whether TfW (or any TOC) should have a plan in place to make sure there are enough replacements in passenger service before withdrawing DMUs.
But I'm sure there's a complicated railway explanation as to why this isn't possible as it sounds far too simple

As far as I'm aware they did have that plan, but have been let down by manufacturers and other companies not delivering contracted products on time, and it was said elsewhere (not sure if on this thread) that the 150s needed a once-in-every-10-years exam in order to continue running which was absolutely not economical.

Writing this I'm wondering whether the people writing the contracts for new and refurbished trains ought to have included a clause to the effect of "if x number of trainsets are not delivered by y date, the date that our existing trainsets are due an extensive exam which we do not plan on completing, then the contractor must pay for said exam on x number of existing trainsets (x being the number of units which should have been in service but aren't) such that the total number of carriages available for service does not decrease". But I wonder then I'd they'd done that whether they'd then get no companies bidding.

Yep so the 150's are due a C6 overhaul which the owner of them (the leasing company) has decided it will not be undertaking due to the cost of such an overhaul and the fact that theyre already 40 years old so there is not much left in them.
This is done based on mileage. Once a unit has used up all of its availble miles then it is withdrawn as it is no longer allowed to operate.
I understand the GWR 150's underwent a C6 overhaul and the state of them was worse than anticipated and therefore took longer and cost more than originally intended.

There has been mitigation put in place at TFW to keep them as long as possible by keeping them from doing high mileage runs to the likes of Manchester.

Yes there was a plan, all the new stock 'should' be in service by now and no 150's left at all.

Plenty of 756s have been sat in sidings in Barry for months now, but if I remember correctly from posts in this forum, TfW don't have staff trained on them for them to run in passenger service.
So in the meantime no doubt 150s will continue to be withdrawn and so more services will be operated by 153s or cancelled.

I think most crews are trained now. All the crews have signed 231's and it is just a days conversion for the 756's. They just had not finished testing them yet. I believe there is a plan to see them by the end of this year but don't quote me on that.

 

[Cardiff123]

Yep so the 150's are due a C6 overhaul which the owner of them (the leasing company) has decided it will not be undertaking due to the cost of such an overhaul and the fact that theyre already 40 years old so there is not much left in them.
This is done based on mileage. Once a unit has used up all of its availble miles then it is withdrawn as it is no longer allowed to operate.
I understand the GWR 150's underwent a C6 overhaul and the state of them was worse than anticipated and therefore took longer and cost more than originally intended.

There has been mitigation put in place at TFW to keep them as long as possible by keeping them from doing high mileage runs to the likes of Manchester.

Yes there was a plan, all the new stock 'should' be in service by now and no 150's left at all.

If the 150s are now deemed to be life expired, surely the 153s which are the same age, are also life expired, yet TfW are keeping most of their 153 fleet on long term. So what's TfW's plan to keep the 153s going for another 10 years?

If TfW don't get the 756s or 398s in service soon, and 150s keep being withdrawn, they'll be in serious trouble on the Pontpyridd lines where 153s cannot run.

 

[43096]

Yep so the 150's are due a C6 overhaul which the owner of them (the leasing company) has decided it will not be undertaking due to the cost of such an overhaul and the fact that theyre already 40 years old so there is not much left in them.
This is done based on mileage. Once a unit has used up all of its availble miles then it is withdrawn as it is no longer allowed to operate.

C6 overhauls are normally time based rather than mileage based.

 

[The_Train]

So TfW start withdrawing 150s and like clockwork services are short formed or cancelled
Most Penarth - Coryton / Caerphilly services have been single 153s all week, the Ebbw Vale - Newport shuttle is cancelled today and there's a single 153 working Maesteg - Cheltenham today.

This constant desire to withdraw stock before there is a suitable replacement is getting out of hand. Surely it can't be that difficult to plan for stock withdrawals to coincide with new stock entering service - 1 new train in, 1 old train out would seem fairly logical to me

 

[Lurcheroo]

If the 150s are now deemed to be life expired, surely the 153s which are the same age, are also life expired, yet TfW are keeping most of their 153 fleet on long term. So what's TfW's plan to keep the 153s going for another 10 years?

If TfW don't get the 756s or 398s in service soon, and 150s keep being withdrawn, they'll be in serious trouble on the Pontpyridd lines where 153s cannot run.

Theyre keeping 8 of the current 26 and then having a few more turned into active travel units. no idea what the situation is with them all to be honest.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2024 ==

This constant desire to withdraw stock before there is a suitable replacement is getting out of hand. Surely it can't be that difficult to plan for stock withdrawals to coincide with new stock entering service - 1 new train in, 1 old train out would seem fairly logical to me

The consistent desirte to not read replies that explain the situation is getting out of hand ...

 

[Caaardiff]

This constant desire to withdraw stock before there is a suitable replacement is getting out of hand. Surely it can't be that difficult to plan for stock withdrawals to coincide with new stock entering service - 1 new train in, 1 old train out would seem fairly logical to me

There's still the 3x 3car 197's that haven't materialised from CAF that are very much needed, as well as dire 197 availability recently. It looks like there's 14 197's out of service today.
So had the correct number of 197's been out in service then things would be very different today. So there is already suitable replacements out there and the stock withdrawal plan would be fine, but in the short term there appears to be issues with fleet availability.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2024 ==

If the 150s are now deemed to be life expired, surely the 153s which are the same age, are also life expired, yet TfW are keeping most of their 153 fleet on long term. So what's TfW's plan to keep the 153s going for another 10 years?

If TfW don't get the 756s or 398s in service soon, and 150s keep being withdrawn, they'll be in serious trouble on the Pontpyridd lines where 153s cannot run.

The 153's are being kept for Heart of Wales work, and because there was a desire to keep them they will go through any heavy maintenance required. The 150's weren't wanted for Heart of Wales work, so were effectively going to be redundant from TFW, along with the heavy maintenance required meant they were always going to be scrapped. There will be some 150's with enough mileage remaining that they will continue for some time yet until the 398's are in service.

Not really because the 153's can work Rhymney services and 150's put on TAM services. Only 5 150's have been withdrawn and they aren't leaving at a very fast rate currently.
The 756's should be in service by Dec timetable change, if not earlier.

 

[The_Train]

The consistent desirte to not read replies that explain the situation is getting out of hand ...

The consistent (I actually put constant in my post - note this for future as it will make you far wittier) desirte (I spelt it right as desire in my post - note this as it won't make you look as daft in the future) to try and be clever with responses on here is getting out of hand more than any incredibly poor planning from TOCs and the DfT when it comes to stock

There's still the 3x 3car 197's that haven't materialised from CAF that are very much needed, as well as dire 197 availability recently. It looks like there's 14 197's out of service today.
So had the correct number of 197's been out in service then things would be very different today. So there is already suitable replacements out there and the stock withdrawal plan would be fine, but in the short term there appears to be issues with fleet availability.

Thanks for your far more sensible response! I'd still argue that there should always be a provision for stock coverage when running in new stock, keeping older stock in warm storage for a period whilst bedding new stock in. Simply saying "well it's new stock and its taking time to bed in" is never acceptable for those passengers who are then wedged onto vastly reduced capacity trains (if a train is run at all)

 

[Caaardiff]

The consistent (I actually put constant in my post - note this for future as it will make you far wittier) desirte (I spelt it right as desire in my post - note this as it won't make you look as daft in the future) to try and be clever with responses on here is getting out of hand more than any incredibly poor planning from TOCs and the DfT when it comes to stock

Thanks for your far more sensible response! I'd still argue that there should always be a provision for stock coverage when running in new stock, keeping older stock in warm storage for a period whilst bedding new stock in. Simply saying "well it's new stock and its taking time to bed in" is never acceptable for those passengers who are then wedged onto vastly reduced capacity trains (if a train is run at all)

I think you're missing the point. The retired 150's have no C mileage left in them. They cannot be used without having that exam.
TFW are not retiring units that still have life in them. Store them and if you want to bring them back into service you'd need to pay a hell of a lot of money and wait a hell of a long time for the C exam to be completed.

 

[Rhydgaled]

This constant desire to withdraw stock before there is a suitable replacement is getting out of hand. Surely it can't be that difficult to plan for stock withdrawals to coincide with new stock entering service - 1 new train in, 1 old train out would seem fairly logical to me

Of course, it's not that simple in this case since there is electrification (and tramification on the Cardiff Bay branch) going on as well as stock replacement. So as well as the new (electric) stock being ready the infrustructure for it needs to be ready before TfW can get all that far with introducing the new trains (I'm not sure if route and traction knowlegde can be learnt seperately, but if not then that process can't even start until the infrustructure is ready). There was also Arriva's 'no growth' franchise ending in 2018 with the PRM introduction in 2020 and not really enough time to get a new fleet into service by then. Add to that the fact that one of KeolisAmey's solutions to that issue (cascaded class 170s from Greater Anglia) ran into issues (EMR promissing cascaded 170s from Southern, who had no way to release any 170s - quite how that EMR bid was deemed compliant by the DfT I've no idea) meaning by the time COVID hit and TfW Rail Services (KeolisAmey) was handed over to the Operator of Last Resort (TfW Rail Limited, I think) the 153s (which KeolisAmey were planning to withdraw) were kept in favour of the 170s.

 

[The_Train]

I think you're missing the point. The retired 150's have no C mileage left in them. They cannot be used without having that exam.
TFW are not retiring units that still have life in them. Store them and if you want to bring them back into service you'd need to pay a hell of a lot of money and wait a hell of a long time for the C exam to be completed.

I'm not missing the point at all. You are simply looking at this from a factual point of view of how the railway currently operates, which is basically by means of keeping costs low, ticket prices high and making rail travel as uncomfortable for passengers as is possible.

The point that you are actually missing is that with better planning, provision and not having ROSCO's becoming very rich from leasing trains at the expense of the TOCs and the public purse, we could easily be in a position where we can keep enough stock rolling for enough time to enable a one in, one out system. Any business in the world can become more efficient by looking at their inefficiencies and finding a solution that makes the experience of dealing with them better for their customers.

I'm purely looking at this from a passenger perspective and passengers don't care why trains are being withdrawn if there is no replacement stock and their service capacity is either reduced or the service canned. As far as pax are concerned, the railway should do everything it can to provide the level of capacity required on each route and that level should always be maintained and anyone arguing against that is giving the railway industry a "get out of jail free" card to play with whenever this doesn't happen

 

[Lurcheroo]

The consistent (I actually put constant in my post - note this for future as it will make you far wittier) desirte (I spelt it right as desire in my post - note this as it won't make you look as daft in the future) to try and be clever with responses on here is getting out of hand more than any incredibly poor planning from TOCs and the DfT when it comes to stock

Lol sorry, was multi tasking ahah !!

I'm not missing the point at all.

Yeah, you REALLY are.

As you said :

desire

There is absolutely NO desire, none whatsoever by TFW to withdraw stock before the new stuff is ready. But their hand is forced.

The point that you are actually missing is that with better planning, provision and not having ROSCO's becoming very rich from leasing trains at the expense of the TOCs

Yeah, we both work for the TOC in question and I think we’re both very aware of the circumstances.
You have hindsight, the plan was made years ago and many contingencies have been put in place to deal with the knock backs that have occurred.

 

[Anonymous10]

So TfW start withdrawing 150s and like clockwork services are short formed or cancelled
Most Penarth - Coryton / Caerphilly services have been single 153s all week, the Ebbw Vale - Newport shuttle is cancelled today and there's a single 153 working Maesteg - Cheltenham today.

Same thing happened when they withdrew the 175s before there was anything to replace them, so no surprise I guess!

Issue is they're due c6 exams, they would have had to come out of passenger service withdrawal or not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2024 ==

The consistent (I actually put constant in my post - note this for future as it will make you far wittier) desirte (I spelt it right as desire in my post - note this as it won't make you look as daft in the future) to try and be clever with responses on here is getting out of hand more than any incredibly poor planning from TOCs and the DfT when it comes to stock

Thanks for your far more sensible response! I'd still argue that there should always be a provision for stock coverage when running in new stock, keeping older stock in warm storage for a period whilst bedding new stock in. Simply saying "well it's new stock and its taking time to bed in" is never acceptable for those passengers who are then wedged onto vastly reduced capacity trains (if a train is run at all)

I think lunchero is getting fed up with repeating the same statement. Something I understand that there was a reason above you post that their exams are due, something that can't be moved. However the units should already be all gone.

 

[Lurcheroo]

I think lunchero is getting fed up with repeating the same statement. Something I understand that there was a reason above you post that their exams are due, something that can't be moved. However the units should already be all gone

Thanks, if it was a few pages back I’d wholly understand but, 2 posts before theirs is a bit daft.

 

[Caaardiff]

I'm not missing the point at all. You are simply looking at this from a factual point of view of how the railway currently operates, which is basically by means of keeping costs low, ticket prices high and making rail travel as uncomfortable for passengers as is possible.

The point that you are actually missing is that with better planning, provision and not having ROSCO's becoming very rich from leasing trains at the expense of the TOCs and the public purse, we could easily be in a position where we can keep enough stock rolling for enough time to enable a one in, one out system. Any business in the world can become more efficient by looking at their inefficiencies and finding a solution that makes the experience of dealing with them better for their customers.

I'm purely looking at this from a passenger perspective and passengers don't care why trains are being withdrawn if there is no replacement stock and their service capacity is either reduced or the service canned. As far as pax are concerned, the railway should do everything it can to provide the level of capacity required on each route and that level should always be maintained and anyone arguing against that is giving the railway industry a "get out of jail free" card to play with whenever this doesn't happen

But fact is reality. Things go wrong, as they have this week. And don't get me wrong, TFW have got it wrong every couple of weeks since they took on the franchise. There's always something going wrong. BUT, the plans in place were the plans in place. From the original franchise plans the entire new fleet, including 398's, should've been in service by now.

If I look at it from a passenger perspective then i'd like a 5 car IET every ten minutes going up each Valley and they all run to London. But i'm not that detached from reality.

What you're basically suggesting is TFW spending however much it would cost (hundreds of thousands? millions?) to get knackered, corroding nearly 40 year old stock through an exam that takes many weeks just to tide over for the next few months.
Not to mention the lack of anywhere to store them.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Silly question but given what has been said above, how long do we have for new rolling stock to enter service before serious timetable reductions have to be made?

E.g. let's assume the new tram trains are further delayed (there was a comment in another thread about them not being out on tests for a whole because of wheel issues). If the 150s are being withdrawn regardless then what happens?