CAF Civity for TfW design issues and solutions

[Rhydgaled]

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw 3 car 197s used on that route in summer well i hope we do anyway

My understanding is that TfW are currently planning to use 153s (shared with the HOWL) on the Pembroke Dock route; hopefully they'll have the sense to couple three 153s together for Tenby services in the summer although if the 197s accelerate quicker that would be useful with the tight single-line occupation and if you turned it into a shuttle from Whitland an hourly 2-car 197 in summer might just work and not be a bad idea.

if you want to see what happens to summer loadings just try Pembrokeshire in winter then summer usually in winter in previous years the line to pembroke Dock which also serves tenby saw 1 car class 153s in winter and 3 car 150+153 in summer so

I'm well aware of the increased summer demand to seaside resorts as I made quite a few trips to Carmarthenshire and south Pembrokeshire on summer Saturdays in the last few years before the IEP filming the GWR summer Saturday HSTs. What I'm less sure about is whether the reduction of demand on main lines into big cities is sufficient to reduce train lengths.

Yes. Demand pre-COVID on Fridays and during school holidays on the south WCML (for example) was typically down at least a third. Summer Friday mornings looked like 6am on a Sunday. And this would be reducing from 5 to 4 coaches on only some of the trains (obviously the Mk4 sets would remain at full capacity), so a capacity reduction of maybe a sixth to an eighth across the day.

If you look at the school summer hols, they are 6 weeks long and most people take a two week family holiday of some sort during that time. It's fairly usual for that to be first two, middle two or last two, so we'll consider that for simplicity. Thus the reduction you're looking at is going to be around a quarter to a third just from that.

I agree there would be less commuting demand during the summer holidays, though the extent of reduction you suggest surprises me. Not everyone has school-age children and some of those that do may holiday by train. What I would expect is a seasonal leveling out of demand with the morning peak reducing significantly due to a combination of decreased commuting and increased off-peak lesuire demand. The evening peak however would remain busy as workers and day-trippers return home for the evening at similar times.

some posters go on about the future and what happens in 2050, the wales and borders franchise needs new units now.

What happens in 2050 is determined by what we do now. Yes, the Wales & Borders franchise needs new diesel units now, but it doesn't NEED 77 of them as it has 51 class 158s and 175s it could retain* until better new trains are available. There are some compelling reasons why a large number is desirable, but these do not in my view outweigh the NEED to stamp out greenhouse gas emissions. The rail industry (and the country as a whole) needs to consider how it is going to contribute to emissions reduction. It can do this by reducing it's own footprint (electrification) or by providing a product attrative enough to not just retain existing passengers but also attract more passengers to choose rail over cars. The class 197 fails on both counts.

* Don't try to suggest it can't because they are falling to bits when TfW are planning to retain older class 153s and both GWR and Northern seem likely to retain even-older class 150s.

 

[craigybagel]

My understanding is that TfW are currently planning to use 153s (shared with the HOWL) on the Pembroke Dock route; hopefully they'll have the sense to couple three 153s together for Tenby services in the summer although if the 197s accelerate quicker that would be useful with the tight single-line occupation and if you turned it into a shuttle from Whitland an hourly 2-car 197 in summer might just work and not be a bad idea.

Current plan is 197s for West Wales - that have been freed up by the extra MKIVs on Manchester - South Wales services. 153s should be just HOWL, and probably Crewe-Shrewsbury locals (they interwork, and Crewe is a handy location to maintain the 153s).

I'm well aware of the increased summer demand to seaside resorts as I made quite a few trips to Carmarthenshire and south Pembrokeshire on summer Saturdays in the last few years before the IEP filming the GWR summer Saturday HSTs. What I'm less sure about is whether the reduction of demand on main lines into big cities is sufficient to reduce train lengths.

I agree there would be less commuting demand during the summer holidays, though the extent of reduction you suggest surprises me. Not everyone has school-age children and some of those that do may holiday by train. What I would expect is a seasonal leveling out of demand with the morning peak reducing significantly due to a combination of decreased commuting and increased off-peak lesuire demand. The evening peak however would remain busy as workers and day-trippers return home for the evening at similar times.

You'd be amazed how much commuting traffic drops off in summer holidays. It really is a very noticeable difference. As for your worries with the evening peak - trains don't tend to be as busy then as both commuters and day trippers spread their return journey times over a much greater period.

What happens in 2050 is determined by what we do now. Yes, the Wales & Borders franchise needs new diesel units now, but it doesn't NEED 77 of them as it has 51 class 158s and 175s it could retain* until better new trains are available. There are some compelling reasons why a large number is desirable, but these do not in my view outweigh the NEED to stamp out greenhouse gas emissions. The rail industry (and the country as a whole) needs to consider how it is going to contribute to emissions reduction. It can do this by reducing it's own footprint (electrification) or by providing a product attrative enough to not just retain existing passengers but also attract more passengers to choose rail over cars. The class 197 fails on both counts.

Both of these counts are only failures in your opinion.

* Don't try to suggest it can't because they are falling to bits when TfW are planning to retain older class 153s and both GWR and Northern seem likely to retain even-older class 150s.

Yes, but not on longer distance Class 1 services. The 153s at TfW will have a relatively easy life dealing with lower passenger numbers and speeds on the HOWL. If you tried running them up and down to Holyhead and Cardiff every day with full passenger loads they wouldn't cope anywhere near as well (and indeed, you only have to look at their timekeeping when put on those services to see that they can't cope!). Keeping the 158s for the kind of work the 153s are being kept for would be fine (and indeed I wish that was the option being taken) but keeping them on the Cambrian for another 10 years is not going to go well.

 

[wobman]

I don't think some posters grasp the fact the 197s have Euro 5 compliant engines, they run ad blue & DPFs which enables them produce much lower levels of emissions than the existing tfw sprinter and cordia units.

So I travel on and drive the 150/153/158 & 175 units on a regular basis, the sprinters are over over 30yrs old ! The 175s are over 20yrs old !
The units ARE not in great condition, they are old and have done a great service but there reliability is getting worse as expected. I see the depots and fitters struggling daily to keep the services running, constant set swaps every day. Units in yards waiting fitters attention, many running around daily with faults.

So tfw want to replace their ageing in some cases falling apart units with new units that help lower emissions and are much more efficient but get constant criticism for doing that.
If you want to look at helping the environment look at the 67s and Mk4s they drink fuel at a far higher rate than any DMU and most depots are scared of turning the 67s off overnight incase they don't start again !

I for one am glad the 197s are coming as I've sat in the cabs of them and it offers a big step up in every way over tfws present units. Who knows the use of Biodiesel will be something for caf to look at in the future and maybe hybrid engines can be used. But as numerous posters keep saying electrification is a LONG way away on rhe tfw routes unfortunately, we have to look at the here and now to get passengers back onto trains and the 197s will help that. That in itself will help in decarbonisation by having less cars on the roads and coupled with tfws planned integrated public transport hubs will benefit the environment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, but not on longer distance Class 1 services. The 153s at TfW will have a relatively easy life dealing with lower passenger numbers and speeds on the HOWL. If you tried running them up and down to Holyhead and Cardiff every day with full passenger loads they wouldn't cope anywhere near as well (and indeed, you only have to look at their timekeeping when put on those services to see that they can't cope!). Keeping the 158s for the kind of work the 153s are being kept for would be fine (and indeed I wish that was the option being taken) but keeping them on the Cambrian for another 10 years is not going to go well.

I think the reason to go for 153s is that (apart from them being very cheap, which is important for basket case branch lines) they offer total flexibility of formation length as per LHCS - you can have one, two or three car, you're not stuck with multiples of two. You can form 158s into 3-car sets but it's a right faff and involves considerable depot work, whereas you can swap 153 formations round on the day.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Current plan is 197s for West Wales - that have been freed up by the extra MKIVs on Manchester - South Wales services. 153s should be just HOWL, and probably Crewe-Shrewsbury locals (they interwork, and Crewe is a handy location to maintain the 153s).

Ah, sorry; I was thinking the 153s were instead of the 170s which were planned to do HOWL and Pembroke Dock before the retained 153s and extra mark 4s were announced.

What happens in 2050 is determined by what we do now. Yes, the Wales & Borders franchise needs new diesel units now, but it doesn't NEED 77 of them as it has 51 class 158s and 175s it could retain* until better new trains are available. There are some compelling reasons why a large number is desirable, but these do not in my view outweigh the NEED to stamp out greenhouse gas emissions. The rail industry (and the country as a whole) needs to consider how it is going to contribute to emissions reduction. It can do this by reducing it's own footprint (electrification) or by providing a product attrative enough to not just retain existing passengers but also attract more passengers to choose rail over cars. The class 197 fails on both counts.

Both of these counts are only failures in your opinion.

Both counts?

• Count 1: Reducing rail's carbon footprint through electrification
• Count 2: Attracting modal shift away from car

The class 197 fails on both counts. Yes in the case of count 2 this is my opinion (based on a certain amount of evidence) but I don't see how count 1 is a matter of opinion. It appears to be simply a fact; class 197s are an impediment to electrification.

Yes, but not on longer distance Class 1 services.

True in the case of TfW's 153s, and maybe the 150s with GWR and Northern, but is that also true of 158s with other TOCs? Even if it is, that still leaves the 175s.

 

[craigybagel]

I think the reason to go for 153s is that (apart from them being very cheap, which is important for basket case branch lines) they offer total flexibility of formation length as per LHCS - you can have one, two or three car, you're not stuck with multiples of two. You can form 158s into 3-car sets but it's a right faff and involves considerable depot work, whereas you can swap 153 formations round on the day.

True, although I think that's something more of a fringe benefit to be honest. The only time we're likely to see 153s in 3 car formation would be the Builth shows I would have thought - only a few days a year. Plus the flexibility to run as single cars is rather reduced now that not all units have useable toilets (or are TFW only keeping the full PRM 153s long term? There have been so many changes with the 153s I can't keep up).

Ah, sorry; I was thinking the 153s were instead of the 170s which were planned to do HOWL and Pembroke Dock before the retained 153s and extra mark 4s were announced.

To be fair, it wasn't announced terribly widely, but somewhere in the MKIV publicity I'm sure it said 197s for West Wales

Both counts?

• Count 1: Reducing rail's carbon footprint through electrification
• Count 2: Attracting modal shift away from car

The class 197 fails on both counts. Yes in the case of count 2 this is my opinion (based on a certain amount of evidence) but I don't see how count 1 is a matter of opinion. It appears to be simply a fact; class 197s are an impediment to electrification.

You said yourself

There are some compelling reasons why a large number is desirable, but these do not in my view outweigh the NEED to stamp out greenhouse gas emissions

. Whilst I do agree with you that there is indeed a need to stamp out greenhouse gases - as has been pointed out to you many many times, the odds of electrification happening in the next decade within Wales are next to nothing. It is your opinion that the benefits of delaying the order outweigh the benefits of a larger order now, but others beg to differ.

With your second opinion, there is also plenty of evidence supplied by staff at TfW that your belief these units will not bring about a modal shift is also wrong.

True in the case of TfW's 153s, and maybe the 150s with GWR and Northern, but is that also true of 158s with other TOCs? Even if it is, that still leaves the 175s.

ScotRail: 158s have mostly been displaced from the seven cities intercity network by HSTs. With the exception of the Far North (which is itself neither busy nor in most cases particularly high speed) they're mostly only working shorter services
GWR: Replaced on Portsmouth - Cardiff and now primarily working regional services
EMR: In the process of being replaced by 170s. Norwich - Liverpool is a service they still work comparable with what they do at TFW, but I believe the only reason they don't have a replacement lined up yet is all the question marks over the future of the route itself. Which ever option (moved to TPE or stay with EMR long term) it's likely to see new stock once a decision is made.
Northern: displaced from most of its longer/faster duties by 195s
SWR: The only operator still using 158/159s on the busy routes they were built for, with no replacement lined up in the short term. However, given how often they've been able to lend units in the past to GWR and EMT, and the fact SWR have now permanently withdrawn their Bristol services, it suggests their utilisation isn't as high as at other TOCs, allowing more time for maintenance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

True, although I think that's something more of a fringe benefit to be honest. The only time we're likely to see 153s in 3 car formation would be the Builth shows I would have thought - only a few days a year. Plus the flexibility to run as single cars is rather reduced now that not all units have useable toilets (or are TFW only keeping the full PRM 153s long term? There have been so many changes with the 153s I can't keep up).

I think, but could be wrong, that only the PRMed ones will be staying. Though I don't know if they'll consider a "PRM lite" with no toilet at all for units primarily used for strengthening.

 

[sd0733]

I think, but could be wrong, that only the PRMed ones will be staying. Though I don't know if they'll consider a "PRM lite" with no toilet at all for units primarily used for strengthening.

I believe that 2 of the 4 ex-GWR ones have only had the the PRM lite mods and think h they are staying longer term so like you say could only be used for strengthening

 

[Rhydgaled]

Replying here rather than on the news topic...

When the timetable changes to a 2 hourly Swansea-Manchester and 2 hourly Milford-Manchester pattern what is going to happen to the missing Swansea-Carmarthen service every 2 hours? Will they simply introduce a new hourly Swansea-Carmarthen (with a 2 hourly extension to Pembroke Dock) or is something else going to happen?

We don't know what TfW are planning, but personally I think going via Swansea is so slow compared to the M4 that there is little value in a through service between Cardiff and Carmarthen by that route and everything going into Swansea might as well terminate at Swansea. That would also support the provision of 5-car class 175 services on Manchester-Swansea. I think an hourly 5-car Manchester-Swansea service would require:

• 3x mark 4 diagrams
• 7x class 175/0 diagrams
• 7x class 175/1 diagrams

I think there are 9x class 175/0 and 14x class 175/1 diagrams. If so, doing this would leave 2x class 175/0 and 7x class 175/1 diagrams for use elsewhere. The 175/0s I would put on the HOWL instead of the retained 153s. Unfortunately, there aren't enough 175/1s to do everything I'd like - we really could have done with a new regional express fleet (more like 397s but with class 196/197 style cabs) rather than the suburban 197s - since there should in my view be an hourly fast along the north Wales coast that doesn't use suburban stock and one into S.W. Wales too. An hourly Manchester-Holyhead would use six or all 7, leaving none for west of Swansea.

If they separated the Milford service from the Manchester's that would mean Cardiff would lose its direct service to stations such as Llanelli, Carmarthen and Haverfordwest. As it is Llanelli and Carmarthen are seeing a reduced number of direct services with the MKIV terminating in Swansea, unless there is to be another service we dont yet know about. Not having a direct service from say Pembrey or Llanelli to Manchester probably wouldn't be an issue as not many passengers would make the entire journey and a change at Swansea would be fairly easy with good connections. Perhaps there would be scope for extending the Swanlines to Carmarthen providing the 'missing' service between Swansea and Carmarthen. A few of them extend to Llanelli as it is.

There needs to be at least 3 services between Swansea and Llanelli/Carmarthen per 2 hours to at least maintain the pre covid timetable. Ideally at least 1 of the 3 should be direct to and from Cardiff.

Sadly, looking beyond TfW, it doesn't look like service levels on public transport are even likely to be restored to pre-pandemic levels let alone the enhancements I was hoping the end of the ATW franchise would bring. The TrawsCymru T5 bus service has now been reduced to every two hours on Saturdays and the TrawsCymru website is no-longer calling this a temporary reduction, suggesting it is the 'new normal'.

If I switch back to optimistic mode, there is talk of a Swansea Metro and your suggestion of the Swanline services running through to Llanelli (and possibly Pembrey & Burry Port) is one that sounds familiar, meaning I may have read it in either the Metro proposals or something else a little more official than this forum. My 'pet scheme' however is an hourly fast Cardiff-Carmarthen service calling only at Port Talbot and Llanelli with alternate services continuing to Whitland (and thence to Haverfordwest, (Johnston) and Milford Haven in most cases and Fishguard's two stations twice a day for ferry connections). That would require four or five 175s (or 158s, if the Cambrian had a decent alternative available which it doesn't). With only two intermediate stops (or three if there was a Morriston Tawe Valley Parkway) between Cardiff and Carmarthen, there is no way you can argue that dwell times are an issue so wide doors-at-thirds are a big no-no there which is one of the reasons I hate the 197s so much; they kill my pet scheme of trying to compete with the M4 stone dead. The Cavities would be welcome on the Swanline-Llanelli 'Metro' service, except for the fact that would damage the business case for electrification to Swansea due to them not being bi-mode. That's another biggy for me, the routes where wide doors-at-thirds make sense to me are ones which could be nearer the front of the queue for electrification, so if you absolutely have to build a diesel-only unit (still not a great idea given that hydrogen trains have Government backing) at least give it narrow doors and optimise it for stuff like the HOWL where standing room and dwell times shouldn't be a concern.

It would make sense for the Milford Haven - Manchester services to remain on the 197's which split at Swansea, so effectively there would be no reduction in the 2 hourly service towards Milford Haven. The issues is the alternate 2 hourly service that terminates at Carmarthen. At a guess, as has already been said, I would think the Swansea - Pembroke service would connect into the Mk4 arrivals, along with maybe a few extra Cardiff - Pembroke and Cardiff - Fishguard services. I'd be very surprised if any services were lost West of Swansea with the introduction of the Mk4, with the exception of the long distance direct services to Manchester that start Carmarthen.

There is also a new station in the offing at St. Clears which could lead to a recast. Unfortunately the position of passing loops in Pembrokeshire make an even-interval timetable a non-starter unless you turn the Pembroke Dock line into a shuttle from Whitland (which I wouldn't recommend without major upgrades to passenger facilities there - a proper waiting room out of the wind at a minimum and prefrably toilets). My view is that Fishguard and Milford services shouldn't be slowed down by adding a stop at St. Clears, so with an upgraded Whitland station this might be an idea:

• an hourly Swansea-Whitland all-stations stopper (197)
• an hourly Swansea-Milford/Fishguard semi-fast (stock?) calling at Gowerton, Llanelli, Pembrey & Burry Port, Carmarthen, Whitand then all stations
• an hourly Whitland-Pembroke Dock (197, for the better acceleration), connecting with the semi-fast in one direction and the stopper in the other
• my 'pet project' hourly Carmarthen-Cardiff express, continuing west every 2hrs (175 or 158)

[/url]

 

[craigybagel]

Replying here rather than on the news topic...We don't know what TfW are planning, but personally I think going via Swansea is so slow compared to the M4 that there is little value in a through service between Cardiff and Carmarthen by that route and everything going into Swansea might as well terminate at Swansea. That would also support the provision of 5-car class 175 services on Manchester-Swansea. I think an hourly 5-car Manchester-Swansea service would require:

• 3x mark 4 diagrams
• 7x class 175/0 diagrams
• 7x class 175/1 diagrams

5 car 175s don't work on the Marches, even if the 175s were staying - which they're not.

• an hourly Swansea-Whitland all-stations stopper (197)
• an hourly Swansea-Milford/Fishguard semi-fast (stock?) calling at Gowerton, Llanelli, Pembrey & Burry Port, Carmarthen, Whitand then all stations
• an hourly Whitland-Pembroke Dock (197, for the better acceleration), connecting with the semi-fast in one direction and the stopper in the other
• my 'pet project' hourly Carmarthen-Cardiff express, continuing west every 2hrs (175 or 158)

There's some logic to parts of this alright - and I think a Carmarthen - Cardiff via the Swansea District would allow the Manchester services to terminate at Swansea without upsetting people in West Wales too much, and overall simplify operations.

The problem as I see it though is that if TfW were planning a separate West Wales via Swansea District service we'd know about it by now. I suspect that whatevers being planned for West of Cardiff, that isn't it.

 

[Rhydgaled]

5 car 175s don't work on the Marches, even if the 175s were staying - which they're not.

They don't work on the Marches now, but neither do 5 coach mark 4 rakes; the latter will be made to work so there's no reason why 5-car 175s couldn't be made to work too. Assuming any problems would be between Newport and Shrewsbury, all the platforms seem to be able to take at least 4 coaches meaning that the lack of gangways between units is not a problem in that respect - all that is needed is the ability to deselect the doors in one coach.

Currently all 158s and 175s are expected to leave TfW in short order. That would leave TfW with just 7 mark 4 rakes as their only stock optimised for long-distance fast services. That is unacceptable in my view, hence my ongoing campaign for a change of plan to involve retention of 158s (for the Cambrian) and 175s (for everywhere else).

 

[craigybagel]

They don't work on the Marches now, but neither do 5 coach mark 4 rakes; the latter will be made to work so there's no reason why 5-car 175s couldn't be made to work too. Assuming any problems would be between Newport and Shrewsbury, all the platforms seem to be able to take at least 4 coaches meaning that the lack of gangways between units is not a problem in that respect - all that is needed is the ability to deselect the doors in one coach.

True, but I'm just explaining why it's not going to happen in the short term (and it won't happen in the long-term because the 175s aren't staying).

Currently all 158s and 175s are expected to leave TfW in short order. That would leave TfW with just 7 mark 4 rakes as their only stock optimised for long-distance fast services. That is unacceptable in my view, hence my ongoing campaign for a change of plan to involve retention of 158s (for the Cambrian) and 175s (for everywhere else).

Good luck with that.

 

[wobman]

I'm baffled were the Alstom 175s woukd be maintained if they were retained, it can't be Chester/ crewe / Canton. So if it's longsight as Alstom plan them to move to, that woukd involve a huge amount of ECS moves. Tfw can't afford that kind of work and the same goes for the 158 micro fleet if retained.

The cambrian line will be getting the updated next gen ERTMS fitted and the 197s are equipped with that, the 158s will not be suitable if that's the case.
The 158s if retained would need a serious overhaul and that wouldn't be cheap. Were will Tfw get such funds ?

Tfw would have to cancel the caf ertms equipped 197s, that would incur contract penalties if they are even able to do so.
Tfw would have to cancel the maintenance contract with caf and write off the money already spent on recruitment and equipment needed to change mach depot to a caf maintenance depot for the 197s. Were is that money coming from ?

All of a sudden the retention of the 158s is looking very expensive, lots of posters point out the positives of going from 31yr old 158s to new 197s. Plus the savings and environmental aspects of getting new rolling stock.

Regarding Mk4s who knows tfw may be looking at getting even more sets if available, especially as tfw have a dedicated maintenance facility for them which will improve there reliability issues. Plus tfw are willing to add more stock if its feasible, such as the ex gc Mk4s.

 

[Caaardiff]

That would also support the provision of 5-car class 175 services on Manchester-Swansea.

I think there are 9x class 175/0 and 14x class 175/1 diagrams. If so, doing this would leave 2x class 175/0 and 7x class 175/1 diagrams for use elsewhere. The 175/0s I would put on the HOWL instead of the retained 153s

That is unacceptable in my view, hence my ongoing campaign for a change of plan to involve retention of 158s (for the Cambrian) and 175s (for everywhere else).

Not going to happen. Moving on and lets please for the love of trains not bring it up again. 175's are leaving, end of.

They don't work on the Marches now, but neither do 5 coach mark 4 rakes; the latter will be made to work so there's no reason why 5-car 175s couldn't be made to work too.

There is a workaround for guards between Newport and Shrewsbury, but it's not something that is regularly done.
Currently there is no workaround for 5 cars working west of Cardiff.

My view is that Fishguard and Milford services shouldn't be slowed down by adding a stop at St. Clears, so with an upgraded Whitland station this might be an idea:

What would be the point in putting a new station in then if people can't use it for 2 of the 3 branch lines in West Wales? St Clears is hardly going to be open as an interchange for thousands arriving from London or Manchester. Anything west of Carmarthen needs to be all stops to serve the local communities.

Why upgrade Whitland when Carmarthen is much better as a hub for west Wales?

• an hourly Swansea-Whitland all-stations stopper (197)
• an hourly Swansea-Milford/Fishguard semi-fast (stock?) calling at Gowerton, Llanelli, Pembrey & Burry Port, Carmarthen, Whitand then all stations
• an hourly Whitland-Pembroke Dock (197, for the better acceleration), connecting with the semi-fast in one direction and the stopper in the other
• my 'pet project' hourly Carmarthen-Cardiff express, continuing west every 2hrs (175 or 158)

My suggestion:
- 2 Hourly Swansea - Manchester (Mk4)
- 2 Hourly Milford Haven - Manchester (197) as per TfW's current plans to split/attach at Swansea
- 2 Hourly Swansea - Pembroke Dock (197) that connects into Mk4 arrivals/departures at Swansea.

- Hourly Ebbw Vale - Swansea calling all stations Cardiff - Swansea (231/197) - 231's mainly if route cleared & dependant on how many units required. Currently the Ebbw Vales have around an hour at Cardiff Central anyway before the next trip which puts in a small time saving to new services and better fleet utilisation.
This would allow a consistent hourly service to all intermediate stops between Cardiff - Swansea.

- 2 Hourly Port Talbot - Fishguard Harbour/Carmarthen (197) all stops via the district line. Fishguard services would be around 4-5 per day at the peak/boat times required. Boat connections can change at Port Talbot which has decent waiting facilities and the added bonus of time saved via the district line. Eventually would serve new district line stations alongside other (new) services.

 

[Jez]

Replying here rather than on the news topic...We don't know what TfW are planning, but personally I think going via Swansea is so slow compared to the M4 that there is little value in a through service between Cardiff and Carmarthen by that route and everything going into Swansea might as well terminate at Swansea. That would also support the provision of 5-car class 175 services on Manchester-Swansea. I think an hourly 5-car Manchester-Swansea service would require:

• 3x mark 4 diagrams
• 7x class 175/0 diagrams
• 7x class 175/1 diagrams

I think there are 9x class 175/0 and 14x class 175/1 diagrams. If so, doing this would leave 2x class 175/0 and 7x class 175/1 diagrams for use elsewhere. The 175/0s I would put on the HOWL instead of the retained 153s. Unfortunately, there aren't enough 175/1s to do everything I'd like - we really could have done with a new regional express fleet (more like 397s but with class 196/197 style cabs) rather than the suburban 197s - since there should in my view be an hourly fast along the north Wales coast that doesn't use suburban stock and one into S.W. Wales too. An hourly Manchester-Holyhead would use six or all 7, leaving none for west of Swansea.

Sadly, looking beyond TfW, it doesn't look like service levels on public transport are even likely to be restored to pre-pandemic levels let alone the enhancements I was hoping the end of the ATW franchise would bring. The TrawsCymru T5 bus service has now been reduced to every two hours on Saturdays and the TrawsCymru website is no-longer calling this a temporary reduction, suggesting it is the 'new normal'.

If I switch back to optimistic mode, there is talk of a Swansea Metro and your suggestion of the Swanline services running through to Llanelli (and possibly Pembrey & Burry Port) is one that sounds familiar, meaning I may have read it in either the Metro proposals or something else a little more official than this forum. My 'pet scheme' however is an hourly fast Cardiff-Carmarthen service calling only at Port Talbot and Llanelli with alternate services continuing to Whitland (and thence to Haverfordwest, (Johnston) and Milford Haven in most cases and Fishguard's two stations twice a day for ferry connections). That would require four or five 175s (or 158s, if the Cambrian had a decent alternative available which it doesn't). With only two intermediate stops (or three if there was a Morriston Tawe Valley Parkway) between Cardiff and Carmarthen, there is no way you can argue that dwell times are an issue so wide doors-at-thirds are a big no-no there which is one of the reasons I hate the 197s so much; they kill my pet scheme of trying to compete with the M4 stone dead. The Cavities would be welcome on the Swanline-Llanelli 'Metro' service, except for the fact that would damage the business case for electrification to Swansea due to them not being bi-mode. That's another biggy for me, the routes where wide doors-at-thirds make sense to me are ones which could be nearer the front of the queue for electrification, so if you absolutely have to build a diesel-only unit (still not a great idea given that hydrogen trains have Government backing) at least give it narrow doors and optimise it for stuff like the HOWL where standing room and dwell times shouldn't be a concern.

There is also a new station in the offing at St. Clears which could lead to a recast. Unfortunately the position of passing loops in Pembrokeshire make an even-interval timetable a non-starter unless you turn the Pembroke Dock line into a shuttle from Whitland (which I wouldn't recommend without major upgrades to passenger facilities there - a proper waiting room out of the wind at a minimum and prefrably toilets). My view is that Fishguard and Milford services shouldn't be slowed down by adding a stop at St. Clears, so with an upgraded Whitland station this might be an idea:

• an hourly Swansea-Whitland all-stations stopper (197)
• an hourly Swansea-Milford/Fishguard semi-fast (stock?) calling at Gowerton, Llanelli, Pembrey & Burry Port, Carmarthen, Whitand then all stations
• an hourly Whitland-Pembroke Dock (197, for the better acceleration), connecting with the semi-fast in one direction and the stopper in the other
• my 'pet project' hourly Carmarthen-Cardiff express, continuing west every 2hrs (175 or 158)

[/url]

Good point about using the district line for a better service. Although looking at the timings between Llanelli and Port Talbot when it goes via the district line ro when it goes via and calls at Swansea including all the dwell time at Gowerton, Swansea and Neath its only about a 10 minute difference. Unless they could increase the line speed on the district. The journey time between Cardiff and Carmarthen is long compared to a journey on the M4. But people will still use the train if that is their preferred or only means of travelling.

As much as id love the 175s to stay especially after their excellent refurbishment I accept this is just not going to happen. I wish they would keep at least the 11 x 2 cars for use on HOW, Pembroke Dock, Fishguard, even on an extra service via the district line to Cardiff!

Personally what I would do is similar to your suggestions. Keep Manchester to Milford as it is every 2 hours. Terminate the other Manchester service in Swansea. Reinstate Swansea-Pembroke Dock running the opposite hour to the Milford train. Then Increase Swanline to hourly and extend to Carmarthen calling at Gowerton, Llanelli, Pembrey, Kidwelly and Ferryside. Fishguard and HOW services would remain more or less as currently and be 'extra' services for Gowerton, Llanelli etc.

So we would end up with 2 trains an hour between Swansea and Carmarthen - one fast calling at Llanelli and Pembrey only and then going to either Pembroke Dock or Milford, the other calling at all stations and terminating in Carmarthen. This would also provide 3 trains every 2 hours between Cardiff and Llanelli/Carmarthen one of which would be fast. If Gowerton needs a half hourly service the fast services could call there too or maybe just at peak time.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I'm baffled were the Alstom 175s woukd be maintained if they were retained, it can't be Chester/ crewe / Canton. So if it's longsight as Alstom plan them to move to, that woukd involve a huge amount of ECS moves. Tfw can't afford that kind of work and the same goes for the 158 micro fleet if retained.

If the majority of the 175s were used on Manchester-Swansea then Longsight wouldn't be too far from one end of the route, and for the HOWL I have Landore in mind though whether that would be feasible I've no idea. The Swansea District Line service would be a challange though. The 158s if retained would most-likely be at Machynlleth to save the Cambrian from the inappropriate 197s, we also need the 21 ETCS fitted units dropped from the CAF order.

Tfw would have to cancel the caf ertms equipped 197s, that would incur contract penalties if they are even able to do so.
Tfw would have to cancel the maintenance contract with caf and write off the money already spent on recruitment and equipment needed to change mach depot to a caf maintenance depot for the 197s.

Yes, KeolisAmey have wasted a large amount of money ordering an unsuitable fleet for the Cambrian, it needs to be put right and yes that will cost.

What would be the point in putting a new station in then if people can't use it for 2 of the 3 branch lines in West Wales? St Clears is hardly going to be open as an interchange for thousands arriving from London or Manchester. Anything west of Carmarthen needs to be all stops to serve the local communities.

I'm not sure what the business case for the new station at St. Clears is based on, it isn't something I've been calling for but is happening apparently. My guess would be that the main traffic flow would be St. Clears to Carmarthen and Swansea, and I feel that St. Clears should have an hourly service to cater for that. Meanwhile, the A40 is being accelerated and is already a similar journey time to the train so to remain time competitive rail has to weigh up potential westbound demand from St. Clears against the existing traffic from Haverfordwest, Milford Haven and Fishguard. Adding an extra stop on these flows as motorists gain a load more overtaking opportunities and lose a stretch of 40mph limit could be damaging - it is partly for this reason that my proposed Swansea District Line service would not call at Clunderwen and Clarbeston Road (and possibly not Johnston) either.

Why upgrade Whitland when Carmarthen is much better as a hub for west Wales?

Because Whitland is where you would have to change if the Pembroke & Tenby was reduced to a branch shuttle and also, though you'd probably be better off going by bus, because that's where you would have to change to go from Tenby/Kilgetty/Narberth to Haverfordwest/Milford/Fishguard.

My suggestion:
- 2 Hourly Swansea - Manchester (Mk4)
- 2 Hourly Milford Haven - Manchester (197) as per TfW's current plans to split/attach at Swansea
- 2 Hourly Swansea - Pembroke Dock (197) that connects into Mk4 arrivals/departures at Swansea.

I think Swansea-Manchester is 9 or 10 diagrams, thus I don't think TfW have enough mark 4 sets coming to diagram one every two hours. Unless you pile a load of extra stops onto the Milford-Manchester in one direction I think this would also result in a very uneven pattern west of Swansea and very bad connections between the Pembroke Dock service and the Manchester. It is also a reduction in the pre-pandemic service between Carmarthen and Swansea which was 1.5tph - your proposal only has 1tph and probably at 30-90 minute spacings rather than every 60 minutes due to where the passing loops are.

- Hourly Ebbw Vale - Swansea calling all stations Cardiff - Swansea (231/197) - 231's mainly if route cleared & dependant on how many units required. Currently the Ebbw Vales have around an hour at Cardiff Central anyway before the next trip which puts in a small time saving to new services and better fleet utilisation.
This would allow a consistent hourly service to all intermediate stops between Cardiff - Swansea.

I do like the idea of an hourly all-stops between Cardiff and Swansea, and it's just the sort of thing 197s will probably be ideal for if it wasn't for the blight on electrification prospects.

- 2 Hourly Port Talbot - Fishguard Harbour/Carmarthen (197) all stops via the district line. Fishguard services would be around 4-5 per day at the peak/boat times required. Boat connections can change at Port Talbot which has decent waiting facilities and the added bonus of time saved via the district line. Eventually would serve new district line stations alongside other (new) services.

Making it all-stops, using an uncomfortable suburban unit (197, yes I know it's uncomfortable because I've been on an 800 and they have the same seats) and adding a change at Port Talbot defeats the whole point of using the Swansea District Line (getting cars off the M4 by providing a much better rail service). If you are going to stop at Baglan, Briton Ferry, Llandarcy, Morriston, Llangyfelach, Llangennech, Bynea, Llanelli, Pembrey & Burry Port, Kidwelly and Ferryside (or even just half of those) you might as well send it via Swansea and just go for frequency. Even between Llanelli and Carmarthen, you are talking six to eight minutes saved by running non-stop (I'm sure I've seen the boat train timed to do it in 22min non-stop).

As for Fishguard, my thinking is semi-fasts to Swansea at around 07:50, 09:50, 15:50*, 18:50 and 20:50 plus the two express boat trains to Cardiff and maybe an early morning commuter stopper at 06:20 or 06:50. In the hours that the semi-fasts to Swansea run from Fishguard, Milford Haven would get a Cardiff express.

* or perhaps two trains, a 14:50 and a 16:50

Good point about using the district line for a better service. Although looking at the timings between Llanelli and Port Talbot when it goes via the district line ro when it goes via and calls at Swansea including all the dwell time at Gowerton, Swansea and Neath its only about a 10 minute difference. Unless they could increase the line speed on the district. The journey time between Cardiff and Carmarthen is long compared to a journey on the M4. But people will still use the train if that is their preferred or only means of travelling.

I may be wrong, but I'm assuming that cutting car use will be essential in tackling climate change. People only using the train if they haven't got a choice isn't good enough, we need a service that will win people out of their cars and, as you say, Cardiff to Carmarthen is much quicker by car at the moment. Years ago I had a good nose around the timetable on RTT and the GWR journey planner and, if I added the fastest Llanelli-Port Talbot times (the early/late Carmarthen-Manchester services that missed out Swansea but were still slow overall because they stopped at Pencoed etc.) to the fastest Cardiff-Port Talbot I got 1hr for Llanelli to Cardiff plus 22min Llanelli to Carmarthen as the fastest achievable on current infrustructure. That is still a fair bit quicker than currently although, as you imply, some linespeed upgrades will be needed to provide a truely time-competitive service.

Personally what I would do is similar to your suggestions. Keep Manchester to Milford as it is every 2 hours. Terminate the other Manchester service in Swansea. Reinstate Swansea-Pembroke Dock running the opposite hour to the Milford train.

I don't think this works if the calling pattern is constistent in each direction. If your Milford train leaves Swansea at 09:00 and the Pembroke Dock at 10:00 and both serve the same stops I think you'll find the Milford train gets back at 13:00 and the Pembroke one at 15:30.

Then Increase Swanline to hourly and extend to Carmarthen calling at Gowerton, Llanelli, Pembrey, Kidwelly and Ferryside. Fishguard and HOW services would remain more or less as currently and be 'extra' services for Gowerton, Llanelli etc.

Currently Fishguard is still on a COVID timetable so keeping what is there now would be quite a severe cut on pre-COVID.

 

[wobman]

If the majority of the 175s were used on Manchester-Swansea then Longsight wouldn't be too much of a stretch, and for the HOWL I have Landore in mind though whether that would be feasible I've no idea. The Swansea District Line service would be a challange though. The 158s if retained would most-likely be at Machynlleth to save the Cambrian from the inappropriate 197s, we also need the 21 ETCS fitted units dropped from the CAF order.


Yes, KeolisAmey have wasted a large amount of money ordering an unsuitable fleet for the Cambrian, it needs to be put right and yes that will cost.

It is partly for the love of riding on trains that I am fighting this battle. The Cambrian Coast is one of my favoriate lines and the 197s ever get entrenched there I will probably never be able to enjoy riding it again, having fought for the best for so long the feeling of failure (and the hard Sophia seats) would take all the pleasure out of it for me. I appreciate others won't be emotionally invested in it like I am and won't mind nearly so much, but for me that's how it is.


I'm not sure what the business case for the new station at St. Clears is based on, it isn't something I've been calling for but is happening apparently. My guess would be that the main traffic flow would be St. Clears to Carmarthen and Swansea, and I feel that St. Clears should have an hourly service to cater for that. Meanwhile, the A40 is being accelerated and is already a similar journey time to the train so to remain time competitive rail has to weigh up potential westbound demand from St. Clears against the existing traffic from Haverfordwest, Milford Haven and Fishguard. Adding an extra stop on these flows as motorists gain a load more overtaking opportunities and lose a stretch of 40mph limit could be damaging - it is partly for this reason that my proposed Swansea District Line service would not call at Clunderwen and Clarbeston Road (and possibly not Johnston) either.


Because Whitland is where you would have to change if the Pembroke & Tenby was reduced to a branch shuttle and also, though you'd probably be better off going by bus, because that's where you would have to change to go from Tenby/Kilgetty/Narberth to Haverfordwest/Milford/Fishguard.



I think Swansea-Manchester is 9 or 10 diagrams, thus I don't think TfW have enough mark 4 sets coming to diagram one every two hours. Unless you pile a load of extra stops onto the Milford-Manchester in one direction I think this would also result in a very uneven pattern west of Swansea and very bad connections between the Pembroke Dock service and the Manchester. It is also a reduction in the pre-pandemic service between Carmarthen and Swansea which was 1.5tph - your proposal only has 1tph and probably at 30-90 minute spacings rather than every 60 minutes due to where the passing loops are.


I do like the idea of an hourly all-stops between Cardiff and Swansea, and it's just the sort of thing 197s will probably be ideal for if it wasn't for the blight on electrification prospects.


Making it all-stops, using an uncomfortable suburban unit (197, yes I know it's uncomfortable because I've been on an 800 and they have the same seats) and adding a change at Port Talbot defeats the whole point of using the Swansea District Line (getting cars off the M4. You might as well send it via

Wow you need to check we're a few of them quotes have come from, I said the first 3 quotes but I can't take the credit for the remaining ones.

 

[wobman]

The caf 197s are coming and I've been on one to have a good look around it & I am impressed by what's in its way to tfw.

There's a few issues from an operational point of view that will need ironing out, all new rolling stock have problems.

The coupling process will need more time than is given with the sprinters and 175s, it's a far more complex coupling process than I've seen before.
There's the auto coupling button that "should" save time but during testing has been problematic.
Then there's a far more complicated process, with a wall panel to move by unlocking from its position and then locking into an closed position.
Then the first door to unlock / open/ lock, next a floor leveling panel to unlock then move to lock down.
Next the consatina doors to open and lock into position.
This process will need more than the 3mins given at present by tfw for its sprinters.

With an order of 77 sets let's hope the issues get resolved soon.....

 

[craigybagel]

I'm baffled were the Alstom 175s woukd be maintained if they were retained, it can't be Chester/ crewe / Canton. So if it's longsight as Alstom plan them to move to, that woukd involve a huge amount of ECS moves. Tfw can't afford that kind of work and the same goes for the 158 micro fleet if retained.

The cambrian line will be getting the updated next gen ERTMS fitted and the 197s are equipped with that, the 158s will not be suitable if that's the case.
The 158s if retained would need a serious overhaul and that wouldn't be cheap. Were will Tfw get such funds ?

Tfw would have to cancel the caf ertms equipped 197s, that would incur contract penalties if they are even able to do so.
Tfw would have to cancel the maintenance contract with caf and write off the money already spent on recruitment and equipment needed to change mach depot to a caf maintenance depot for the 197s. Were is that money coming from ?

All of a sudden the retention of the 158s is looking very expensive, lots of posters point out the positives of going from 31yr old 158s to new 197s. Plus the savings and environmental aspects of getting new rolling stock.

But 158s have end doors, making all of your other arguments moot. Apparently.....

There is a workaround for guards between Newport and Shrewsbury, but it's not something that is regularly done.
Currently there is no workaround for 5 cars working west of Cardiff.

Not done unless absolutely necessary as it's such a time consuming faff. 9 times out of 10 if you see 5 cars or more on the Marches, one set is locked out altogether.

If the majority of the 175s were used on Manchester-Swansea then Longsight wouldn't be too much of a stretch, and for the HOWL I have Landore in mind though whether that would be feasible I've no idea. The Swansea District Line service would be a challange though. The 158s if retained would most-likely be at Machynlleth to save the Cambrian from the inappropriate 197s, we also need the 21 ETCS fitted units dropped from the CAF order.

Both Longsight and Landore are around 30 miles from the nearest traincrew depots. Congratulations - you've just added a six figure sum in taxi fares every year, not to mention the emissions those taxis create you're normally so worried about.

Yes, KeolisAmey have wasted a large amount of money ordering an unsuitable fleet for the Cambrian, it needs to be put right and yes that will cost.

It is partly for the love of riding on trains that I am fighting this battle.

*Losing this battle - that only you're fighting.

The Cambrian Coast is one of my favoriate lines and the 197s ever get entrenched there I will probably never be able to enjoy riding it again, having fought for the best for so long the feeling of failure (and the hard Sophia seats) would take all the pleasure out of it for me. I appreciate others won't be emotionally invested in it like I am and won't mind nearly so much, but for me that's how it is.

Give it a try, you might surprise yourself.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Both Longsight and Landore are around 30 miles from the nearest traincrew depots. Congratulations - you've just added a six figure sum in taxi fares every year, not to mention the emissions those taxis create you're normally so worried about.

From the nearest TfW traincrew depots; franchise silos making a mess of things again... Swansea and Manchester both have traincrew depots, they're just the wrong TOC.

*Losing this battle - that only you're fighting.

Losing yes, but I'm not alone in this fight. Most of my allies have now given up and decided that our side has lost, but I don't think any of them have decided the 197s are a good thing - they just don't feel it's worth their time and effort anymore given the tiny chance of changing things now.

Give it a try, you might surprise yourself.

I've tried an 800 and I've tried a 195. I'll probably try a 197 on a short-distance stopper where I think they should be fairly suitable at some point, but I don't think I'll ever be able to bring myself to use one on the Cambrian.

 

[Jez]

If the majority of the 175s were used on Manchester-Swansea then Longsight wouldn't be too far from one end of the route, and for the HOWL I have Landore in mind though whether that would be feasible I've no idea. The Swansea District Line service would be a challange though. The 158s if retained would most-likely be at Machynlleth to save the Cambrian from the inappropriate 197s, we also need the 21 ETCS fitted units dropped from the CAF order.


Yes, KeolisAmey have wasted a large amount of money ordering an unsuitable fleet for the Cambrian, it needs to be put right and yes that will cost.


I'm not sure what the business case for the new station at St. Clears is based on, it isn't something I've been calling for but is happening apparently. My guess would be that the main traffic flow would be St. Clears to Carmarthen and Swansea, and I feel that St. Clears should have an hourly service to cater for that. Meanwhile, the A40 is being accelerated and is already a similar journey time to the train so to remain time competitive rail has to weigh up potential westbound demand from St. Clears against the existing traffic from Haverfordwest, Milford Haven and Fishguard. Adding an extra stop on these flows as motorists gain a load more overtaking opportunities and lose a stretch of 40mph limit could be damaging - it is partly for this reason that my proposed Swansea District Line service would not call at Clunderwen and Clarbeston Road (and possibly not Johnston) either.


Because Whitland is where you would have to change if the Pembroke & Tenby was reduced to a branch shuttle and also, though you'd probably be better off going by bus, because that's where you would have to change to go from Tenby/Kilgetty/Narberth to Haverfordwest/Milford/Fishguard.



I think Swansea-Manchester is 9 or 10 diagrams, thus I don't think TfW have enough mark 4 sets coming to diagram one every two hours. Unless you pile a load of extra stops onto the Milford-Manchester in one direction I think this would also result in a very uneven pattern west of Swansea and very bad connections between the Pembroke Dock service and the Manchester. It is also a reduction in the pre-pandemic service between Carmarthen and Swansea which was 1.5tph - your proposal only has 1tph and probably at 30-90 minute spacings rather than every 60 minutes due to where the passing loops are.


I do like the idea of an hourly all-stops between Cardiff and Swansea, and it's just the sort of thing 197s will probably be ideal for if it wasn't for the blight on electrification prospects.


Making it all-stops, using an uncomfortable suburban unit (197, yes I know it's uncomfortable because I've been on an 800 and they have the same seats) and adding a change at Port Talbot defeats the whole point of using the Swansea District Line (getting cars off the M4 by providing a much better rail service). If you are going to stop at Baglan, Briton Ferry, Llandarcy, Morriston, Llangyfelach, Llangennech, Bynea, Llanelli, Pembrey & Burry Port, Kidwelly and Ferryside (or even just half of those) you might as well send it via Swansea and just go for frequency. Even between Llanelli and Carmarthen, you are talking six to eight minutes saved by running non-stop (I'm sure I've seen the boat train timed to do it in 22min non-stop).

As for Fishguard, my thinking is semi-fasts to Swansea at around 07:50, 09:50, 15:50*, 18:50 and 20:50 plus the two express boat trains to Cardiff and maybe an early morning commuter stopper at 06:20 or 06:50. In the hours that the semi-fasts to Swansea run from Fishguard, Milford Haven would get a Cardiff express.

* or perhaps two trains, a 14:50 and a 16:50

I may be wrong, but I'm assuming that cutting car use will be essential in tackling climate change. People only using the train if they haven't got a choice isn't good enough, we need a service that will win people out of their cars and, as you say, Cardiff to Carmarthen is much quicker by car at the moment. Years ago I had a good nose around the timetable on RTT and the GWR journey planner and, if I added the fastest Llanelli-Port Talbot times (the early/late Carmarthen-Manchester services that missed out Swansea but were still slow overall because they stopped at Pencoed etc.) to the fastest Cardiff-Port Talbot I got 1hr for Llanelli to Cardiff plus 22min Llanelli to Carmarthen as the fastest achievable on current infrustructure. That is still a fair bit quicker than currently although, as you imply, some linespeed upgrades will be needed to provide a truely time-competitive service.


I don't think this works if the calling pattern is constistent in each direction. If your Milford train leaves Swansea at 09:00 and the Pembroke Dock at 10:00 and both serve the same stops I think you'll find the Milford train gets back at 13:00 and the Pembroke one at 15:30.


Currently Fishguard is still on a COVID timetable so keeping what is there now would be quite a severe cut on pre-COVID.

Good point re the Pembroke and Milford timings not lending themselves to a clockface hourly service from Swansea. Perhaps a shorter dwell time at Pembroke Dock although I think this has an impact on the crossing over of services at Tenby and the Pembroke has to wait for around an hour there in order to cross over the next service at Tenby. Perhaps the Pembroke and Milford services can remain as they were before Covid but the hourly Swanline-Carmarthen would be clockface if that were to happen.

My mistake, I meant to say Fishguard services as pre Covid timetable, around 7 services a day.

In what way are the 197s not suitable for the Cambrian? I think we should give them a chance before we decide whether they are suitable or not. Im not happy about losing the 175 but on the plus side at least we get more capacity on the marches, 5 carriages with the 197s between Swansea and Manchester when currently the maximum 3 on most services. The main issue i find when travelling between Cardiff and Manchester is overcrowded trains and often no seats especially in peak time so even if the 197s arent as nice as the refurbished 175s id take a quieter train/carriage over a very busy one even if the seats arent as nice.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Good point re the Pembroke and Milford timings not lending themselves to a clockface hourly service from Swansea. Perhaps a shorter dwell time at Pembroke Dock although I think this has an impact on the crossing over of services at Tenby and the Pembroke has to wait for around an hour there in order to cross over the next service at Tenby. Perhaps the Pembroke and Milford services can remain as they were before Covid but the hourly Swanline-Carmarthen would be clockface if that were to happen.

My mistake, I meant to say Fishguard services as pre Covid timetable, around 7 services a day.

I think trains on the Pembroke Dock branch would need a new passing loop (prefrably dynamic) near Templeton in order to facilitate a clockface timetable between Whitland and Swansea although when I worked that out I was looking at a service every 30 minutes between Whitland and Swansea (hourly to Milford Haven with a Pembroke Dock train 30mins later every two hours and a Whitland terminator in the other hours).

As for Fishguard, I would take a mix of the 2011 enhanced timetable and the pre-COVID 2019 timetable and add one or two mid-afternoon services (where there was a gap of five hours or so) so that the largest gap is about 3hrs and most services are only about 2hrs apart.

In what way are the 197s not suitable for the Cambrian?

Passenger demand on the Cambrian is, I assume, dominated by leisure traffic and the only service is a long-distance regional express with no seperate local stoppers. Comfort is of utmost importance to a long-distance passenger, as is availabilitity of toilets. Dwell time is of relatively little importance to this market, and standing space should be utterly useless to Cambrian passengers (Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury, let alone Birmingham, is about 2 hours, nobody should be expected to stand). Yet, the design of the 197s is optimised for dwell times and not for the comfort of long-distance passengers, with wide doorways creating lots of standing room. They have only 1 toilet per 116 seats, which comes closer to failing to meet the Rail Delivery Group's best practice for short-distance commuter services than it does to complying with the best-practice for inter-urban services. The Cambrian, especially Machynlleth to Porthmadog, is also a highly scenic route which benefits from lots of tables aligned with the windows; the local rail user group (SARPA) campaigned previously to ensure that ATW's refurb of the current class 158s provided this - the 197s on the other hand provide fewer tables and window alignment is inferior.

In short, the class 197 is well-suited to short-distance commuters, not to long-distance inter-urban routes like the Cambrian.

I think we should give them a chance before we decide whether they are suitable or not. Im not happy about losing the 175 but on the plus side at least we get more capacity on the marches, 5 carriages with the 197s between Swansea and Manchester when currently the maximum 3 on most services. The main issue i find when travelling between Cardiff and Manchester is overcrowded trains and often no seats especially in peak time so even if the 197s arent as nice as the refurbished 175s id take a quieter train/carriage over a very busy one even if the seats arent as nice.

I actually prefer the Grammer seats on the 158s to what the 175s have, but the 175s have more legroom (and, as a result, they and the similar 180s are probably the only stock where I don't seek out a table just for the extra legroom). I agree that the quality of the interior doesn't really matter if you can't get a seat because there aren't enough carriages, but that doesn't make the class 197s a good product. We just don't have enough of the nicer product (class 158s and 175s).

 

[Rhydgaled]

I've chatted to a member of the 197 team and caf are looking at Bimodel versions of 197s that could appear in the future.
One idea is a 4 car unit of which 2 are dmu 197 and 2 are a 331 emu together, this could be on future solution they said. The other idea is just having small battery pack cars added to 2 car sets, it's good to hear these conversations are happening.

My understanding is that one of the issues that killed e-voyager (although possibly solvable given enough cash) is that each coach is independent - if the diesel engine is shut down the traction motors on that coach have no power feed from the other coaches. Therefore, if you added a new-build pantograph car to a 22x, the other coaches would need rewiring to add a traction power feed from the pantograph car. It is also my understanding that the Civity DMUs (195, 196 and 197) would suffer the same issue, and in addition the project would be even more costly than e-voyager because (if I understand correctly) the Civity DMUs do not have traction motors. In theory I suppose since there are EMUs with a single motor coach powering several trailers you could just have the DMU vehicles be deadweight (effectively very heavy trailer cars) while in electric mode, but Wikipedia suggests the pantograph on the 331s is on a trailer car so there would need to be changes to the design rather than just building vehicles to the existing class 331 design. All very expensive and unlikely to get past the 'bean counters' I would think, and how long would the units need to be out of service for while the EMU vehicle was inserted? Better to just block new self-power-only stock at source, just as 3rd rail EMUs now come with provision for a pantograph to be fitted later (I think one or two 707s and 777s were even delivered with the pantograph for initial tests before it was removed).

 

[Dai Corner]

My understanding is that one of the issues that killed e-voyager (although possibly solvable given enough cash) is that each coach is independent - if the diesel engine is shut down the traction motors on that coach have no power feed from the other coaches. Therefore, if you added a new-build pantograph car to a 22x, the other coaches would need rewiring to add a traction power feed from the pantograph car. It is also my understanding that the Civity DMUs (195, 196 and 197) would suffer the same issue, and in addition the project would be even more costly than e-voyager because (if I understand correctly) the Civity DMUs do not have traction motors. In theory I suppose since there are EMUs with a single motor coach powering several trailers you could just have the DMU vehicles be deadweight (effectively very heavy trailer cars) while in electric mode, but Wikipedia suggests the pantograph on the 331s is on a trailer car so there would need to be changes to the design rather than just building vehicles to the existing class 331 design. All very expensive and unlikely to get past the 'bean counters' I would think, and how long would the units need to be out of service for while the EMU vehicle was inserted? Better to just block new self-power-only stock at source, just as 3rd rail EMUs now come with provision for a pantograph to be fitted later (I think one or two 707s and 777s were even delivered with the pantograph for initial tests before it was removed).

Lots of multiple units only have one powered car. Back in the 1960s 4 car EMUs hauled/ propelled 8 unpowered cars between Waterloo and Bournemouth.

As long as there is sufficient power for the desired performance operating a DMU and EMU as a 'bi-mode' seems quite feasible.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I couldn't let this go unanswered, but I've avoided replying in the 'news and updates' topic.

Assuming that your question is about turning them into bi-modes or electric only units - it could be done, but you would need to replace pretty much everything under the floor. It's a six speed mechanical transmission, not exactly an easy conversion to run directly of electricity. As hybrid technology progresses though there may be options to incorporate some degree of electric power in to it (as is currently being experimented with at Chiltern) - but I doubt we'll ever see these units running off the overhead.

Now I know there's a good chance a certain regular poster on this thread will chip in now to say how terrible this is - but the chances of an electrification scheme taking place in large parts of the TfW network during the lifetime of these units is essentially nill. Modern, cleaner diesel units are the only real sensible option for fleet expansion/replacement at present.

My fear is that the Civity DMUs will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yes, at the moment the future looks bleak with little chance of electrification, but at least we could aspire to doing something about the climate crisis in time. You could also say that the railways are a tiny part of the problem; well yes they are but that same attitude applies elsewhere too. For example, Government forcasts predict that road traffic is likely to increase, so they build more road capacity to accomodate it thereby enabling (and effectively ensuring) the traffic increase. Goodbye stable climate.

A ban on procurement of diesel-only trains would have forced progress in decarbonisation as the old DMUs became life-expired - building large numbers of straight DMUs enables Britain's railway to miss both the 2040 target for removal of diesel-only trains and the 2050 target of a net-zero railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I couldn't let this go unanswered, but I've avoided replying in the 'news and updates' topic.

My fear is that the Civity DMUs will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yes, at the moment the future looks bleak with little chance of electrification, but at least we could aspire to doing something about the climate crisis in time. You could also say that the railways are a tiny part of the problem; well yes they are but that same attitude applies elsewhere too. For example, Government forcasts predict that road traffic is likely to increase, so they build more road capacity to accomodate it thereby enabling (and effectively ensuring) the traffic increase. Goodbye stable climate.

A ban on procurement of diesel-only trains would have forced progress in decarbonisation as the old DMUs became life-expired - building large numbers of straight DMUs enables Britain's railway to miss both the 2040 target for removal of diesel-only trains and the 2050 target of a net-zero railway.

Yes, I agree with this. All new diesel-powered trains should be bi-modes, or as a minimum have electric transmission and passive provision for installation of a pantograph and transformer (e.g. a pantograph well and mounting points, plus suspension designed to carry the weight of a transformer even if a concrete block is mounted instead), and for replacement of the diesel power packs with battery power packs.

Even if diesel running is used on open line (where it has a fairly negligible effect, really) it will, in fairly short order, be completely prohibited to burn diesel in internal combustion engines in urban areas and in the proximity of people (e.g. stations) and quite rightly so, and the railway needs to be ready.

 

[Rhydgaled]

With regards to the vestibule doors, I completely agree, that's the main issue with 1/3 2/3 doors, they're very loud with those exposed doorways. 170-style sound barriers might help, but from what I can see they're not fitted.

Off the top of my head, there are three big issues with 1/3, 2/3 doors:

1. They are typically 1300mm wide (there are exceptions of course like the 395s, but the 197s aren't one of them) meaning more of the length of each carriage is lost to doorway / standing room
2. Unless vestibule doors are provided, they impact the saloon ambiance by not with potential for toilet views, draughts at stations and, as you state, noise
3. Toilet views can only be avoided by providing vestibule doors and locating the toilets next to the exterior doors (so that the toilet doors open into the vestibule not the saloon) which with doors-at-thirds results in the toilet having to go towards the middle of the carriage (where there would normally be windows) rather than in the corner of the carriage where you are more likely to find structrual solid walls.

On legroom, I am very tall as well, and I find the 175s unusually comfortable to travel in the airline seats.

I agree, I tend to seek out tables on other stock for the extra legroom but on the 175s an airline seat is fine for legroom.

I doubt 2 cm will make much difference in all honesty, but the extra capacity will, the Marches route is getting ridiculously overcrowded.

I think the difference in seat spacing between the 175s and TfW 158s is only 4cm, but that makes a hell of a difference and would make even more of an impact if the original well-padded (but legroom-eating) class 158 seats were used. I agree regarding the need for extra capacity, but that extra capacity shouldn't be being provided by trains designed for short distance work (which the 197s appear to be).

----------------------------------- the following was added later, in response to other posts

How many extra standard class seats will be on a 5 car 197 formation compared to the current 3 car 175s that form most of the Manchester to West Wales?

274 vs 190, for a net gain of 84, per the diagrams and figures I linked to in my previous post.

An expanded comparison:

Train Formation​	Standards Class Seats​	First Class Seats​	Total Seats​
3-car class 175	186​	0​	118​
4-car class 197	232​	0​	232​
4-car class 158	268​	0​	268​
67 plus mark 4s (2+5 set with TOD)	250​	40​	290​
5-car class 197 (First Class Fitted)	274​	16​	290​
5-car class 197 (Standard Only)	304​	0​	304​
5-car class 175 (2-car + 3-car)	304​	0​	304​
Class 175/5 (5-car hypothetical)	322​	0​	322​

Perhaps the most notable thing here is that the total seating capacity of a mark 4 set (assuming the fifth carriage is a TOD) is the same as the 5-car 197s proposed for Manchester-Swansea despite a larger proportion of first class, two more toilets and a great big kitchen/buffet on the loco-hauled set. Similarly, coupling a 175/0 to a 175/1 provides the same number of seats as the equivalent 197 formation but with more legroom, toilets, tables etc. on the 175s. The space lost to those wide doors on the 197s really does matter.

For standard class, the 88 additional seats is equivalent to a single class 800 carriage - yes those are longer but the capacity uplift from the two additional coaches is closer to one additional carriage (68 seats in coach B of a 175) than two (which would be 136 additional seats). The final entry in the table is a hyopthetical new 5-car unit to the same specification as a class 175 (think 175/1 with three coach Bs instead of just one) to illustrate what you could do without duplicating cabs and UATs.

 

[Philip]

The 175s are old trains now and produce higher diesel emissions than the 197s will - and fuel efficiency will be inferior in the 175s. Wide doors are good for quick unloading and loading which should be the priority on all train services nowadays, rather than trying to create an 'intercity' environment (which is a bit meaningless anyway).

 

[Dai Corner]

The 175s are old trains now and produce higher diesel emissions than the 197s will - and fuel efficiency will be inferior in the 175s. Wide doors are good for quick unloading and loading which should be the priority on all train services nowadays, rather than trying to create an 'intercity' environment (which is a bit meaningless anyway).

Except on the Marches services, where loco hauled ex-InterCity coaches will be used?

 

[craigybagel]

Except on the Marches services, where loco hauled ex-InterCity coaches will be used?

The expectation is that the MKIV services will be limited stop along the Marches.

One of the few good things about 150s turning up on long distance TfW services is the dwell times are so much better. 175s are great, but they take forever to load and unload. 197s will be a lot better in that respect (and many others).

It's the main reason why a 150 can almost match 175 timings - whilst a 153 will lose time hand over fist.