Ex LNER (and Grand Central) Mark 4 sets for TfW

6Gtraincrew · 15 Oct 2020

craigybagel said:
The locos won't really free up any units as the formerly loco operated North Wales - Manchester diagram will be remaining as units.

The extra capacity will come from the fact that 180 class 197 cars are replacing 48 class 158, 70 class 175 cars and 4 cars worth of 150/153 from the Crewe - Chester and Blaneau Ffestiniog routes.

It's a hell of a change from the fleet TFW inherited compared to what it'll end up as....

34 extra trains, 201 extra coaches or 9023 extra seats.

RailUK Forums

berneyarms · 15 Oct 2020

ATW had spare maintenance Mark 3 coaches at Canton as well over the two rakes in service as I recall?

It doesn’t take away from the increased numbers significantly but I think that your Mark 3 coaches are understated.

Given that only 2 of the 3 Mark 4 rakes will be in service at any one time, it is best to compare like with like.

DB · 15 Oct 2020

berneyarms said:
ATW had spare maintenance Mark 3 coaches at Canton as well over the two rakes in service as I recall?

It doesn’t take away from the increased numbers significantly but I think that your Mark 3 coaches are understated.

Given that only 2 of the 3 Mark 4 rakes will be in service at any one time, it is best to compare like with like.

They had two RFMs, three DVTs and 10 TSOs.

Sets were TSOx3/RFM/DVT and TSOx4/DVT.

So basically a spare RFM, DVT and three TSOs.

With the Mk4s it's not as straightforward due to only the end ones having standard coupling gear, and only one TSO in each set having the disabled bog.

berneyarms · 15 Oct 2020

DavidB said:
They had two RFMs, three DVTs and 10 TSOs.

Sets were TSOx3/RFM/DVT and TSOx4/DVT.

So basically a spare RFM, DVT and three TSOs.

With the Mk4s it's not as straightforward due to only the end ones having standard coupling gear, and only one TSO in each set having the disabled bog.

Thanks.
My point was they had 12 Mark 3 coaches as opposed to 8 as suggested in the earlier list above.

6Gtraincrew · 15 Oct 2020

Agreed, but at the end of the day if one of the spares was used, it directly replaces an in service one. So the fact is there have only been two rakes of four in service. Plus there have been several instances of the usual coaches being out of use over the years and the sets running round as load 3 as the spares were in no fit state to be used. So the fleet capacity is unchanged.

But hey, we're off topic

DB · 15 Oct 2020

6Gtraincrew said:
Agreed, but at the end of the day if one of the spares was used, it directly replaces an in service one. So the fact is there have only been two rakes of four in service. Plus there have been several instances of the usual coaches being out of use over the years and the sets running round as load 3 as the spares were in no fit state to be used. So the fleet capacity is unchanged.

But hey, we're off topic

I suspect the Mk4s will be seen as sets and kept together (as generally happened with LNER and previous operators) - it's a lot less practical to mix and match than it is with MK3s and earlier, as there are more specific types of vehicle, and apart from the end TSO and the DVT they don't have standard drawgear (tightlock couplers are used within the sets).

berneyarms · 15 Oct 2020

6Gtraincrew said:
Agreed, but at the end of the day if one of the spares was used, it directly replaces an in service one. So the fact is there have only been two rakes of four in service. Plus there have been several instances of the usual coaches being out of use over the years and the sets running round as load 3 as the spares were in no fit state to be used. So the fleet capacity is unchanged.

But hey, we're off topic

We aren't actually, as my question arose when looking at the Mark 4 stock in the list above. The OP has listed the three Mark 4 sets in the coaching list when looking at the new fleet but only 8 Mark 3 coaches in the old fleet. Only two Mark 4 sets will be in service at any one time, as one will be a maintenance spare (like the four Mark 3 coaches). Just trying to compare like with like!

The old fleet needs to have the four extra Mark 3 coaches included for a valid comparison.

DB · 15 Oct 2020

berneyarms said:
We aren't actually, as my question arose when looking at the Mark 4 stock in the list above. The OP has listed the three Mark 4 sets in the coaching list when looking at the new fleet but only 8 Mark 3 coaches in the old fleet. Only two Mark 4 sets will be in service at any one time, as one will be a maintenance spare (like the four Mark 3 coaches). Just trying to compare like with like!

The old fleet needs to have the four extra Mark 3 coaches included for a valid comparison.

Yes, I agree that they are a like-for-like replacement. Only major difference is that the amount of first class space is doubled at the expense of losing half a coach of standard. It's not clear whether this was an intentioal plan, to try to increase first class take-up, or whether it was just too much hassle to convert the buffet to first class - the counter area on the Mk4s faces into the saloon, which wouldn't have been ideal if that was the first class section, so they'd have been faced with either accepting that, or more extensive work to reconfigure the coach.

Incidentally, have any of the sets gone for any refurbishment yet? I would assume that they intend to at least strip off the vinyl and paint them properly, plus at least some interior work.

Also, is the final loco fleet known yet? I know 8, 17 and 25 are included, but I would guess a fleet of five or six to allow for those on maintenance, as (unlike with the Mk3s) it needs to be a dedicated fleet due to the extra connector between stock and loco (I don't know for sure, but would assume this is an interlock system).

Bletchleyite · 15 Oct 2020

DavidB said:
Yes, I agree that they are a like-for-like replacement. Only major difference is that the amount of first class space is doubled at the expense of losing half a coach of standard. It's not clear whether this was an intentioal plan, to try to increase first class take-up, or whether it was just too much hassle to convert the buffet to first class - the counter area on the Mk4s faces into the saloon, which wouldn't have been ideal if that was the first class section, so they'd have been faced with either accepting that, or more extensive work to reconfigure the coach.

Couldn't they just turn the coach round and put it at the DVT end? I'd have thought converting it would just involve an afternoon with a spanner to swap the seats over.

DB · 15 Oct 2020

Bletchleyite said:
Couldn't they just turn the coach round and put it at the DVT end? I'd have thought converting it would just involve an afternoon with a spanner to swap the seats over.

Yes, but then anyone in standard class going to the buffet would have to walk all the way along the corridor to the counter, which faces into the first class section - this would not exactly improve the ambience in first class, and they'd be getting in the way of staff going in and out of the kitchen.

This didn't happen with the Mk3s because the counter area was at the other end of the kitchen.

Scottish-Exile · 15 Oct 2020

Envoy said:
if you want to avoid all those horrible bends on the A483 try heading W from Newtown to Caersws & then take A470 via Llangurig -

Thanks. I've tried both routes. While it's good to avoid the Llandrindod - Newtown stretch, it's just as bad with all the holds ups getting through the contraflow at Llanwrtyd Wells and getting through Llandeilo.

No matter what route, it's the lack of opportunity to get past anything that bugs me. The drivers that are doing 35-40 on what is a 60 mph road, and brake going into every bend and corner.

hobbm013 · 15 Oct 2020

DavidB said:
Yes, I agree that they are a like-for-like replacement. Only major difference is that the amount of first class space is doubled at the expense of losing half a coach of standard. It's not clear whether this was an intentioal plan, to try to increase first class take-up, or whether it was just too much hassle to convert the buffet to first class - the counter area on the Mk4s faces into the saloon, which wouldn't have been ideal if that was the first class section, so they'd have been faced with either accepting that, or more extensive work to reconfigure the coach.

Incidentally, have any of the sets gone for any refurbishment yet? I would assume that they intend to at least strip off the vinyl and paint them properly, plus at least some interior work.

Also, is the final loco fleet known yet? I know 8, 17 and 25 are included, but I would guess a fleet of five or six to allow for those on maintenance, as (unlike with the Mk3s) it needs to be a dedicated fleet due to the extra connector between stock and loco (I don't know for sure, but would assume this is an interlock system).

At present/as far as I’m aware:

67008, 67014, 67017 and 67025 are all modified and in TFW livery.

67010 and 67015 have received the modifications but are still in DB Red Livery

The DVT’s are all in TfW livery. The coaches have received TfW branding but are still in the former operators livery. I don’t believe they are going to be refurbished before entering service

craigybagel · 16 Oct 2020

6Gtraincrew said:
It's a hell of a change from the fleet TFW inherited compared to what it'll end up as....

34 extra trains, 201 extra coaches or 9023 extra seats.

And yet still not nearly enough and the franchise is heading for disaster according to some on these forums

Incidentally, I wish I'd remembered your excellent spreadsheet before I wasted my time on Wikipedia counting trains!

berneyarms said:
We aren't actually, as my question arose when looking at the Mark 4 stock in the list above. The OP has listed the three Mark 4 sets in the coaching list when looking at the new fleet but only 8 Mark 3 coaches in the old fleet. Only two Mark 4 sets will be in service at any one time, as one will be a maintenance spare (like the four Mark 3 coaches). Just trying to compare like with like!

The old fleet needs to have the four extra Mark 3 coaches included for a valid comparison.

With the MKIIIs, it was a case of several vehicles spread all over Canton (and usually one or two in Arriva Train Care at Crewe for good measure), usually on several different roads and in various states of disrepair. It would be difficult if not impossible to form them up into a usable third set.

With the MKIVs, it seems likely we'll have 3 usable fixed formation sets that presumably will be rotated a lot more often then the MKIIIs ever were. I wonder if we might see more use of the sets on rugby days as a result?

berneyarms · 16 Oct 2020

craigybagel said:
And yet still not nearly enough and the franchise is heading for disaster according to some on these forums

Incidentally, I wish I'd remembered your excellent spreadsheet before I wasted my time on Wikipedia counting trains!

With the MKIIIs, it was a case of several vehicles spread all over Canton (and usually one or two in Arriva Train Care at Crewe for good measure), usually on several different roads and in various states of disrepair. It would be difficult if not impossible to form them up into a usable third set.

With the MKIVs, it seems likely we'll have 3 usable fixed formation sets that presumably will be rotated a lot more often then the MKIIIs ever were. I wonder if we might see more use of the sets on rugby days as a result?

My point really was that the TfW fleet list above composes the entire fleet across all classes (both the service and maintenance cover fleet) and so should the ATW for comparative purposes.

No one expects the entire fleet to be in service at any one time, and I think it’s fair to compare like with like when looking at statistics! That's why I queried the Mark III numbers.

Blame the accountant in me craigybagel!

I agree with your initial point on the expansion!!

craigybagel · 16 Oct 2020

berneyarms said:
My point really was that the TfW fleet list above composes the entire fleet across all classes (both the service and maintenance cover fleet) and so should the ATW for comparative purposes.

No one expects the entire fleet to be in service at any one time, and I think it’s fair to compare like with like when looking at statistics!

That is a fair point. But even with the loco fleet effectively staying the same (which was also the point I initially made) the unit fleet is massively increasing, which is where the extra capacity is coming from.

I am hopeful though that the spare MKIV vehicles will see more use and be in better condition then the spare MKIIIs were towards the end of their time.

berneyarms · 16 Oct 2020

craigybagel said:
That is a fair point. But even with the loco fleet effectively staying the same (which was also the point I initially made) the unit fleet is massively increasing, which is where the extra capacity is coming from.

I am hopeful though that the spare MKIV vehicles will see more use and be in better condition then the spare MKIIIs were towards the end of their time.

Indeed it is a massive expansion - I think the service will be transformed as a result.

I suspect that you’re right about the Mark IV utilisation too!

Envoy · 16 Oct 2020

It would surely be a waste of the Mk4’s were left idle on Saturdays in particular when they could be used for shifting people to events or be promoted for tourism purposes -especially as upmarket tourists could be attracted by the dining facility. Of course, this really needs to have services departing the main places where tourists stay (Cardiff & Chester) at convenient times. Even a circular ’tour’ might be a good idea leaving Cardiff and taking the Swansea District Line to gain access to the Heart of Wales Line. Then up to Shrewsbury before returning down The Marches.

I have just been viewing a video of The Marches Line. It is a bit pixellated - perhaps because of a low frame rate? Anyway, I noticed that some of the speed signs say for example:> 70 / 85MU. Presumably this means that a Multiple Unit can do 85mph but a locomotive is limited to only 70mph? That being so, it makes me wonder what is the point of having locomotive hauled services on the line if they are not allowed to go as fast as multiple units?

I am rather shocked at the amount of vegetation so close to the line. Perhaps Network Rail are relying on the trains to skim off the bushes!

The video covers the whole route down to Newport but is broken into sections. If you are interested:>

craigybagel · 16 Oct 2020

I have just been viewing a video of The Marches Line. It is a bit pixellated - perhaps because of a low frame rate? Anyway, I noticed that some of the speed signs say for example:> 70 / 85MU. Presumably this means that a Multiple Unit can do 85mph but a locomotive is limited to only 70mph? That being so, it makes me wonder what is the point of having locomotive hauled services on the line if they are not allowed to go as fast as multiple units?

The video covers the whole route down to Newport but is broken into sections. If you are interested:>

The MKIIIs had an exemption for the Marches line and were permitted to run at MU speeds South of Shrewsbury. It remains to be seen whether or not this is the case for the MKIVs.

Also, a 67 hauling 4 MKIIIs and a DVT can out perform any DMU in the TFW fleet on the gradients of the Marches line. It's slow from a standing start, but once it's going fast enough for the engine to be at full power it flies along. Some of those MU speeds aren't realistically attainable with the existing MU fleet, but the 67 can get closer to those speeds.

Speed43125 · 16 Oct 2020

Envoy said:
That being so, it makes me wonder what is the point of having locomotive hauled services on the line if they are not allowed to go as fast as multiple units?

Scotrail could do with answering the same question!

But essentially they are using the Loco-hauled stock because that provides a nicer ambience and cheaply allows them to have a restaurant service.

Y Ddraig Coch · 16 Oct 2020

Envoy said:
It would surely be a waste of the Mk4’s were left idle on Saturdays in particular when they could be used for shifting people to events or be promoted for tourism purposes -especially as upmarket tourists could be attracted by the dining facility. Of course, this really needs to have services departing the main places where tourists stay (Cardiff & Chester) at convenient times. Even a circular ’tour’ might be a good idea leaving Cardiff and taking the Swansea District Line to gain access to the Heart of Wales Line. Then up to Shrewsbury before returning down The Marches.

I have just been viewing a video of The Marches Line. It is a bit pixellated - perhaps because of a low frame rate? Anyway, I noticed that some of the speed signs say for example:> 70 / 85MU. Presumably this means that a Multiple Unit can do 85mph but a locomotive is limited to only 70mph? That being so, it makes me wonder what is the point of having locomotive hauled services on the line if they are not allowed to go as fast as multiple units?

I am rather shocked at the amount of vegetation so close to the line. Perhaps Network Rail are relying on the trains to skim off the bushes!

The video covers the whole route down to Newport but is broken into sections. If you are interested:>

I'm sure the rugby and football specials they put on from Holyhead to Cardiff for big sporting occasions will use them as they did with the mark III's and also occasional Christmas specials to Manchester etc for the Christmas markets on Saturdays.

aar0 · 16 Oct 2020

Envoy said:
the Welsh Parliament (this is the fourth name change)

I believe it's the first name change, and usually called the Senedd in both languages.

LNW-GW Joint · 16 Oct 2020

There are only MU differentials on the Marches line north of (I think) Onibury, mainly over the winding route either side of Church Stretton, and they don't amount to very much.
Loco line speeds are now higher between Shrewsbury and Gobowen and Wrexham and Chester after recent upgrades.
There used to be a 40mph PSR for locos over a bridge north of Craven Arms (MU was 90mph), but that has been removed now.
By and large the Marches is a 90mph route now where it matters (north of Pontypool, anyway).
Meanwhile, Shrewsbury-Wolverhampton is still stuck at 70mph.

craigybagel · 16 Oct 2020

LNW-GW Joint said:
There are only MU differentials on the Marches line north of (I think) Onibury, mainly over the winding route either side of Church Stretton, and they don't amount to very much.
Loco line speeds are now higher between Shrewsbury and Gobowen and Wrexham and Chester after recent upgrades.
There used to be a 40mph PSR for locos over a bridge north of Craven Arms (MU was 90mph), but that has been removed now.
By and large the Marches is a 90mph route now where it matters (north of Pontypool, anyway).
Meanwhile, Shrewsbury-Wolverhampton is still stuck at 70mph.

The 40/90 bridge was still there as of a week ago - has it gone since then? In any case though as I pointed out earlier it didn't apply to the TfW 67s & MKIIIs.

Envoy · 16 Oct 2020

craigybagel said:
The MKIIIs had an exemption for the Marches line and were permitted to run at MU speeds South of Shrewsbury. It remains to be seen whether or not this is the case for the MKIVs.

Also, a 67 hauling 4 MKIIIs and a DVT can out perform any DMU in the TFW fleet on the gradients of the Marches line. It's slow from a standing start, but once it's going fast enough for the engine to be at full power it flies along. Some of those MU speeds aren't realistically attainable with the existing MU fleet, but the 67 can get closer to those speeds.

Many thanks for clarifying this. I thought it would have been the weight of the locomotive rather than the coaches as being the reason the the speed limit differential? Wonder if the 197’s will have enough power to get up to speed on the gradients?

supervc-10 · 16 Oct 2020

Well, the 195s apparently go pretty nicely! The 197s are mechanically identical I believe. Certainly performance is one thing people aren't complaining about with the 195s.

Bletchleyite · 16 Oct 2020

supervc-10 said:
Well, the 195s apparently go pretty nicely! The 197s are mechanically identical I believe. Certainly performance is one thing people aren't complaining about with the 195s.

Indeed not; like 172s, which were intended to give an EMU like service on the cheap on the Snow Hill lines, they accelerate almost like EMUs.

LNW-GW Joint · 16 Oct 2020

craigybagel said:
The 40/90 bridge was still there as of a week ago - has it gone since then? In any case though as I pointed out earlier it didn't apply to the TfW 67s & MKIIIs.

Maybe it was when the concession for 67/Mk3 came in then, rather than removal of the restriction.
I certainly remember Gerald slowing to 40mph for the 2 chains affected.
Maybe it was while 57s were operating it.
I see it's still in the 2019 SA.

craigybagel · 16 Oct 2020

Envoy said:
Many thanks for clarifying this. I thought it would have been the weight of the locomotive rather than the coaches as being the reason the the speed limit differential? Wonder if the 197’s will have enough power to get up to speed on the gradients?

supervc-10 said:
Well, the 195s apparently go pretty nicely! The 197s are mechanically identical I believe. Certainly performance is one thing people aren't complaining about with the 195s.

Bletchleyite said:
Indeed not; like 172s, which were intended to give an EMU like service on the cheap on the Snow Hill lines, they accelerate almost like EMUs.

Indeed, I'm quite hopeful that we'll see improved performance over existing stock from these new units. When I've traveled on 195s I got the impression acceleration was very good at low speeds but not so good higher up, and indeed the same can be said about 158834, the only TFW 158 with a bus type transmission (though it has 4 speeds rather then the 6 the CAFs will come with).

At the same time, the 67s (which are of course the topic of this thread!) will probably lose a bit of performance given that MKIVs are heavier then MKIIIs.

LNW-GW Joint said:
Maybe it was when the concession for 67/Mk3 came in then, rather than removal of the restriction.
I certainly remember Gerald slowing to 40mph for the 2 chains affected.
Maybe it was while 57s were operating it.
I see it's still in the 2019 SA.

Ah yes, that would explain it. As I understand it, not only were the MKIIs and 57s not allowed use MU speeds, they were also limited to 75mph overall owing to the relatively short length of the train and poor brake performance of MKIIs. With the MKIIIs and 67s, the limit went up to 110mph, although the highest speed attained anywhere between Cardiff and Holyhead is 90 mph.

Rhydgaled · 17 Oct 2020

Speed43125 said:
I think few people ever think "I'm getting bum ache, what an awful class of train, if only I'd gotten that other one with the loud diesel on the front!"

Yes, you're probably right. They are more likely to get bum ache, decide trains are awful and vow never to use a train again than they are to realise there are mark 4s available as an alternative.

Speed43125 said:
158s and 175s each have 2 toilets in two car trains.

And 3 toilets in 3-car trains (obviously this applies only to 175s in the current TfW fleet) whereas a 197 will be 1 toilet in 2-car and 2 toilets in 3-car. The mark 4 sets I think have 4 toilets (down from 6 on a mark 3 set apparently) for four coaches which compares well to a 4-car class 197 lashup which would only have 2 toilets.

krus_aragon · 17 Oct 2020

aar0 said:
I believe it's the first name change, and usually called the Senedd in both languages.

The other name changes have been to the "Executive Committee of the National Assembly for Wales / Welsh Assembly Government / Welsh Government", rather than to the Assembly / Parliament itself.

I know there are several who still think of the MkIII service to Cardiff as the "WAG Express"

Ex LNER (and Grand Central) Mark 4 sets for TfW

Member

Attachments

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Guest

Established Member

Member

Guest

Established Member

Guest

Veteran Member

Guest

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member