Wales & Borders Franchise Consultation

[Bletchleyite]

That doesn't mean it's technically possible to do and even if it is the 2 car sets wouldn't contain that many seats for a 46m train even if you removed First Class and some of the table bays.

Being a fairly bog standard 23m doors-at-thirds DMU layout-wise there would be no more or fewer seats than a Turbostar assuming an all-Standard layout.

More, indeed, than a 2020 compliant Class 150 due to the longer body and lack of cab vestibules.

 

[northwichcat]

Being a fairly bog standard 23m doors-at-thirds DMU layout-wise there would be no more or fewer seats than a Turbostar assuming an all-Standard layout.

More, indeed, than a 2020 compliant Class 150 due to the longer body and lack of cab vestibules.

Carriage A on a 185 (the driving car without FC) has 64 seats. If carriage C retained the accessible toilet and wheelchair bay and the rest was made identical to carriage A you'd have 44 seats - so a grand total of 108 seats. That is quite a few less than the 170s - if you want as many as on the 170s you'd need to remove some tables and reduce the leg room. However, given Eversholt are apparently fitting table seat sockets to all the 185s (not just the ones TPE are keeping) that would probably leave the sockets in inaccessible places!

An PRM compliant 150 with 3+2 seating will have 124 seats.

 

[Gareth Marston]

That doesn't mean it's technically possible to do and even if it is the 2 car sets wouldn't contain that many seats for a 46m train even if you removed First Class and some of the table bays.

Its not "ideal" but i'm illustrating what is possible with the cards that may be dealt if the franchise ends up with the surplus 185's.
A 2 car 185 will be more than adequate at Wem @ 1300 hours. An hourly Crewe to Cardiff will need six diagrams you could certainly bolster a number of peak ones with other 2 car sets or share the diagrams with 175's.

 

[gareth950]

I don't see 4tph being possible even to Treherbert/Aberdare/Merthyr/Rhymney unless none of the proposed new routes happen because 4tph from each of those four Heads Of The Valleys alone would use the entire 16tph capacity between Cardiff Queen Street and Cardiff Central.

There is also the option of running extra services non-stop via the City line, which is a much underused extra route from the Valleys direct into Cardiff Central. It would also be quicker than services between Radyr to Queen St. Timetables would have to be redrawn to delete any lay over time at Radyr. Only possible of course if heavy rail is kept.

The hundreds of millions that was just spent on CASR and upgrading the signalling between Central and Queen St to enable 16tph to run (+1 freight path), building P8 at Central, linking up P4 at Central to the Valleys etc, is why the Welsh Govt now wants to rip it all up and put trams in place instead. Go figure.

 

[HH]

Don't Network Rail ignore any proposals which don't deliver at least £2.50 of benefit for every £1 spent, unless politicians force them to deliver the proposal e.g. Borders railway?

Not sure what their current numbers are, but certainly a lot higher than £1 + a smidgeon...

 

[HH]

I saw enough internally when I worked for Welsh Government to know decisions are not made based on rational statistical analysis. Teddy coming out the Ministers pram was not unheard off.....

Trust me, it happens at Westminster too, especially when marginal seats are at stake...

 

[Gareth Marston]

Would it stretch to four-tracking Cardiff-Bridgend and installing OHLE?

When I was talking about some INTERCITY on the Manchesters, what I was suggesting was to pick out a few diagrams to provide first class and a buffet on two or three services each way, and leave the rest of the Manchester services in the hands of 175s, 158s or similar.

The logic is that, if you are trying to speed up the Manchesters, there is an hourly Cardiff-Crewe/Chester/Shrewsbury service and, in my suggestion, a Cardiff-Hereford stopper to provide Abergavenny with a 2tph service without needing the Manchester services to call.

I didn't think that 4tph aim applied to the outer routes of the Metro (Maesteg/Ebbw/Chepstow/Abergavenny), only the services through Cardiff Queen Street. Even with everything calling, Abergavenny would only get 3tph (one to Manchester (non-stop from Newport to Abergavenny), the all-stations to Hereford and a semi-fast (calling at all the current stops, but not Caerleon if it happens) to Shrewsbury/Wrexham/Chester/Crewe).

I don't see 4tph being possible even to Treherbert/Aberdare/Merthyr/Rhymney unless none of the proposed new routes happen because 4tph from each of those four Heads Of The Valleys alone would use the entire 16tph capacity between Cardiff Queen Street and Cardiff Central.

My preference is for a totally clean stopping pattern with consistent levels of services across the day not chop and change. The diagramming will get in a tangle and you lose clockface departures which is what the public prefer.

Abergavenny is too important a stop to miss out and you'll sever a long standing direct link to Shropshire and the North West - i think you need to do your homework on where people are traveling to/from.

Regional Express Plus 1 tph
Manchester Piccadilly- Stockport-Wilmslow-Crewe-Nantwich-Whitchurch-Shrewsbury-Ludlow-Leominster-Hereford-Abergavenny-Cwmbran-Newport-Cardiff.

Regional 1 tp 2h
Crewe-Nantwich- Wrenbury-Whitchurch-Prees-Wem-Yorton-Shrewsbury-Church Stretton-Craven Arms-Ludlow-Leominster-Hereford-Abergavenny-Pontypool & New Inn-Cwmbran-Caerleon-Newport- Cardiff.

Regional 1 tp 2h
Crewe-Nantwich- Wrenbury-Whitchurch-Prees-Wem-Yorton-Shrewsbury-Church Stretton-Craven Arms-(Heart of Wales to Llandrindod Wells plus 4 a day further south)

Regional 1 tp 2h
Hereford-Abergavenny-Pontypool & New Inn-Cwmbran-Caerleon-Newport- Cardiff.

Metro 1 or 2 tph
Abergavenny-Pontypool & New Inn-Cwmbran-Caerleon-Newport-(possibly new stations as well) Cardiff.

 

[Philip]

HOLYhead is another oddity...

When I was talking about some INTERCITY on the Manchesters, what I was suggesting was to pick out a few diagrams to provide first class and a buffet on two or three services each way, and leave the rest of the Manchester services in the hands of 175s, 158s or similar.

If reforming 185s into 4 and 2 coach sets is possible and isn't likely to cause future mechanical problems then surely that is the best option as you get an extra coach over 175s and 158s and a small first class section already built-in. The 185 is a more reliable train than the 175 too, which shouldn't be dismissed.

 

[Philip]

The announcements have been corrected and now say ‘Baytch’.

When ATW make additional calls at Sandbach, this is pronounced by the system as Sandback - which I presume needs correcting too.

I don’t see anything wrong with how Shrewsbury is said, other than them missing the end of sentence recording so the announcement would say “Chirk, Gobowen and ShrewsbURY...”

The FNW on-train announcer was easier on the ears, I found:

Why did they need to do a new recording with a different person voicing it?

 

[Parallel]

The FNW on-train announcer was easier on the ears, I found:

Why did they need to do a new recording with a different person voicing it?

Some of the announcements are still done by this voice, I believe the voiceover artist is of First Group origin and also featured on 180s in the past. ATW then inserted existing station name recordings by their own announcer, but also left the generic messages by the old one. When doing this, they have also managed to put all the end-of-sentence station recordings in the list, and the start-of-sentence recording at the end, so it all feels a bit disjointed.

Their 158 announcement set up is much better.

 

[6Gman]

That may be because the aisle is so narrow on a 150 (or anything else) fitted with 3+2 seating. But the vestibules of the 150 probably hold more standing passengers than the aisle of a 158, and make it easier for other people to get past them too.

Do any ATW 150s have 3+2?

 

[PHILIPE]

Do any ATW 150s have 3+2?

No. Haven't had any for years, all converted to 2+2

 

[gareth950]

No. Haven't had any for years, all converted to 2+2

So when the 769s arrive next Summer with 3+2 seating, as all of ATW's trains have 2+2 seats, I can see there being a lot of empty middle seats.

 

[northwichcat]

Are there normally standing passengers on 4 car 150s? If not I think that's very probable as the seats will outnumber the passengers.

 

[edwin_m]

Do any ATW 150s have 3+2?

No. Haven't had any for years, all converted to 2+2

The post I was quoting originally referred to a Cardiff-Portsmouth. So not an ATW 150.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So when the 769s arrive next Summer with 3+2 seating, as all of ATW's trains have 2+2 seats, I can see there being a lot of empty middle seats.

Depending which 319s are the donors, they may not have 3+2 seating. A large number of the 319s (including most of LM's) have 2+2.

 

[gareth950]

Are there normally standing passengers on 4 car 150s? If not I think that's very probable as the seats will outnumber the passengers.

Not normally on 4 car 150s on the Valleys no. But every seat (on a 4 car 150) will be taken on a peak time service

Depending which 319s are the donors, they may not have 3+2 seating. A large number of the 319s (including most of LM's) have 2+2.

I'm sure I've read in the original press release that the trains 'will keep their original 3 +2 seating', which as I said will be in stark contrast to what ATW passengers are used to. The one good thing about ATW

 

[Bletchleyite]

Though TBH I'd rather have a 319 in the all-facing 3+2 layout than one of those ATW 150s with no legroom at any seat.

A 2+2 319, particularly a Brighton Express one - luxury!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Carriage A on a 185 (the driving car without FC) has 64 seats. If carriage C retained the accessible toilet and wheelchair bay and the rest was made identical to carriage A you'd have 44 seats - so a grand total of 108 seats. That is quite a few less than the 170s - if you want as many as on the 170s you'd need to remove some tables and reduce the leg room. However, given Eversholt are apparently fitting table seat sockets to all the 185s (not just the ones TPE are keeping) that would probably leave the sockets in inaccessible places!

An PRM compliant 150 with 3+2 seating will have 124 seats.

That's just because of the very low-density layout they have now. An afternoon with a spanner and a few spare seats will solve that, there is no above-floor equipment other than the exhaust conduit which only takes the space of one row of airline seating per coach so you can do near enough any layout you like, e.g. the slightly denser 350/1 layout. Only thing you couldn't do is go 3+2 because they are too narrow (2.68m) - but who wants that?

There is no less floor space in a 185 than a Turbostar, the 2-seat exhaust conduit aside.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Regional 1 tp 2h
Crewe-Nantwich- Wrenbury-Whitchurch-Prees-Wem-Yorton-Shrewsbury-Church Stretton-Craven Arms-Ludlow-Leominster-Hereford-Abergavenny-Pontypool & New Inn-Cwmbran-Caerleon-Newport- Cardiff.

Regional 1 tp 2h
Crewe-Nantwich- Wrenbury-Whitchurch-Prees-Wem-Yorton-Shrewsbury-Church Stretton-Craven Arms-(Heart of Wales to Llandrindod Wells plus 4 a day further south)

Though there's a lot to be said for a clockface pattern, that would pretty much halve the southbound frequency from Church Stretton and Craven Arms to Ludlow and Hereford, from (roughly) hourly to 1tp2h.

 

[northwichcat]

That's just because of the very low-density layout they have now. An afternoon with a spanner and a few spare seats will solve that, there is no above-floor equipment other than the exhaust conduit which only takes the space of one row of airline seating per coach so you can do near enough any layout you like, e.g. the slightly denser 350/1 layout. Only thing you couldn't do is go 3+2 because they are too narrow (2.68m) - but who wants that?

There is no less floor space in a 185 than a Turbostar, the 2-seat exhaust conduit aside.

They're not identical trains though. The amount of passenger space between the two sets of doors is greater on a 185, while the amount of passenger space between the cab and the doors is greater on a 170 so you can't just do the same layout on both trains. I'm not sure if the cabs are exactly the same size and the doors are exactly the same width but if not the difference is greater.

 

[Rhydgaled]

There is also the option of running extra services non-stop via the City line, which is a much underused extra route from the Valleys direct into Cardiff Central. It would also be quicker than services between Radyr to Queen St. Timetables would have to be redrawn to delete any lay over time at Radyr. Only possible of course if heavy rail is kept.

I think sending some services via Fairwater (non-stop) as you suggest might just get you the 4tph to Rhymney, Merthyr Tydfil, Aberdare and Treherbert as long as you never want any more branches than the metro map shows (assuming that 16tph applies to the whole ValleyLines network, or at least every part that needs it). It might, for example, be possible to do the following:

• 4tph Rhymney - Barry Island (via Queen Street)
  
• 4tph Treherbert - Penarth (via Queen Street)
• 2tph Merthyr Tydfil - Bridgend (via Queen Street and Barry)
• 2tph Merthyr Tydfil - Chepstow (via Fairwater, non-stop between Radyr and Cardiff Central, continuing to Cheltenham Spa once per hour)
• 2tph Aberdare - Hirwaun (via Queen Street and Fairwater, non-stop between Radyr and Cardiff Central on the via Fairwater leg) which makes 4tph between Radyr and Aberdare
• 1tph Blackwood - Radyr (all-stops via Cardiff Queen Street and Fairwater)
• 1tph Treharris - Radyr (all-stops via Cardiff Queen Street and Fairwater)
• 2tph Cardiff Gate - Llantrisant/Pontyclun (all-stops via Cardiff Queen Street and Fairwater)

That uses all 16tph between Central and Queen Street. It also has 10tph out of Cardiff towards Barry/Penarth and 8tph between Cardiff Central and Fairwater (the latter is probably close to the limit given that the Hirwaun and Merthyr services would be non-stop over that section and catching up with the stoppers). That means if additional branches (such as one to Brecon) are added in later phases of the metro additional capacity in central Cardiff would be needed or (in the case of my Brecon example) 2tph would need to be diverted to run to Brecon instead of Merthyr Tydfil, leaving Merthyr with only 2tph.

The hundreds of millions that was just spent on CASR and upgrading the signalling between Central and Queen St to enable 16tph to run (+1 freight path), building P8 at Central, linking up P4 at Central to the Valleys etc, is why the Welsh Govt now wants to rip it all up and put trams in place instead. Go figure.

They need the trams as well. Note that Coryton is absent from my list above, that line needs its own seperate route from Heath to Cardiff. It cannot share tracks with the 4tph service from the heads of the valleys; there simply isn't the capacity for it without cutting down the frequency asperations somewhere. So, converting Heath to Coryton to a tram service and building a new on-street tram line from Heath down to Cardiff Central is the best option I feel.

My preference is for a totally clean stopping pattern with consistent levels of services across the day not chop and change. The diagramming will get in a tangle and you lose clockface departures which is what the public prefer

I wasn't suggesting the 'INTERCITY' Manchesters have a different calling pattern, just different stock (with first class and a buffet) on specially selected diagrams.

Abergavenny is too important a stop to miss out and you'll sever a long standing direct link to Shropshire and the North West - i think you need to do your homework on where people are traveling to/from.

How do you tell where pepole are going? How important are through trains to Cardiff from Wrexham, for example? I know from this forum that the current 0.5tph Wrexham-Birmingham is vital and must be retained, but should Wrexham's other southbound services just terminate at Shrewsbury?

Taking your comment about Abergavenny on board, my suggestion for Crewe-Shrewsbury and the marches line south of Shrewsbury would be:

1. 1tph Manchester, Stockport, Wilmslow, Crewe, Shrewsbury, Ludlow, Leominster, Hereford, Abergavenny, Newport, Cardiff, Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway, Neath, Swansea - Regional Express rolling stock, possibly with Intercity rolling stock on some diagrams
   
2. 1tph Hereford-Cardiff all stations (depending on what fits, this could run through to Maesteg or Swansea to avoid turnback at a very busy Cardiff Central) - Outer Suburban rolling stock
   
3. 1tph Shrewsbury, Church Stretton, Craven Arms, Ludlow, Leominster, Hereford, Abergavenny, Pontypool & New Inn, Cwmbran, Newport, Cardiff Central.
4. 0.5tph Crewe, Nantwich, Whitchurch, Wem, Shrewsbury
   
5. 0.5tph Crewe, Nantwich, Wrenbury, Whitchurch, Prees, Wem, Yorton, Shrewsbury
6. 4 trains per day Shrewsbury-Swansea (via HOWL) all-stops (plus some additional short workings from Shrewsbury to Knighton/Knucklas/Llandrindod) with Regional rolling stock (eg. class 156)
   
7. 4 trains per day Shrewsbury, Church Stretton, Craven Arms, Knighton, Llandrindod, Builth Road, Llanwrtyd, Llandovery, Llandeilo, Ammanford, Pontarddulais, Llanelli*, Gowerton, Swansea with Regional rolling stock (eg. class 156)
8. 3 intercity trains per day Holyhead, Bangor, Llandudno Junction, Rhyl, Fflint, Chester, Wrexham General, Shrewsbury, Newport, Cardiff (with the TOC given the option of adding a call at Hereford if they think it would improve patronage without the train running out of seats).

Services 4 and 5 above could operate through to/from Cardiff as an extension of service 3, but I think it would be better if they could be operated by the West Midlands franchise (as an extension of their Birmingham-Shrewsburys) or by Northern (ideally running through to Manchester). If service 3 doesn't run through to Crewe, it could go to Wrexham (and perhaps from there on to Chester or even Liverpool), but if it does that then I feel it might need regional/regional-express type stock rather than the outer-suburban units (185s or 170s) that could operate it otherwise.

* Ideally I would like to see the HOWL rerouted via Gorseinon, in which case that stop would replace Llanelli

 

[Philip]

Services 4 and 5 above could operate through to/from Cardiff as an extension of service 3, but I think it would be better if they could be operated by the West Midlands franchise (as an extension of their Birmingham-Shrewsburys) or by Northern (ideally running through to Manchester). If service 3 doesn't run through to Crewe, it could go to Wrexham (and perhaps from there on to Chester or even Liverpool), but if it does that then I feel it might need regional/regional-express type stop rather than the outer-suburban units (185s or 170s) that could operate it otherwise.

175s for the above-mentioned services and leave the 185s for the Manchester-South Wales .

I've used 185s regularly over the years, both for short hops and longer journeys. The good thing about them is that they work well both for short hops (commuter) and for longer 'regional express'/'inter-urban' services, which pretty much sums up the Manchester-Cardiff route. I did journeys like Lancaster to Manchester and Sheffield to Manchester even when they were new with supposedly hard seating and I found the journey pleasant and could have stayed on longer without a problem. The seats have good lateral support, good legroom and with a good seat-window alignment. They have carpets and reasonable lighting. The only weakness from a passenger perspective which I can see is that they're not long enough, but like I say if they can be reformed into 2 and 4-coach then that would be sufficient for this route.

I just can't see how you can say that they're not suitable for passengers making 'regional express' journeys when they've performed well and scored high in passenger ratings doing exactly this for the last 10 years or so?

 

[Bletchleyite]

just can't see how you can say that they're not suitable for passengers making 'regional express' journeys when they've performed well and scored high in passenger ratings doing exactly this for the last 10 years or so?

Exactly. The only problem with them on TPE is that they are two coaches too short and a bit overpowered, and have an odd layout (which is fixable by moving 1st to the cab end at the other end of the train). Other than that I can't think of any significant criticism unless you suffer from door position prejudice, which really shouldn't influence people as much as it does. (I still think the level of overall passenger comfort on the GWR Class 387 is noticeably better than the 800, regardless of where the doors might happen to be).

 

[daodao]

They need the trams as well. Note that Coryton is absent from my list above, that line needs its own seperate route from Heath to Cardiff. It cannot share tracks with the 4tph service from the heads of the valleys; there simply isn't the capacity for it without cutting down the frequency asperations somewhere. So, converting Heath to Coryton to a tram service and building a new on-street tram line from Heath down to Cardiff Central is the best option I feel.

The suggestion to build a street tramway from Heath to central Cardiff is daft. The Coryton service requires a fast non-stop run from Heath Halt LL to Queen St, to make up for the crawl through North Cardiff stopping at 6 stations in just over 2 miles. I lived in north Cardiff very close to Whitchurch station for over 20 years and travelled on this line many times.

 

[gareth950]

The suggestion to build a street tramway from Heath to central Cardiff is daft. The Coryton service requires a fast non-stop run from Heath Halt LL to Queen St, to make up for the crawl through North Cardiff stopping at 6 stations in just over 2 miles. I lived in north Cardiff very close to Whitchurch station for over 20 years and travelled on this line many times.

I agree, but there also needs to be a rapid transit link from Central Cardiff to Heath Hospital somehow.

The 4tph can easily be achieved now. 4tph to Bargoed happens already. Just extend these to Rhymney with any necessary doubling beyond Bargoed.
So the extra 4tph left from CASR can go to Treherbert / Aberdare / Merthyr with 2 trains going via the City Line. It's not complicated.
Any extra lines in the Valleys, apart from possibly an extension to Hirwaun, I doubt would be heavy rail. More likely Bus Rapid Transit links with HR stations.

 

[Envoy]

Surely, what its needed is a shuttle bus service between Heath Halt and Heath Hospital along with the provision of a hard paved footpath connecting these two points with the shortest possible route? An add on fee of say 50p return could be added to the train ticket to provide the bus link. Why are the Welsh Government/ Transport for Wales not organising this now along with a similar bus link from Cogan station to Llandough Hospital? It seems to me that the only organisation showing any initiative is NAT Buses who have pioneered new cross city routes which Cardiff Bus are now copying to some extent having previously been all for people changing in the city centre.

The whole Heath area is swamped with cars during the working week as poorly paid hospital staff dump their cars wherever it is free to park. A rail link from Coryton to either Radyr (for a circle line) or Taffs Well would provide a vital link with the Taff valley for connection to Heath Halt. Any deviating / additional stops on the fast rail route from Heath Halt to Queen Street will make the Coryton branch (& Rhymney line) less attractive to commuters.

I see that many on this forum are speculating on services and types of trains needed. Are we just talking to ourselves? Does anybody with power actually read this stuff?

Here is a map showing the Hospital and Heath Halt stations for those who are not familiar with the area. (Traffic flows on the roads have been enabled and will be live at the time you click the map).
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5102943,-3.186299,1524m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!17m1!1e1!5m1!1e1

 

[edwin_m]

I see that many on this forum are speculating on services and types of trains needed. Are we just talking to ourselves? Does anybody with power actually read this stuff?

Having been involved in many of the projects discussed on the forum, I'd say people do read it to see if there is any inside information or occasionally a useful suggestion. But most often anything suggested here was thought about a long time previously by the project concerned and discarded for a good reason (usually related to cost).

In regard to Cardiff Valleys, the bid deadline is only a few weeks away and the bidders will already have made all the major decisions on service patterns and rolling stock. So I'm afraid if you expect to influence these, you will be disappointed.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I see that many on this forum are speculating on services and types of trains needed. Are we just talking to ourselves? Does anybody with power actually read this stuff?

The decisions on the services/trains will likely already have been taken, either in the (secret) ITT or in the bids going in in 4 weeks' time.
The debate in WG will all be about the subsidy required and how to extract the biggest contribution from Westminster to pay for it.
WG may simply appoint a "partner" to develop the franchise/metro spec and solution on its terms (ie not much further forward than now).
I still think we may get something more like a "frame agreement" or "road map" than a hard and fast service specification covering 15 years.
This is a much more political process than letting a "simple" DfT franchise.
There is still no DfT endorsement of the WG plans. We'll have to see if today's Budget sheds any light on this.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Why the hell are we talking about 4tph when on a Sunday we essentially have 0.5tph? Surely increasing that to an actual decent service would be a quick easy win for the new franchise?