Most suitable rolling stock?

[whole diary]

[Rhydgaled]

Arriva Trains Wales has the use of a number of different classes of rolling stock, however I'm not sure this is always used where it is most suitable. For example, class 150 units have several sets of fast opening double doors, allowing large numbers of passengers or short station dwell times but since they open directlly into the seating area let in lots of cold air in winter. Yet 150s are now used on the daytime Fishguard working, which is a fairly long-distance service with very few stops. The number of each class of rolling stock in the fleet is obviously limited, but if we assume for a moment it wasn't, where should each class be used? Also for consideration is where to run trains to/from, to help keep stock where it is most suitable, for example 150s running through from Maesteg to Ebbw Vale (and from there on to Newport) and re-alocating trains between Cardiff and Cheltenham to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) allowing them to run through further into England (which might help avoid turnback issues in Cardiff) and use 158s on the route (which I think has a 90mph linespeed). It might be a little difficult to restrict disscusion to South Wales, but I'll try if/when I get around to adding more of my opinions.

[JayMac]

Not an area I have any particular knowledge of unfortunately. We have a few members from South Wales who may have a better idea of the stock issues faced by ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) in south and west Wales.

So I'll just stick to welcoming you to the Coffee Shop, Rhydgaled. 

[matt473]

I think the obvious answer is that thanks to the 158s being Machynlleth based and the 175s Chester based, 1502, 153s and pacers can realistically carry out most workings in South Wales so that they can easily return to Canton. As nice as it would be to see more suitable stock on longer services, the diagrams don't always allow for this. Maybe running a few Manchester services to Fishguard instead of Milford Haven however may be a suitable way of providing better stock for ferry passangers. On other services though, let's just be greatful there are stock to run services thanks to Dft cock ups meaning some ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) units are with FGW^▸ (First Great Western) who themselves are short of units

[inspector_blakey]

Welcome to the Coffeeshop!

With family living in west Wales within striking distance of Whitland, I've used the Fishguard service (as well as the other west Wales service to/from Pembroke Dock and Milford) fairly regularly for the last few years.

Haven't caught the Fishguard train for a while, although I have noticed that ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) does seem to be increasingly standardizing stock allocations. Having said that over the last few years I think I've travelled on almost any possible unit type on a Fishguard service: 143, 150, 153, 158 (most recently) and a few years back a 37 hauling mark 2s. Verily, thems were the days!

It's not so many years ago that the Fishguard trains were operated by First Great Western using HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) that ran to and from Paddington. I think it was the SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) who decided to truncate the HST portion of the service back to Swansea and run a unit from Cardiff to Fishguard, probably a decision that's entirely justified in terms of the limited passenger revenue that route generates for much of the year. As far as I'm aware there are no particular operational issues with turning the unit back at Cardiff.

In terms of passenger capacity for mush of the year a two-car unit is entirely sufficient, although I think it's supposed to be a 4-car during the summer holidays to cater for the increased Irish traffic? Granted a 150 isn't ideal, mainly on the grounds of having very limited luggage space which isn't hugely helpful on a train where lots of the punters are lugging heavy bags on holiday with them - a 158 or even a pair of 153s would be better given the increased luggage space these have (especially huge in the 153 given the large lockers that were used for carrying Red Star Parcels by the Provincial sector of BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) before that traffic ceased).

However, I think you need to look at the Fishguard service in the context of a "contractual obligation". Frankly it's an oddball service with funny traffic patterns running at odd times of day, and I'm sure if they could ATW would love to be rid of it. Set against that background I don't see them putting huge efforts into making it attractive for passengers, instead they'll probably just try to do the bare minimum to fulfil their franchise obligation and run the train as cheaply as possible. I do remember reading mutterings a few months back about the possibility of an enhanced Fishguard service. I suspect whether or not this comes to pass will depend on the Welsh Assembly Government: ATW's stock response to any request for service enhancements is to dust off the begging bowl, beetle down to Cardiff Bay and say "give us another wad more subsidy and we might consider it".

[Rhydgaled]

I think the obvious answer is that thanks to the 158s being Machynlleth based and the 175s Chester based.

Having recently come back from a trip to north Wales via the Cambrian lines I have to ask is all maintenance of the Arriva 158 fleet really done in that single 2 track depot at Machynlleth? Also if/when they finally get ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) working isn't only part of the fleet being ERTMS fitted? if so would the non-ERTMS 158s then be based elsewhere, or would they be dragged to Machynlleth by the Network Rail 37s whenever they need servicing?

Haven't caught the Fishguard train for a while, although I have noticed that ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) does seem to be increasingly standardizing stock allocations. Having said that over the last few years I think I've travelled on almost any possible unit type on a Fishguard service: 143, 150, 153, 158 (most recently) and a few years back a 37 hauling mark 2s. Verily, thems were the days!

How long ago was the 158? I remember the ATW website had a picture of one of the loco-hauled trains which had in the caption that the Fishguard working is now booked for a 158 but whenever I've seen it a single 150 is all it is.

It's not so many years ago that the Fishguard trains were operated by First Great Western using HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) that ran to and from Paddington. I think it was the SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) who decided to back to Swanstruncate the HST portion of the service ea and run a unit from Cardiff to Fishguard, probably a decision that's entirely justified in terms of the limited passenger revenue that route generates for much of the year. As far as I'm aware there are no particular operational issues with turning the unit back at Cardiff.

I agree an Intercity isn't justified without trains at the Rosslare end actually connecting with the ferries, and even if they did then aviation would probablly have to be made much more expensive to fill an IC125. The point about turning the unit back at Cardiff was more pointed to the (in my opinon wasteful) use of 158s on the Maesteg line, as turn-rounds either being too long or too short is a reason I've read for the Cheltenham Spa service (where I think a 158 MIGHT be the most suitable stock) extending through to Maesteg.

Granted a 150 isn't ideal, mainly on the grounds of having very limited luggage space which isn't hugely helpful on a train where lots of the punters are lugging heavy bags on holiday with them - a 158 or even a pair of 153s would be better given the increased luggage space these have (especially huge in the 153 given the large lockers that were used for carrying Red Star Parcels by the Provincial sector of BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) before that traffic ceased).

I was thinking 158 or 153s as well, but due to them having the correct door arrangment for a low volume, limitted stop, service rather than lugauge space (somthing I know next to nothing about), but that's a good reason too.

However, I think you need to look at the Fishguard service in the context of a "contractual obligation". Frankly it's an oddball service with funny traffic patterns running at odd times of day, and I'm sure if they could ATW would love to be rid of it. Set against that background I don't see them putting huge efforts into making it attractive for passengers, instead they'll probably just try to do the bare minimum to fulfil their franchise obligation and run the train as cheaply as possible. I do remember reading mutterings a few months back about the possibility of an enhanced Fishguard service. I suspect whether or not this comes to pass will depend on the Welsh Assembly Government".

Certainly it all comes down to the WAG^» (Welsh Assembly Government - about), there's supposedlly a good business case for the extra services and before the spending cuts jumped to the front of the agenda I was told the answer to whether the WAG would provide funding was not if but when. Also the idea of this thread is to look at routes like this where the ideal rolling stock is not in use (or routes like the Maesteg line where the wrong stock is) and say what we think is the most suitable stock, not to worry about the finite number of trains of each type or the unlikelyhood of getting funding for it (although ideas on getting round these problems would be welcome also).

Another example, not exactly south Wales though, is the Cardiff - Nottingham service. I've hardly even seen this train but I think it is a 170 Turbostar? Anyway my brother had reason to use it and when he came back (by car) informed me that 'the doors where in the wrong place'. When I've thought about it I've always wondered why a 100mph express unit was ever built with commuter style double doors into the seating area (the 3rd rail Electrostars and Desiros down south are of course actually being used on commuter routes, and being electric can more easilly accelerate to higher speeds between frequent stops).

[willc]

I've always wondered why a 100mph express unit was ever built with commuter style double doors into the seating area

The Turbostar/Electrostar was designed by Bombardier as a universal, go-anywhere, do-anything post-privatisation train, which could be fittted with all sorts of interiors for various roles and do 100mph for longer-distance work into the bargain.

At peak times, especially around Birmingham, those 1/3, 2/3 doors are a godsend. Same applies to the 185s in West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. The dwell times of 158s (same goes for HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) on Paddington commuter workings) can be interminable as people struggle in and out of the coaches through end doors.

I'm not saying it's ideal, vestibule doors to reduce noise and minimise the loss of warmth at every stop in the winter would be nice, but I'm afraid that no-one wants to pay for those (except around first class areas, of course - they're not allowed to be chilled every five minutes). Same comment applies to the 185s and the Turbostar's forerunners, FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s 165/166 fleet.

[matt473]

I'm not 100% but I "think" most heavy maintenance of the 158s is still carried out Canton which is why they venture down that way. However most day to day things are done at Machynlleth so there is little reason operational wise for the 158s to leave their intended area. Whether it's right is another argument entirely though

[welshman]

It seems a bit more random than that.  I recently spent a Saturday afternoon on a cricket field at Gowerton just to the west of Swansea and saw 143,150,153,158,175 and HST^▸ (High Speed Train) during the course of my visit.   An afternoon at Maesteg revealed a 175 for every 2 158s.