Transport for Wales rolling stock

[Shrop]

The local social media in the Shrewsbury today is awash with stories about there being no TfW trains to Birmingham. This is misleading people into believing that trains aren't running when in fact most or all are, so far as I can see from RTT, albeit with non TfW rolling stock.

My question is this. When I've previously questioned overcrowding and the woeful lack of rolling stock for TfW trains, the replies have been that spare rolling stock simply doesn't exist. So today, when apparently West Midlands Trains have stepped in to provide enough rolling stock to cover services that are normally provided by TfW, why can't similar arrangements be made at other times? I'm pretty sure there will be reasonable explanations, but it would be interesting to know what they are ...

 

[craigybagel]

The local social media in the Shrewsbury today is awash with stories about there being no TfW trains to Birmingham. This is misleading people into believing that trains aren't running when in fact most or all are, so far as I can see from RTT, albeit with non TfW rolling stock.

My question is this. When I've previously questioned overcrowding and the woeful lack of rolling stock for TfW trains, the replies have been that spare rolling stock simply doesn't exist. So today, when apparently West Midlands Trains have stepped in to provide enough rolling stock to cover services that are normally provided by TfW, why can't similar arrangements be made at other times? I'm pretty sure there will be reasonable explanations, but it would be interesting to know what they are ...

WMT haven't stepped in, they're just running their normal 2tph service, 1 semi fast and 1 slow. TfW aren't running all day so there's a reduction in over all service level.

 

[12LDA28C]

I believe this may be due to units being taken out of service to have the sanders inspected to make sure they are functioning correctly.

 

[Shrop]

WMT haven't stepped in, they're just running their normal 2tph service, 1 semi fast and 1 slow. TfW aren't running all day so there's a reduction in over all service level.

Ah I see, thanks for that. As a non railwayman it's quite confusing when your information sources are local media which is often incorrect, ie reading "There are no TfW trains between Shrewsbury and Birmingham today", which many seem to be taking to mean that all trains are cancelled. It's further not helped when looking at public timetables which display the train operator as "AW" which actually means TfW, and then finding that these trains actually are running, just not between Shrewsbury and Birmingham! I got a little confused at first, and appreciate your response

 

[Harpo]

With no ticket validity information on NRES or TFW websites, important on a route (Shrewsbury - Brum) where TfW-specific tickets often undercut WM tickets.

 

[Belperpete]

Ah I see, thanks for that. As a non railwayman it's quite confusing when your information sources are local media which is often incorrect, ie reading "There are no TfW trains between Shrewsbury and Birmingham today", which many seem to be taking to mean that all trains are cancelled.

But saying "There are no TfW trains between Shrewsbury and Birmingham today" is NOT incorrect. If some people wrongly take that to mean ALL trains are cancelled, is that the media's fault?

 

[43055]

Ah I see, thanks for that. As a non railwayman it's quite confusing when your information sources are local media which is often incorrect, ie reading "There are no TfW trains between Shrewsbury and Birmingham today", which many seem to be taking to mean that all trains are cancelled. It's further not helped when looking at public timetables which display the train operator as "AW" which actually means TfW, and then finding that these trains actually are running, just not between Shrewsbury and Birmingham! I got a little confused at first, and appreciate your response

AW is a lag from Arriva Trains Wales days. It is the same with other operators like West Midlands Railway is probably still shown as LM for London Midland.

 

[chris_in_salop]

Today was the 3rd day since the start of November with a severely disrupted service between Shrewsbury and Wolverhampton.

What a pathetic excuse for a service the railway provides.

 

[simonmpoulton]

TFW are becoming a bit of an embarrassment lately over shortage of trains!

 

[Shrop]

TFW are becoming a bit of an embarrassment lately over shortage of trains!

Yes, and they do things affecting capacity which their passengers find hard to understand too. Just over a week ago Mrs Shrop and I returned from a day trip to Anglesey, which was a four coach set all across North Wales, with around 15-20 passengers in each coach. The station at Chester was absolutely packed, but for reasons best known to TfW, two coaches were removed. It took a long time to load everyone on to the reduced two coach set, including repeated calls for passengers who were standing in the aisles, to move along so that those in the vestibules could add to the congestion in the aisles, and eventually allow others to board.
There were many, very understandable comments complaining about the train having its capacity halved, exactly when it was needed most. Okay, so TfW no doubt had their reasons, but they do themselves no favours by what results in public perception. When passenger demand is often so high that the train takes a while just for them to board, can this not justify acquiring additional stock?

 

[Harpo]

Different approach today. Everything (almost) runs to/from Brum but 6 sevices through Machynlleth caped outright. Not great when 1 train per hour is the peak frequency.

Elsewhere for anyone into tin rockets, 1 car trains to Caerphilly are available.

 

[Envoy]

Well, they lost 2 158’s in the smash at Talerddig - have the 2 undamaged vehicles been rejoined to make a new train?

What is the situation with the new 197’s? Are loads of them out of service with faults and CAF are not getting them fixed quickly?

 

[Topological]

Are there any 158s covering 197s at the moment?

There are clearly issues with TfW, mostly caused by challenges introducing the new stock in Cardiff. The 197s are covering where they should not be and are also struggling with availability

Mismanagement of the transfer from 175s on the Marches/North Wales Coast means that the 150s are getting to their C6s quicker than they would have done. Hence there are 150s going off lease and creating more shortages. (Always get criticised for raising this, but the ORR did intervene with regards to TfW and 175 maintenance)

Of all the routes to cut, the Shrewsbury to Birmingham is one of the most sensible. Other sensible blocks are Crewe to Manchester and Chester to Manchester as those both have Northern/Avanti options. Of course nothing should be cut.

Hopefully introduction of the new trains in Cardiff will speed up and we will see the 197s being available where they are needed.

 

[Shrop]

Radio Shropshire news this morning said there were some TfW trains cancelled today due to stock shortages, and then there were other services cancelled due to staff shortages. Of course people understand that two coaches were damaged, but the overall impression really isn't good. Most members of the public expect that spare coaches would be available if needed, and that staff shortages should not occur if trains need to be cancelled as a result. Some might argue that this is all unfortunate circumstances, but it does give an appearance of bad management.

 

[12LDA28C]

Radio Shropshire news this morning said there were some TfW trains cancelled today due to stock shortages, and then there were other services cancelled due to staff shortages. Of course people understand that two coaches were damaged, but the overall impression really isn't good. Most members of the public expect that spare coaches would be available if needed, and that staff shortages should not occur if trains need to be cancelled as a result. Some might argue that this is all unfortunate circumstances, but it does give an appearance of bad management.

This seems to be a popular misconception all over the country but I don't really know why. Do the travelling public really think that there are spare trains lying around idle which can be brought into service at the drop of a hat? It wouldn't be a very good use of resources if this was the case, would it?

 

[Harpo]

This seems to be a popular misconception all over the country but I don't really know why. Do the travelling public really think that there are spare trains lying around idle which can be brought into service at the drop of a hat? It wouldn't be a very good use of resources if this was the case, would it?

Its a perennial double-edged sword. If there were true spare resources, the media would howl about the railway being profligate and every MP would be demanding it be used to strengthen whatever train causes most grief in their village.

 

[jamiearmley]

This seems to be a popular misconception all over the country but I don't really know why. Do the travelling public really think that there are spare trains lying around idle which can be brought into service at the drop of a hat? It wouldn't be a very good use of resources if this was the case, would it?

BR used to manage it. Relief trains were a common sight, as were additional carriages for busy services and specials. Carriages and units were in the main compatible to be coupled and worked in service.

Of course, they owned all the trains (or rather the country did), rather than leasing them at exorbitant cost - which meant that spare or redundant stock could be kept on hand at minimal cost for use if required.

They also managed to achieve this at a far, far lower cost to the taxpayer.

Such inefficiency, thankfully, was consigned to history with the dawn of the privatised railway.

 

[Shrop]

This seems to be a popular misconception all over the country but I don't really know why. Do the travelling public really think that there are spare trains lying around idle which can be brought into service at the drop of a hat? It wouldn't be a very good use of resources if this was the case, would it?

I don't think people mind too much about a small amount of contingency, when the alternative is overcrowding and cancellations. It's equally not a good use of resources to have them worked so hard to the maximum all of the time, that spare capacity simply doesn't exist. The balance isn't easy, no one is saying it is, but TfW are appearing to be a bit too far down the path of being tight on resources.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Nov 2024 ==

BR used to manage it. Relief trains were a common sight, as were additional carriages for busy services and specials. Carriages and units were in the main compatible to be coupled and worked in service.

Of course, they owned all the trains (or rather the country did), rather than leasing them at exorbitant cost - which meant that spare or redundant stock could be kept on hand at minimal cost for use if required.

They also managed to achieve this at a far, far lower cost to the taxpayer.

Such inefficiency, thankfully, was consigned to history with the dawn of the privatised railway.

So how about re-nationalisation with good diligent management having learned lessons from privatisation, or is such management simply not possible?

 

[Topological]

A genuine question. Would a national operator combine one of the WMT trains with the TfW rather than maintaining 3 trains per hour between Birmingham and Shrewsbury?

The days of spare carriages that could be added to the end of trains sound good, but those trains could not have any of the modern features that rely on semi-fixed formations. The only option is additional gangwayed units that can be added/removed as needed. Gangways is what TfW and WMT have gone for with the 197/196s and what is now the norm in the commuter lands around London.

 

[Harpo]

Theres little point comparing BR with today. BR had universal go-anywhere resources. Trains that could serve commuters, InterCity, holidaymakers, trippers, etc and in the same diagram. Privatisation killed that a long while ago.

 

[Shrop]

Theres little point comparing BR with today. BR had universal go-anywhere resources. Trains that could serve commuters, InterCity, holidaymakers, trippers, etc and in the same diagram. Privatisation killed that a long while ago.

Yes indeed, there were many advantages of a nationalised system, but then there are many advantages of a privatised system too. My question at this point would be whether there is a way to combine the benefits of both?

It would of course be impossible to have every single benefit of both, but what we do know is this - BR had many faults, and the present privatised system has many faults too, so one could be forgiven for thinking that there might be a way to incorporate what we've learned from both systems, into something better. Surely there is enough brain power even on this forum, in addition to what is available with non-members who have legitimate interest, to develop something better than the present system which we know is fraught with problems?

 

[signed]

So how about re-nationalisation with good diligent management having learned lessons from privatisation, or is such management simply not possible?

There aren't any money to buy back the trains from the ROSCOs

 

[12LDA28C]

There aren't any money to buy back the trains from the ROSCOs

Indeed. Even in Labour's plan to bring the TOCs back under public ownership as part of GBR there was no mention of doing so and it must be assumed that stock will still be owned by and leased from the ROSCOs, at least initially until a better system can be decided upon.

 

[coppercapped]

BR used to manage it. Relief trains were a common sight, as were additional carriages for busy services and specials.

Only until the end of the 1960s, early 1970s. After that there was a Special Trains operation (I can't remember the exact name) which kept a small stock of main line coaches for specials and additional trains. However the use of these trains was spread around the country to ensure, as far as possible, that they were in continuous use.

Adding the odd coach to busy services stopped with the spread of multiple unit and fixed formation trains. Extra Friday Only services, where they existed, were often covered by using the maintenance spares.

Carriages and units were in the main compatible to be coupled and worked in service.

Eh? Third rail DC units could only be used on the Southern, also the other isolated areas DC had to make to with what they had. Even the Southern units were not all compatible with each other due to generational changes. SUBs could not interwork with EPBs.
Before the GWR ATC/AWS system was changed to the BR standard AWS system with the advent of the HSTs trains entering the Western Region had to have their locomotives changed for ones fitted with the GWR AWS.
Rolling stock was not 'go anywhere' - there have always been restrictions for one reason or another.

Of course, they owned all the trains (or rather the country did), rather than leasing them at exorbitant cost - which meant that spare or redundant stock could be kept on hand at minimal cost for use if required.

See page 15 of 'The Reshaping of British Railways Part 1: Report', BRB, HMSO 1963.

They also managed to achieve this at a far, far lower cost to the taxpayer.

Such inefficiency, thankfully, was consigned to history with the dawn of the privatised railway.

Except that the railway has never been truly privatised since 1997.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Well, they lost 2 158’s in the smash at Talerddig - have the 2 undamaged vehicles been rejoined to make a new train?

I think both complete units are still in the hands of the accident investigators, and the two rear carriages (i.e those that appear least damaged) will in any case need to be checked over in case the impact transmitted back to them caused any internal damage.

 

[Snow1964]

Radio Shropshire news this morning said there were some TfW trains cancelled today due to stock shortages, and then there were other services cancelled due to staff shortages. Of course people understand that two coaches were damaged, but the overall impression really isn't good. Most members of the public expect that spare coaches would be available if needed, and that staff shortages should not occur if trains need to be cancelled as a result. Some might argue that this is all unfortunate circumstances, but it does give an appearance of bad management.

Exactly, although a specialised forum knows differently, a general public perception is that TfW have at least a hundred trains, can be used interchangeably on any route, and there should be loads of spares in a depot.

The minute they see one parked in a siding, centre road, depot etc and then hear there is a shortage of trains without any explanation of why the parked one they can see isn't available, they presume truth is not being told.

 

[Harpo]

Only until the end of the 1960s, early 1970s. After that there was a Special Trains operation (I can't remember the exact name) which kept a small stock of main line coaches for specials and additional trains.

The special trains unit didn’t appear until sectorisation, at least late 1980s??

Until then, there were relief trains a plenty through clever use of resources, especially loco-hauled commuter sets. For example, there’d be ECSs from Oxford and other places to Canton or Swansea on a Friday night before a major game in Cardiff right up to the 90s.

 

[Jez]

Of all the routes to cut, the Shrewsbury to Birmingham is one of the most sensible. Other sensible blocks are Crewe to Manchester and Chester to Manchester as those both have Northern/Avanti options. Of course nothing should be cut.

I agree, if they must cancel they should do so on routes where there are other options available.

On Saturday gone, most of the Swanline's were cancelled. One diagram couldn't be covered at all (the one that ends up in Abergavenny) and the other was a 197 for the first part of the diagram but cancelled mid way through to cover a MK4 on 1449 Cardiff-Manchester. I do think if they are going to cancel these type of services which cover smaller stops with an infrequent service the stops should be picked up by the fast service or at the very least replacement road transport. These stations might have very small passenger numbers but with such a poor infrequent service anyway its no surprise.

 

[The exile]

This seems to be a popular misconception all over the country but I don't really know why. Do the travelling public really think that there are spare trains lying around idle which can be brought into service at the drop of a hat? It wouldn't be a very good use of resources if this was the case, would it?

Oh yes it would. It’s called resilience and is key to reliability. Too much effort, publicity and money is put into shaving minutes off journey times which should be put into ensuring that the advertised service actually runs (and by advertised service I mean one published in advance twice a year, not at 22.00 the previous evening)

 

[43096]

Until then, there were relief trains a plenty through clever use of resources, especially loco-hauled commuter sets. For example, there’d be ECSs from Oxford and other places to Canton or Swansea on a Friday night before a major game in Cardiff right up to the 90s.

You mean like East Midlands Trains did by using trains not required at weekends to strengthen services to the likes of Skegness on Summer Saturdays, or additional capacity for racing at Uttoxeter?