Wales & Borders Franchise Consultation

[td97]

It has been mentioned that Wales could get extra Pacers (from Northern) before the 2020 deadline as an interim measure to allow more Sprinters to get the mods. But Pacers after 2020 is quite unfair - they've been branded inadequate for the North, so they should likewise be inadequate for Wales.

 

[mmh]

"The toilet is big money as it has to go mid-vehicle, away from the doors. The obvious answer is to lock them all."

The world really is insane.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

Interesting article on the probability that pacers cannot be withdrawn in time for 2020 and the consequent removal of toilets. At least it will prepare for the trams.

This will undoubtedly be the argument they'll make - given that the news will be out about the trams long before the PRM deadline, the Assembly can justify it by saying "well, you're not going to get toilets in the future anyway, so what difference does it make? Bad luck"

Incidentally, the latest Passenger Transport magazine has an article basically outlining everything that we know - that the vehicles being procured will have to be capable of street running. Freight trains will still be able to run. Interesting that from what I've heard it appears to be one of very few publications that has actually openly talked about this for the last few months, whereas all the mainstream media and even some of the mainstream rail magazines haven't really touched on it

 

[HH]

I would be very surprised if there were plans for extra pacers; even the Welsh Government isn't that blind to potential PR disasters. Locking the toilets is madness, but it would be even madder to spend more money than absolutely necessary on trains destined for the scrapheap.

 

[Dai Corner]

I would be very surprised if there were plans for extra pacers; even the Welsh Government isn't that blind to potential PR disasters. Locking the toilets is madness, but it would be even madder to spend more money than absolutely necessary on trains destined for the scrapheap.

It would be spun as "years of underinvestment by the UK Government have left us with this situation" despite the WG having been explicitly warned about it years ago and done nothing.

 

[gareth950]

I would be very surprised if there were plans for extra pacers; even the Welsh Government isn't that blind to potential PR disasters. Locking the toilets is madness, but it would be even madder to spend more money than absolutely necessary on trains destined for the scrapheap.

Re: toilets, it will be spun by WG and the new TOC as what to expect when the trams arrive.
I agree that spending thousands modifying Pacers for an extra year or two of service is madness but due to WG inaction on the PRM issue since Porterbrook first warned them about it in 2013, it is now a crisis, and cascaded Pacers are the only viable option.
Maybe there'll be Portaloos on every Valley lines stop.

 

[Gareth Marston]

On the grapevine from North West Wales. A stakeholder was very pleased when Ken Skates verbally told him there would be no portion working for Cambrian Coast services in the new franchise as these were a bugbear of his. He was also told that there would be a minimum of a train every 2 hours from the Cambrian Coast to Birmingham apparently the current service.

Now with one path per hour between Shrewsbury and BHM INTL and two hourly services as a minimum coming from Pwllheli, Aberystwyth and Holyhead work out how you can do it without portion working.......

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the grapevine from North West Wales. A stakeholder was very pleased when Ken Skates verbally told him there would be no portion working for Cambrian Coast services in the new franchise as these were a bugbear of his. He was also told that there would be a minimum of a train every 2 hours from the Cambrian Coast to Birmingham apparently the current service.

Now with one path per hour between Shrewsbury and BHM INTL and two hourly services as a minimum coming from Pwllheli, Aberystwyth and Holyhead work out how you can do it without portion working.......

Portion working is only a problem because ATW haven't got half a clue as to how to do it properly, and either (a) don't know how to program the PIS to show it properly, or (b) bought a cheap and nasty PIS that can't show it properly. When it's done properly, e.g. the south WCML, or even more so Southern, it is just fine.

I can't see any way to avoid it other than making the Coast a connection, which won't be popular. Though I wouldn't mind *too* much a proper quality connection, but that would need to avoid traipsing over the bridge at Mach, or building a proper staffed, heated indoor interchange facility at Dyfi.

(Speaking of which, has anyone noticed that the 4 minute "non connection" from the last Shrewsbury-Aber to the Coast seems to have been added to the planners as an actual connection now even though it is only 4 minutes?)

 

[louis97]

(Speaking of which, has anyone noticed that the 4 minute "non connection" from the last Shrewsbury-Aber to the Coast seems to have been added to the planners as an actual connection now even though it is only 4 minutes?)

Minimum connection time at Machynlleth is now 4 minutes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Minimum connection time at Machynlleth is now 4 minutes.

Nicely done there ATW...that's a substantial improvement on journey times from Brum to the Coast of a Friday evening...no longer a need to sit at Mach for 40-whatever-it-was minutes!

(Knowing what I do about the relaxed approach to life around those parts, I expect that connection will pretty much always be held if necessary)

 

[Gareth Marston]

Nicely done there ATW...that's a substantial improvement on journey times from Brum to the Coast of a Friday evening...no longer a need to sit at Mach for 40-whatever-it-was minutes!

(Knowing what I do about the relaxed approach to life around those parts, I expect that connection will pretty much always be held if necessary)

Pop in for a cup of tea next time you pass through Newtown....

 

[Parallel]

Portion working is only a problem because ATW haven't got half a clue as to how to do it properly, and either (a) don't know how to program the PIS to show it properly, or (b) bought a cheap and nasty PIS that can't show it properly. When it's done properly, e.g. the south WCML, or even more so Southern, it is just fine.

The PIS on the train has had improvements recently - There have been some updates and it is now announced that the train will be splitting at Machynlleth if travelling down the Cambrian; or Shrewsbury if travelling to Holyhead.

The issue is at the stations when it is just a short formed 2-car is working down the Cambrian, at Shrewsbury the PIS destinations swap and says “Travel in the front 2 coaches for Pwllheli and the rear 2 coaches for Aberystwyth” (well, there’s only two coaches and they’re going to Aber) so what it should really say in these cases is just announce the train as being for Aberystwyth and then say change at Machynlleth for Pwllheli.

The system is set up fine for splits when everything is going to plan, though I think Arriva need to vocally announce train formations at the end of their announcements.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Portion working is only a problem because ATW haven't got half a clue as to how to do it properly, and either (a) don't know how to program the PIS to show it properly, or (b) bought a cheap and nasty PIS that can't show it properly. When it's done properly, e.g. the south WCML, or even more so Southern, it is just fine.

I can't see any way to avoid it other than making the Coast a connection, which won't be popular. Though I wouldn't mind *too* much a proper quality connection, but that would need to avoid traipsing over the bridge at Mach, or building a proper staffed, heated indoor interchange facility at Dyfi.

(Speaking of which, has anyone noticed that the 4 minute "non connection" from the last Shrewsbury-Aber to the Coast seems to have been added to the planners as an actual connection now even though it is only 4 minutes?)

ATW have put window stickers on so folk know which is the Pwllheli or Aberystwyth portion. However logistically this relies on a non Cambrian Conductor being given the stickers @ Shrewsbury as in the inbound trains that make up BHM INTL to Cambrian services arrive from Holyhead.

 

[craigybagel]

Portion working is only a problem because ATW haven't got half a clue as to how to do it properly, and either (a) don't know how to program the PIS to show it properly, or (b) bought a cheap and nasty PIS that can't show it properly. When it's done properly, e.g. the south WCML, or even more so Southern, it is just fine.

I can't see any way to avoid it other than making the Coast a connection, which won't be popular. Though I wouldn't mind *too* much a proper quality connection, but that would need to avoid traipsing over the bridge at Mach, or building a proper staffed, heated indoor interchange facility at Dyfi.

(Speaking of which, has anyone noticed that the 4 minute "non connection" from the last Shrewsbury-Aber to the Coast seems to have been added to the planners as an actual connection now even though it is only 4 minutes?)

The PIS on the train has had improvements recently - There have been some updates and it is now announced that the train will be splitting at Machynlleth if travelling down the Cambrian; or Shrewsbury if travelling to Holyhead.

The issue is at the stations when it is just a short formed 2-car is working down the Cambrian, at Shrewsbury the PIS destinations swap and says “Travel in the front 2 coaches for Pwllheli and the rear 2 coaches for Aberystwyth” (well, there’s only two coaches and they’re going to Aber) so what it should really say in these cases is just announce the train as being for Aberystwyth and then say change at Machynlleth for Pwllheli.

The system is set up fine for splits when everything is going to plan, though I think Arriva need to vocally announce train formations at the end of their announcements.

AIUI, it's not ATW who specified the "cheap and nasty" PIS system but the leasing company that owns the trains. Sadly, the way the system works it's not possible to alter it to take into account what the formation of the service is on the day, unless you have access to the list of thousands of different 4 digit codes that make up all the different permutations of destination, stopping pattern and formation. The only code the traincrew get is the code for the pattern that SHOULD work for that train, if the booked formation turns up and everything else goes to plan.

 

[Dai Corner]

AIUI, it's not ATW who specified the "cheap and nasty" PIS system but the leasing company that owns the trains. Sadly, the way the system works it's not possible to alter it to take into account what the formation of the service is on the day, unless you have access to the list of thousands of different 4 digit codes that make up all the different permutations of destination, stopping pattern and formation. The only code the traincrew get is the code for the pattern that SHOULD work for that train, if the booked formation turns up and everything else goes to plan.

So the problem could be solved if the traincrew were informed of the right code to use whenever things weren't going to plan?

 

[craigybagel]

So the problem could be solved if the traincrew were informed of the right code to use whenever things weren't going to plan?

Indeed. Some of the guards (and it's guards who are responsible for setting up the PIS on 158s) have been known to use different codes if they happen to remember the 4 digits for a more appropriate one. However, there are guards from 4 different depots working between Birmingham and Shrewsbury, most of whom have large route cards covering many other parts of the network and it's rather difficult for them to remember all the different possibilities.

 

[Dai Corner]

Indeed. Some of the guards (and it's guards who are responsible for setting up the PIS on 158s) have been known to use different codes if they happen to remember the 4 digits for a more appropriate one. However, there are guards from 4 different depots working between Birmingham and Shrewsbury, most of whom have large route cards covering many other parts of the network and it's rather difficult for them to remember all the different possibilities.

I wouldn't expect guards to remember the codes, but I would expect Control to look up the appropriate one and inform the guards at the same time as they told them what operational changes were being made.

 

[Gareth Marston]

So the problem could be solved if the traincrew were informed of the right code to use whenever things weren't going to plan?

The permutations can be quite complex when things go pear shaped though. Yesterday we had flooding on the line in the AM and in the afternoon rats bit through signalling cable at Welshpool (the local recycling plant has conveniently built a general waste tip next to the line - you can spot the clouds of seagulls above it no prizes for guessing where the rats come from).
An extra service from Machynlleth to Shrewsbury was held at Welshpool for over na hour and then joined up a Holyhead to BHM train at Shrewsbury.
A BHM to AYW/PWL train was turned around at Shrewsbury and sent back to INTL.
A unit off the back of a Holyhead train was detached and instead of joining with a Holyhead to BHM service formed an extra train to Machynlleth.

 

[Dai Corner]

The permutations can be quite complex when things go pear shaped though. Yesterday we had flooding on the line in the AM and in the afternoon rats bit through signalling cable at Welshpool (the local recycling plant has conveniently built a general waste tip next to the line - you can spot the clouds of seagulls above it no prizes for guessing where the rats come from).
An extra service from Machynlleth to Shrewsbury was held at Welshpool for over na hour and then joined up a Holyhead to BHM train at Shrewsbury.
A BHM to AYW/PWL train was turned around at Shrewsbury and sent back to INTL.
A unit off the back of a Holyhead train was detached and instead of joining with a Holyhead to BHM service formed an extra train to Machynlleth.

Blimey, the Cambrian certainly had a day of it!

I'll accept that you can't anticipate every eventuality when designing a PIS but it does appear ATW 'could try harder' in some cases.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pop in for a cup of tea next time you pass through Newtown....

Cheers

The PIS on the train has had improvements recently - There have been some updates and it is now announced that the train will be splitting at Machynlleth if travelling down the Cambrian; or Shrewsbury if travelling to Holyhead.

The issue is at the stations when it is just a short formed 2-car is working down the Cambrian, at Shrewsbury the PIS destinations swap and says “Travel in the front 2 coaches for Pwllheli and the rear 2 coaches for Aberystwyth” (well, there’s only two coaches and they’re going to
Aber) so what it should really say in these cases is just announce the train as being for Aberystwyth and then say change at Machynlleth for Pwllheli.

The system is set up fine for splits when everything is going to plan, though I think Arriva need to vocally announce train formations at the end of their announcements.

Can the station system be configured to show splits using the now standard "ABERYSTWYTH &" "& PWLLHELI" formation? I can't recall ever having seen it done, and it was more the station systems I thought caused confusion.

ATW have put window stickers on so folk know which is the Pwllheli or Aberystwyth portion. However logistically this relies on a non Cambrian Conductor being given the stickers @ Shrewsbury as in the inbound trains that make up BHM INTL to Cambrian services arrive from Holyhead.

That will certainly help. Perhaps they should come to an arrangement to store them at Birmingham International and deliver them with the reservation cards (or wherever those come from).

So the problem could be solved if the traincrew were informed of the right code to use whenever things weren't going to plan?

I imagine that would help. One thing that might help would be some kind of online system for looking them up via staff mobile phones. Or just print a big book and keep it in each unit!

Indeed. Some of the guards (and it's guards who are responsible for setting up the PIS on 158s) have been known to use different codes if they happen to remember the 4 digits for a more appropriate one. However, there are guards from 4 different depots working between Birmingham and Shrewsbury, most of whom have large route cards covering many other parts of the network and it's rather difficult for them to remember all the different possibilities.

It does strike me that the guard's memory is not in most cases going to be the optimum way of doing this kind of thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'll accept that you can't anticipate every eventuality when designing a PIS

In a way you actually can if you provide it with a keyboard and a decent display and allow staff to key in whatever they like. You can enter anything on a Desiro, for instance.

 

[Parallel]

Can the station system be configured to show splits using the now standard "ABERYSTWYTH &" "& PWLLHELI" formation? I can't recall ever having seen it done, and it was more the station systems I thought caused confusion.

Yep, the screens display this at Shrewsbury. The issue is when the Cambrian working is only two coaches and then it doesn’t know what to do with the Pwllheli portion so for some reason announces Pwllheli stations as being front 2 coaches and Aberystwyth as rear 2 coaches. (Even though there are only 2 coaches in total) I think it’s just a bug with the ATOS system or it not being configured properly by control. The same used to happen at GWR with the “rear coaches for Weymouth” when there rear two coaches were a 153 and half a 150!

AIUI, it's not ATW who specified the "cheap and nasty" PIS system but the leasing company that owns the trains. Sadly, the way the system works it's not possible to alter it to take into account what the formation of the service is on the day, unless you have access to the list of thousands of different 4 digit codes that make up all the different permutations of destination, stopping pattern and formation. The only code the traincrew get is the code for the pattern that SHOULD work for that train, if the booked formation turns up and everything else goes to plan.

Sorry, I was also referring to the CIS screens at Shrewsbury. The PIS fitted to the 158s does appear basic - At least they’ve managed to programme in announcements about request stops - the system GWR use just completely ignores them!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is the station system used by ATW by ATOS? It seems to be a different (older, less fully featured) system than the standard one used elsewhere.

 

[Gareth Marston]

A lot of the problem is that the units are not running in captive diagrams.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Found myself on just such a train today.
6-car set arrives at Shrewsbury from Birmingham (to Holyhead).
Splits into 3 with front unit to Holyhead, middle one back to Brum, rear unit to Aber&Pwllheli.
This was because the incoming Cambrian was 45 late (stuck at Talerddig and Newtown loops).
General chaos, with manual announcements contradicting platform/on-board PIS.
2-car 158 Shrewsbury-Birmingham and back was, to say the least, cozy.

 

[craigybagel]

The PIS fitted to the 158s does appear basic - At least they’ve managed to programme in announcements about request stops - the system GWR use just completely ignores them!

GWR use the same system ( APIS by Train FX). Request stops initially didn't work on ATW either, it took a few years work to get them.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Found myself on just such a train today.
6-car set arrives at Shrewsbury from Birmingham (to Holyhead).
Splits into 3 with front unit to Holyhead, middle one back to Brum, rear unit to Aber&Pwllheli.
This was because the incoming Cambrian was 45 late (stuck at Talerddig and Newtown loops).
General chaos, with manual announcements contradicting platform/on-board PIS.
2-car 158 Shrewsbury-Birmingham and back was, to say the least, cozy.

On the 0909 ex BHM INTL then. Front two normally go onto Holyhead and rear 4 back to BHM INTL as it connects with the non stop Shrewsbury to Newport train from North Wales. 1S20 was 47 late at Newtown nearly failed to make it up Talerddig- left Machynlleth on time. That unit normally forms the 1029 SHR to AYW so they took unit off BHM INTL service to run it.

Actually had service trains cross in Newtown today not once but twice @ 1025 then again at 1107.

 

[louis97]

Yep, the screens display this at Shrewsbury. The issue is when the Cambrian working is only two coaches and then it doesn’t know what to do with the Pwllheli portion so for some reason announces Pwllheli stations as being front 2 coaches and Aberystwyth as rear 2 coaches. (Even though there are only 2 coaches in total) I think it’s just a bug with the ATOS system or it not being configured properly by control. The same used to happen at GWR with the “rear coaches for Weymouth” when there rear two coaches were a 153 and half a 150!

I think the CIS just does not know the formation of the train, I believe the notes on the screens for formations are just notes, on any other ATOS CIS used (for example at Smethwick Galton Bridge) it would announce one portion as "front 2 coaches" and the other as "rear coaches", because the CIS there is newer and knows the formation of the train is only 2 coaches. Its a tricky one as you still want to advertise it as going to both as there will be a unit at Machynlleth, so you don't want to put people off getting on because it isn't advertising both portions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the CIS just does not know the formation of the train, I believe the notes on the screens for formations are just notes, on any other ATOS CIS used (for example at Smethwick Galton Bridge) it would announce one portion as "front 2 coaches" and the other as "rear coaches", because the CIS there is newer and knows the formation of the train is only 2 coaches. Its a tricky one as you still want to advertise it as going to both as there will be a unit at Machynlleth, so you don't want to put people off getting on because it isn't advertising both portions.

Logic would probably be to cancel the Pwllheli portion between Brum and Mach but add a note "Please note: change at Machynlleth for stations to Pwllheli today" and set that note to appear on the summary lists (as you can do with the ATOS systems). This is how trains terminating short for rail replacement buses are done pretty universally these days and people are either used to it or will ask.

 

[Dai Corner]

I think the CIS just does not know the formation of the train, I believe the notes on the screens for formations are just notes, on any other ATOS CIS used (for example at Smethwick Galton Bridge) it would announce one portion as "front 2 coaches" and the other as "rear coaches", because the CIS there is newer and knows the formation of the train is only 2 coaches. Its a tricky one as you still want to advertise it as going to both as there will be a unit at Machynlleth, so you don't want to put people off getting on because it isn't advertising both portions.

How about 'Aberystwyth. Change at Machynlleth for stations to Pwllheli'? Or am i missing something?

Edit: Neil beat me to it.