WAG Express discussion

[merlodlliw]

I may have mis-understood your post here Bob, maybe you mean IWJ travelled on WSMR and thought we want some of this for our AM/WAG members to travel to Cardiff and then approached WSMR to run the service for them, this was refused due to logistics of the staff and then ATW were approached!

........................................................................................................


Thats what I meant. W/S the preferred Company, was indeed approached by IWJ, W/S withdrew, TDK is correct over logistics the reason for W/S pulling out,Grand Central put in a half hearted
bid, not wanting the contract I am told, in the end it went to ATW, who had also been crying about losing fare extraction.
IWJ gave in to ATWs demands and route via Crewe.

Bob
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A buffet, microwave/oven and frozen pre-prepared food (which is what you get in many expensive restaurants anyway) would be more than adequate![/QUOTE]Jones Bangor.

We agree on this element. Absolute no requirement for a Chef whatsoever.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As I understand it, the ATW franchise agreement gives them first refusal on operating additional services on their patch.
So WSMR/GC didn't get a look in when the WAG went looking for an operator.

Surely as Arriva own LNWR at Crewe they have a ready made maintenance facility?

I would have thought Arriva (Group) would be busy developing rolling stock solutions for its whole trains operation (now including GC).
WAG1/2 must seem like peanuts to an outfit as big as DB.
I'd just like to see some "big thinking" here.
Seems like attrition at the moment.

 

[jones_bangor]

As I understand it, the ATW franchise agreement gives them first refusal on operating additional services on their patch.
So WSMR/GC didn't get a look in when the WAG went looking for an operator.

Surely as Arriva own LNWR at Crewe they have a ready made maintenance facility?

I would have thought Arriva (Group) would be busy developing rolling stock solutions for its whole trains operation (now including GC).
WAG1/2 must seem like peanuts to an outfit as big as DB.
I'd just like to see some "big thinking" here.
Seems like attrition at the moment.

To me it seems a huge opportunity - Cardiff -Holyhead, Milford Haven - Manchester as LHCS, displaced 175s to improve other services, particularly Llandudno - Mancs and Birmingham - Holyhead, and the spare 158s to double up Cambrians.....

Not sure if the LHCS need first class.

 

[Penmorfa]

I would have thought Arriva (Group) would be busy developing rolling stock solutions for its whole trains operation (now including GC).
WAG1/2 must seem like peanuts to an outfit as big as DB.
I'd just like to see some "big thinking" here.
Seems like attrition at the moment.

Surely they are as Chiltern is part of DB/Arriva and we are about to see Mark 3's with automatic doors and DVT's with generators fitted

 

[Greenback]

To me it seems a huge opportunity - Cardiff -Holyhead, Milford Haven - Manchester as LHCS, displaced 175s to improve other services, particularly Llandudno - Mancs and Birmingham - Holyhead, and the spare 158s to double up Cambrians.....

Not sure if the LHCS need first class.

I would say that the Cardiff to Manchester and Holyhead either both deserve first class (on all trains) or they don't. If anything, there is probably a better business case for the Manc services to have it than the Holyhead trains.

Otherwise, I agree, but I can't see it happening anytime soon.

 

[merlodlliw]

As I understand it, the ATW franchise agreement gives them first refusal on operating additional services on their patch.
So WSMR/GC didn't get a look in when the WAG went looking for an operator.

Surely as Arriva own LNWR at Crewe they have a ready made maintenance facility?

I would have thought Arriva (Group) would be busy developing rolling stock solutions for its whole trains operation (now including GC).
WAG1/2 must seem like peanuts to an outfit as big as DB.
I'd just like to see some "big thinking" here.
Seems like attrition at the moment.

As the WAG Exs are run as open access,ATW could only object like they did with W/S, I am not aware of a non compi agreement in their contract for the franchise which covers England & Wales

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As the WAG Exs are run as open access,ATW could only object like they did with W/S, I am not aware of a non compi agreement in their contract for the franchise which covers England & Wales

The Modern Railways articles at the time (2008) indicate that WAG got bids from WSMR, GU and ATW but only negotiated with ATW.
I'm sure I have read something to the effect that ATW would have had to decline the business for the other bids to be considered - ie they were automatically preferred bidder.
Being entirely within the ATW franchise area it wasn't proper Open Access promoted by a TOC with all the usual competition issues.
I haven't fathomed my way round the WAG web site to know if the details are there somewhere - probably not, as it would be commercially sensitive!

 

[merlodlliw]

The Modern Railways articles at the time (2008) indicate that WAG got bids from WSMR, GU and ATW but only negotiated with ATW.
I'm sure I have read something to the effect that ATW would have had to decline the business for the other bids to be considered - ie they were automatically preferred bidder.
Being entirely within the ATW franchise area it wasn't proper Open Access promoted by a TOC with all the usual competition issues.
I haven't fathomed my way round the WAG web site to know if the details are there somewhere - probably not, as it would be commercially sensitive!

wheels within wheels, but the WAG Exs, are run open access, as they are neither franchise or special workings. The ATW application to the ORR was for open access working and was promoted in the application by the toc, ATW.
WG did not apply for the workings to ORR, I can assure you W/S pulled out & W/S was IWJ preferred choice.
At that time there was a lot of anti W/S propaganda put out by a Senior Cardiff manager who had a monkey on his shoulder from the time he worked for another TOC ( now in the DB Family),a few on RF know who I mean.

Bob

 

[TDK]

So WSMR/GC didn't get a look in when the WAG went looking for an operator.

The WAG went to WSMR and asked them if they could run the service, if it was only ATW that could run the service WAG would have not approached WSMR in the outset!

Surely as Arriva own LNWR at Crewe they have a ready made maintenance facility?

The 67's are maintained at the ETD and LNWR is up to capacity at this current time

WAG1/2 must seem like peanuts to an outfit as big as DB.
I'd just like to see some "big thinking" here.
Seems like attrition at the moment

So was WSMR but DB pulled the plug on them
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely they are as Chiltern is part of DB/Arriva and we are about to see Mark 3's with automatic doors and DVT's with generators fitted

This idea of plug doors was thought of a long time before DB bought out Arriva. I would prefer to think the DB/Arriva were a part of Chiltern but hey the Arriva part is name only - there is not Arriva as such anymore it is DB
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

wheels within wheels, but the WAG Exs, are run open access, as they are neither franchise or special workings. The ATW application to the ORR was for open access working and was promoted in the application by the toc, ATW.
WG did not apply for the workings to ORR, I can assure you W/S pulled out & W/S was IWJ preferred choice.
At that time there was a lot of anti W/S propaganda put out by a Senior Cardiff manager who had a monkey on his shoulder from the time he worked for another TOC ( now in the DB Family),a few on RF know who I mean.

Bob

Indeed Bob a few of us do

 

[IanXC]

Hard evidence of an ATW DVT! Unless that's a photoshop of course.

Urm... was this a hoax? The picture seems to have been removed from flickr and I haven't been able to find another.

Do 82306 and 82307 really actually exist? Is there some system someone can check?

 

[Michael.Y]

Urm... was this a hoax? The picture seems to have been removed from flickr and I haven't been able to find another.

I really can't think of any other reason why a lone DVT would have been pictured at Cardiff station...

Picture at Railway Herald website : http://www.railwayherald.co.uk/imaging.centre/showimage.php?image=216762

 

[IanXC]

I really can't think of any other reason why a lone DVT would have been pictured at Cardiff station...

Picture at Railway Herald website : http://www.railwayherald.co.uk/imaging.centre/showimage.php?image=216762

Ah excellent! I take it the background to the picture confirms as Cardiff!

My suspicious mind eh!

 

[Michael.Y]

Ah excellent! I take it the background to the picture confirms as Cardiff!

My suspicious mind eh!

I did wonder about it being a photoshop job myself, but it looks too good.

Yes, the background confirms it as standing at or near platform 0 or 2 of Cardiff Central station, that spiky white metal structure in the background is the Millennium Stadium.

Looks like it's attached to one of the class 57s there. (look at extreme right of photo)

Here's a similar photo from a similar angle:
http://www.railbrit.co.uk/images/19000/19188.jpg

 

[TDK]

Looks like it's attached to one of the class 57s there. (look at extreme right of photo)

DVT's cannot operate with 57's so it will have to be propelled or another loco put on the rear! However they may have been modified to operate with the 57 and no one has told us!

 

[Rhydgaled]

DVT's cannot operate with 57's so it will have to be propelled or another loco put on the rear! However they may have been modified to operate with the 57 and no one has told us!

Definatly not any DVT compatable loco coupled to that DVT in the picture. As some have said, they are probably just testing the DVT and the loco (which some have said was in fact a 57) would probably have been pulling the DVT only, not being driven from the DVT.

I can't see why, with all the various LHCS work over the last few years (eg. the Cardiff-Taunton/Paignton (top & tail), Fife circle, Great Yarmouth in summer (2 mrk3s and a DVT top&tailed by 47s on Monday's episode of Great British Railway Journeys) and of course the WAG Express itself) there have been no diesel locos fitted with TDM (except, long ago, the buffer-fitted class 43s). The class 47/7s, so I've been told on fourms in the past, had an older, incompatible, version of TDM which is no longer fitted on any of the driving vehicles (DVTs and DBSOs). I personally think a small fleet of 47s, re-engined and fitted with TDM to become 57/7s, would be very useful in improving the ecconomics of some of these services (rather than top&tail 57s on the Cardiff-Taunon/Paignton it could have been one 57/7 with a mrk2 DBSO at the other end and the Great Yarmouth run could be done with a single loco driven from the DVT in one direction).

 

[TDK]

Definatly not any DVT compatable loco coupled to that DVT in the picture. As some have said, they are probably just testing the DVT and the loco (which some have said was in fact a 57) would probably have been pulling the DVT only, not being driven from the DVT.

I can't see why, with all the various LHCS work over the last few years (eg. the Cardiff-Taunton/Paignton (top & tail), Fife circle, Great Yarmouth in summer (2 mrk3s and a DVT top&tailed by 47s on Monday's episode of Great British Railway Journeys) and of course the WAG Express itself) there have been no diesel locos fitted with TDM (except, long ago, the buffer-fitted class 43s). The class 47/7s, so I've been told on fourms in the past, had an older, incompatible, version of TDM which is no longer fitted on any of the driving vehicles (DVTs and DBSOs). I personally think a small fleet of 47s, re-engined and fitted with TDM to become 57/7s, would be very useful in improving the ecconomics of some of these services (rather than top&tail 57s on the Cardiff-Taunon/Paignton it could have been one 57/7 with a mrk2 DBSO at the other end and the Great Yarmouth run could be done with a single loco driven from the DVT in one direction).

I belive the DVT's currently in operation do not use the TDM for compatibility from loco to DVT, they use the main jumper cable from the 67 to specially adapted coaches and the DVT.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I belive the DVT's currently in operation do not use the TDM for compatibility from loco to DVT, they use the main jumper cable from the 67 to specially adapted coaches and the DVT.

I know the 67 + DVT arrangment doesn't use TDM, but class 90/91 locomotives do use TDM with the DVTs and DBSOs. My point was if we had TDM equiped diesel locos we could avoid top&tail simply by using any of the DVTs and DBSOs as they are, rather than having to specially modify DVTs to work with 67s (which also need to have auto fire protection thingys fitted to work with the specially modified DVTs).

 

[TDK]

I know the 67 + DVT arrangment doesn't use TDM, but class 90/91 locomotives do use TDM with the DVTs and DBSOs. My point was if we had TDM equiped diesel locos we could avoid top&tail simply by using any of the DVTs and DBSOs as they are, rather than having to specially modify DVTs to work with 67s (which also need to have auto fire protection thingys fitted to work with the specially modified DVTs).

The only locos with TDM are 86, 87 & 90 I believe that are compatible with the DVT's there is not an option with any others unless the DVT's are modified. Of course the DVT's were designed to work with 90's and are identical cab lay out wise except for a straight air brake lever. The TDM system was very unreliable and worked through the same system as the lighting I belive!

 

[merlodlliw]

I did wonder about it being a photoshop job myself, but it looks too good.

Yes, the background confirms it as standing at or near platform 0 or 2 of Cardiff Central station, that spiky white metal structure in the background is the Millennium Stadium.

Looks like it's attached to one of the class 57s there. (look at extreme right of photo)

Here's a similar photo from a similar angle:
http://www.railbrit.co.uk/images/19000/19188.jpg

Looks like platform 2,Michael is the water tower still stitu , I can not recall,as there is no sign of it on the DVT pic.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The only locos with TDM are 86, 87 & 90 I believe that are compatible with the DVT's

That's what I believe too, except I'm 99.99999% sure that class 91s also have TDM.

My suggestion is that, rather than modify both the DVTs and the 67s to enable them to work together (which is what is happening) you just modify some locos (class 47 or class 57) to enable them to work with unmodified DVTs and DBSOs (this isn't happening, I'm just saying I think it should).

With my suggestion, there would then be a small pool of diesel locos capable of working with any DVT or DBSO (except perhaps the Network Rail DBSOs, which might have lost their TDM systems). That would be better than what we have at the moment, ie. a small pool of fire-protected 67s and specially modified DVTs and a larger pool of DVTs and DBSOs which cannot be used on diesel routes due to us not having any compatible diesel locomotives anymore.

If we had these hypothetical class 57/7 locos, the WAG express could perhaps use mrk2 DBSOs rather than DVTs which add weight but not passenger capacity, and that's just one benifit of my idea.

 

[emoaconr]

Looks like platform 2,Michael is the water tower still stitu , I can not recall,as there is no sign of it on the DVT pic.

I was coming from Cadoxton on the morning of Thursday 22 December and I definately saw the 67 and DVT stationary on one of the through-lines near platform 0, and yes the water tower is still there, its a listed structure

 

[Michael.Y]

With regard to the above discussion, I merely meant that the 57 was hauling/shunting the DVT rather than any sort of operation going on.

 

[ValleyLines142]

Looks like platform 2,Michael is the water tower still stitu , I can not recall,as there is no sign of it on the DVT pic.

That's platform 0, and yes it is still in situ I believe.

 

[jones_bangor]

If we had these hypothetical class 57/7 locos, the WAG express could perhaps use mrk2 DBSOs rather than DVTs which add weight but not passenger capacity, and that's just one benifit of my idea.

They're probably rusted to hell by now on some MoD site.

To me they just don't look safe (when compared what's expected of a modern unit) - I really would not want to be in a leading DBSO that met an obstruction e.g. on one of the many level crossings in Wales and the Marches, or a herd of cattle, or a trailer load of hay.....

 

[merlodlliw]

That's platform 0, and yes it is still in situ I believe.

Just wondered why the listed water tower as been airbrushed out of the Railway Herald pic, looksd like it has to me comparing photos
are you saying the DVT is standing at platform zero Dan?

http://www.railwayherald.co.uk/imaging.centre/showimage.php?image=216762

http://www.railbrit.co.uk/images/19000/19188.jpg

 

[Michael.Y]

Having looked at the photos again, I believe the DVT is standing at the rear/west of platform 2 and that the angle of the photo / photographer means that the water tower is to the right of the photo/photographer. Compare the position of the lights.

 

[ValleyLines142]

Just wondered why the listed water tower as been airbrushed out of the Railway Herald pic, looksd like it has to me comparing photos
are you saying the DVT is standing at platform zero Dan?

http://www.railwayherald.co.uk/imaging.centre/showimage.php?image=216762

http://www.railbrit.co.uk/images/19000/19188.jpg

No the DVT is standing on platform 2. The water tower is on the other side of platform 0 behind the car park.

Hang on, is this photoshopped? Or genuine?

 

[Michael.Y]

No the DVT is standing on platform 2. The water tower is on the other side of platform 0 behind the car park.

Hang on, is this photoshopped? Or genuine?

Genuine I believe. The consternation comes from my misposted photo from a similar, but not identical angle. Apologies.

 

[ValleyLines142]

Genuine I believe. The consternation comes from my misposted photo from a similar, but not identical angle. Apologies.

Ah fab. I'll have to look out for this, I pass through Central at 0715 every day and at around 1600 when the WAG is due to go at 1615.

 

[Michael.Y]

Ah fab. I'll have to look out for this, I pass through Central at 0715 every day and at around 1600 when the WAG is due to go at 1615.

It's not working it yet. The 67+DVT setup isn't due yet. Still 57s only at the mo.