The decline of GWR...

[Parallel]

Commute update:

21/04
07:44 Trowbridge to Bath Spa - On time
18:07 Bath Spa - Trowbridge - 4L (166, six carriages with everyone rammed in the front three, failed aircon)
--
23/04
08:00 Trowbridge to Bath Spa 6L (3-car vice 5, overcrowded; passengers from Bradford and Freshford unable to board)
17:06 Bath Spa to Trowbridge 22L (Rammed, unable to board)
17:24 Bath Spa to Trowbridge 17L

24/04
08:00 Trowbridge to Bath 3L
17:24 Bath to Trowbridge On time (Train later cancelled between Westbury and Warminster due to an issue with train crew)

25/04
08:00 Trowbridge to Bath On time
17:06 Bath to Trowbridge 16L (Overcrowded, unable to board)
17:24 Bath to Trowbridge 21L

26/04
08:00 Trowbridge to Bath 2L
18:07 Bath to Trowbridge 6L

27/04
08:00 Trowbridge to Bath 6L
16:35 Bath to Trowbridge 59L (managed to catch this one as it was so delayed!)

The 08:00 is shortformed most of the time, I just stopped making notes on it.
Granted, not all the delays were down to GWR but this is all part of the overall 'GWR experience'. There were more trains that I intended to catch that were 20+L than on time!

 

[CC 72100]

If the train in the evening is late then it is little surprise that it's overcrowded; because when the 1649 Bristol - Weymouth is 15 late, it's then running in the path of the 1706 Bristol - Warminster, so will be picking up all the people waiting for the 1706.

Then if the 1706 is about 15 late, it picks up people who were intending on catching the 1722.

That's how potentially non-GWR created delays can turn into what appears to be GWR-created overcrowding.

 

[Deepgreen]

Wouldn't the lack of station shelter from the rain be down to network rail? Certainly a potential canopy would be, not GWR.

Nothing to do with NR - the station is 'owned' and managed by GWR, with facilities provided by them. They removed the bus shelter-type structures in late 2017 and nothing has replaced them, and no information has been provided by GWR about the situation whatsoever. The photo shows the situation (same on both platforms), with no information about what has happened to the shelters, or any plans for their replacement - just a blank. This has been the situation since before Christmas 2017!

 

[Deepgreen]

Surely the use of 165 doesn't affect the provision of a Trolley. I've been on a few 165s with a trolley on fast Oxford diagrams.
The 166 allocation does seem a bit weird, I've seen 166s on the Henley Branch, when 2 car 165s are used on Oxford fasts...

Well, a guard I spoke to said that 165s "don't carry trollies", so, as a passenger, that's what I was expected to believe. Either way, they've not been carrying trollies on the Gatwick runs in my experiences. They would have great trouble moving through the aisles packed with luggage anyway.

 

[Deepgreen]

Nothing positive ever, ever seems to happen when you come into contact with the railway.

Glass half empty?

I would be delighted to see the situation improve significantly to only "half empty".

 

[embers25]

Commute update:

21/04
07:44 Trowbridge to Bath Spa - On time
18:07 Bath Spa - Trowbridge - 4L (166, six carriages with everyone rammed in the front three, failed aircon)
--
23/04
08:00 Trowbridge to Bath Spa 6L (3-car vice 5, overcrowded; passengers from Bradford and Freshford unable to board)
17:06 Bath Spa to Trowbridge 22L (Rammed, unable to board)
17:24 Bath Spa to Trowbridge 17L

24/04
08:00 Trowbridge to Bath 3L
17:24 Bath to Trowbridge On time (Train later cancelled between Westbury and Warminster due to an issue with train crew)

25/04
08:00 Trowbridge to Bath On time
17:06 Bath to Trowbridge 16L (Overcrowded, unable to board)
17:24 Bath to Trowbridge 21L

26/04
08:00 Trowbridge to Bath 2L
18:07 Bath to Trowbridge 6L

27/04
08:00 Trowbridge to Bath 6L
16:35 Bath to Trowbridge 59L (managed to catch this one as it was so delayed!)

The 08:00 is shortformed most of the time, I just stopped making notes on it.
Granted, not all the delays were down to GWR but this is all part of the overall 'GWR experience'. There were more trains that I intended to catch that were 20+L than on time!

08:00 was 3 vice 5 on 25/04 and was crush loaded by Bristol but everyone just got on at each station. It couldn't get a platform at Temple Meads due to the Parkway issues so was stuck outside for 10 minutes allowing the IEP behind it from Bath to arrive first, much to my annoyance.

 

[Deepgreen]

I have said this before, but for around a year now we have had the reason given for a lot of this as "more trains in for repair than usual". But it has been a year. That IS now usual surely?

Quite. In the six years that I have been using (and sporadically complaining to!) FGW/GWR, their standard acknowledgement has always been; "we are dealing with a larger number of customer queries than usual at present...". As you say, at what point (after six years) does this number become 'usual'?!

 

[Samuel88]

I live halfway between West Drayton and Uxbridge and to be honest I prefer taking the tube over GWR into London even though it takes an extra half hour simply because I know the tube will get me to where I need to be on time!
GWR's Thames valley services are absolutely appalling especially on a Sunday and in fact, if I need to go to Slough I'll most often take a bus to the Bath Road and jump on a bus to Slough from there. The sooner Crossrail comes,the better!

 

[w1bbl3]

View attachment 46068
Nothing to do with NR - the station is 'owned' and managed by GWR, with facilities provided by them. They removed the bus shelter-type structures in late 2017 and nothing has replaced them, and no information has been provided by GWR about the situation whatsoever. The photo shows the situation (same on both platforms), with no information about what has happened to the shelters, or any plans for their replacement - just a blank. This has been the situation since before Christmas 2017!

The last info on the shelters was pending approval from NR. The works involve replacement of the timber supports. Taking a random guess at the hold up the shelter probably GWR's responsibility but the timbers being part of the platform NR's...

https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/149031/Dorking-STP-Poster-November-2017.pdf

 

[Deepgreen]

The last info on the shelters was pending approval from NR. The works involve replacement of the timber supports. Taking a random guess at the hold up the shelter probably GWR's responsibility but the timbers being part of the platform NR's...

https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/149031/Dorking-STP-Poster-November-2017.pdf

Thanks for the information. However, for the whole winter there has been no shelter at all and, just as bad, no information at all on site from GWR (or NR) - how hard can it be to post notices at the station about the issue? Not at all, is the answer, but GWR's woeful information provision history is consistent with this latest mess. Sounds like another disparate railway project that leaves the passengers, literally, out in the cold again.

As a slight aside, will Dorking Deepdene's platforms require slight lengthening to accommodate class 769s from next year? The platforms are nominally four car length now, but it may be tight. DD must be one of the most basic stations to serve a significant town (one of three there in fact) on any UK route, having facilities more akin to those of a halt than a station!

 

[FenMan]

Thanks for the information. However, for the whole winter there has been no shelter at all and, just as bad, no information at all on site from GWR (or NR) - how hard can it be to post notices at the station about the issue? Not at all, is the answer, but GWR's woeful information provision history is consistent with this latest mess. Sounds like another disparate railway project that leaves the passengers, literally, out in the cold again.

As a slight aside, will Dorking Deepdene's platforms require slight lengthening to accommodate class 769s from next year? The platforms are nominally four car length now, but it may be tight. DD must be one of the most basic stations to serve a significant town (one of three there in fact) on any UK route, having facilities more akin to those of a halt than a station!

The provision of facilities on the NDL are more down to accidents of history rather than today's demand. Crowthorne still has a functioning ticket office in the morning peak, but on the wrong side of the station for the peak flow, while the morning peak flow from the rather busier Blackwater is catered for by a TVM that is completely open to the elements i.e. it doesn't have a shelter frame. Astonishingly, it is invariably out of order during wet or frosty weather!

 

[The Ham]

The provision of facilities on the NDL are more down to accidents of history rather than today's demand. Crowthorne still has a functioning ticket office in the morning peak, but on the wrong side of the station for the peak flow, while the morning peak flow from the rather busier Blackwater is catered for by a TVM that is completely open to the elements i.e. it doesn't have a shelter frame. Astonishingly, it is invariably out of order during wet or frosty weather!

Likewise the calling patterns of the services, compare the passenger numbers of North Camp and Blackwater (2 tph) Vs Farnborough North (1 tph).

Which is 0.395 million/0.526 million Vs 0.657 million. The reason is due to a change in the estimated use of the Farnborough stations.

 

[FenMan]

Likewise the calling patterns of the services, compare the passenger numbers of North Camp and Blackwater (2 tph) Vs Farnborough North (1 tph).

Which is 0.395 million/0.526 million Vs 0.657 million. The reason is due to a change in the estimated use of the Farnborough stations.

I am highly suspicious of the numbers at Farnbough North. Yes it's busy with students in the AM and PM peaks, but that's about it, while Blackwater is very busy with Reading commuters during the peaks and does well off peak too. A friend of mine who has just started commuting from Farnborough North to Reading says the morning trains are full and standing after leaving Blackwater.

 

[SwindonBert]

There was mayhem on Saturday, 11:14 from Swindon to Gloucester was cancelled, this was an HST, only for all to be put on the 12:14, a 3 coach local train along with the people who turned up for that train. Normally this would have been ok, but with Gloucester v Bath in the rugby that day it was 'cosy' on the later train. Added to this, none of the lavatories worked on the train.

 

[Deepgreen]

There was mayhem on Saturday, 11:14 from Swindon to Gloucester was cancelled, this was an HST, only for all to be put on the 12:14, a 3 coach local train along with the people who turned up for that train. Normally this would have been ok, but with Gloucester v Bath in the rugby that day it was 'cosy' on the later train. Added to this, none of the lavatories worked on the train.

I think FGW/GWR/DfT's stock planning has been atrocious - they are juggling too little and too badly-maintained (not aimed at the over-stretched maintainers) stock around, when the stock requirements should have been planned properly years ago by FGW, DfT et al. Now we have a very poor situation with not only no capacity for reasonable failure coverage, but not even enough for the advertised service!

 

[FGW_DID]

I think FGW/GWR/DfT's stock planning has been atrocious - they are juggling too little and too badly-maintained (not aimed at the over-stretched maintainers) stock around, when the stock requirements should have been planned properly years ago by FGW, DfT et al. Now we have a very poor situation with not only no capacity for reasonable failure coverage, but not even enough for the advertised service!

See post #107

 

[WelshBluebird]

Really, how do you work that one out? Do you really think Train Planning plan more diagrams than the company has trains?

Today's figures:

HSS: 37 sets for 35 diagrams
LTV: DMU 30 for 30 / EMU 41 for 41
West: 65 for 64

Certainly looks like there are enough trains for the planned diagrams! Plus those figures don't take into account the trains stopped for maintenance.

The only shortfall for today is 27 IET available for 28 diagrams and that is down to Hitachi / Agility West. Yesterday was 28 for 28 but there were a few 5v10 due to traincrew issues.

So then why are so many cancellations and delays being blamed on the lack of stock?

 

[The Ham]

I am highly suspicious of the numbers at Farnbough North. Yes it's busy with students in the AM and PM peaks, but that's about it, while Blackwater is very busy with Reading commuters during the peaks and does well off peak too. A friend of mine who has just started commuting from Farnborough North to Reading says the morning trains are full and standing after leaving Blackwater.

Although I agree that there's a LOT of students who alter the total by quite a lot, and Blackwater is a busy station which does justify the 2tph it gets, I'm not sure that keeping Farnborough North as 1tph is all that good.

Also, there's possibly an element of people using Blackwater/North Camp off peak rather than Farnborough North due to the lower level of service that it receives. Probably not a significant amount, but certainly there will be some especially with those who are getting taken to/picked up from a station for leisure purposes (such as going to an Airport).

 

[FGW_DID]

Perhaps “lack of stock” actually means, “there are more trains out of service and unavailable than there should be” and not “there aren’t enough trains to go round in the first place” theory that a number of people are more than happy to subscribe to!

 

[WelshBluebird]

Perhaps “lack of stock” actually means, “there are more trains out of service and unavailable than there should be” and not “there aren’t enough trains to go round in the first place” theory that a number of people are more than happy to subscribe to!

Which effectively is the same thing is it not?
There have been "more trains out of service and unavailable than there should be" for around a year now.
Certainly looks like there are not enough trains to go around to me!

 

[FGW_DID]

Which effectively is the same thing is it not?
There have been "more trains out of service and unavailable than there should be" for around a year now.
Certainly looks like there are not enough trains to go around to me!

The end result may be the same but it’s not as you and others have alluded to that there are more scheduled diagrams than there are the total amount of trains.

Just to take the LTV fleet for example, there are 38 Turbos for 30 diagrams and 45 387s for 41 diagrams. Oh look, more trains than diagrams, how is that “not enough trains to go around”?

All it takes, on any given day, is to have those ‘extra’ trains stopped & unavailable due to scheduled maintenance i.e exams, component changes etc (you do realise trains have to have those?) and then for a train to be brought out of traffic for any of the myriad reasons (engine failure, ADD activation, vandalism, operational incident, coupling/uncoupling issues, safety system unserviceable etc etc) and straight away you are short in traffic - “more trains out of service and unavailable than there should be.”

 

[WelshBluebird]

The end result may be the same but it’s not as you and others have alluded to that there are more scheduled diagrams than there are the total amount of trains.

Just to take the LTV fleet for example, there are 38 Turbos for 30 diagrams and 45 387s for 41 diagrams. Oh look, more trains than diagrams, how is that “not enough trains to go around”?

All it takes, on any given day, is to have those ‘extra’ trains stopped & unavailable due to scheduled maintenance i.e exams, component changes etc (you do realise trains have to have those?) and then for a train to be brought out of traffic for any of the myriad reasons (engine failure, ADD activation, vandalism, operational incident, coupling/uncoupling issues, safety system unserviceable etc etc) and straight away you are short in traffic - “more trains out of service and unavailable than there should be.”

As I said, we have had "more trains out of service and unavailable than there should be" pretty much every day for a year now. Even if GWR have x more than what they should technically need for their diagrams, it is pretty damn clear that whatever x is, it is not enough. If this was a one of blip of a few months, I would agree with you. But this is a long term issue now. One that surely cannot just be explained by "operational incidents" or "vandalism".

To use a different, but still railway based, example, if I know that it should take me 15 minutes to drive to my local station, but in reality it ended up taking me 20 minutes so I based my timing on it taking 20 minutes, but over the last year it has taken me 25 minutes pretty much every day, then it is clear that neither 15 minutes or 20 minutes is enough time anymore. Same with GWR. Historic data of how many units were needed do not matter. Services are being cancelled or short formed left, right and center because of units being available - thus they do not have enough units to run the timetable.

You are saying that, for example, LTV have 38 Turbos for 30 diagrams. On average, in the last say year, how many of those 38 have actually been available? That is what GWR should be looking at.

Now I don't know the numbers for LTV, but for certainly the Bristol local services, I'm willing to bet the average number that have been available is either less than the number of units needed for diagrams, or if not, only just over it (leaving no room for actual issues that then will crop up).

I accept that it is a different case than if they literally had less units than diagrams, but that wasn't quite what I was trying to imply (looking back at my post, granted I did word it badly).

 

[FGW_DID]

As I said, we have had "more trains out of service and unavailable than there should be" pretty much every day for a year now. Even if GWR have x more than what they should technically need for their diagrams, it is pretty damn clear that whatever x is, it is not enough. If this was a one of blip of a few months, I would agree with you. But this is a long term issue now. One that surely cannot just be explained by "operational incidents" or "vandalism".

To use a different, but still railway based, example, if I know that it should take me 15 minutes to drive to my local station, but in reality it ended up taking me 20 minutes, but over the last year it has taken me 25 minutes pretty much every day, then it is clear that neither minutes or 25 minutes is enough time anymore. Same with GWR. Historic data of how many units were needed do not matter. Services are being cancelled or short formed left, right and center because of units being available - thus they do not have enough units to run the timetable.

You are saying that, for example, LTV have 38 Turbos for 30 diagrams. On average, in the last say year, how many of those 38 have actually been available? That is what GWR should be looking at.

Now I don't know the numbers for LTV, but for certainly the Bristol local services, I'm willing to bet the average number that have been available is either less than the number of units needed for diagrams, or if not, only just over it (leaving no room for actual issues that then will crop up).

I accept that it is a different case than if they literally had less units than diagrams, but that wasn't quite what I was trying to imply (looking back at my post, granted I did word it badly).

Ok, so in LTV land just how many extra units should we have to cover the 30 & 41 diagrams respectively. 10, 15, 20? Don’t get me wrong it would be lovely to have a large pool of extra’s standing around ready to go should something go pop!

To use your driving to the station example, would you buy, pay to maintain and have an extra 10 cars outside your house, just in case yours broke down one day?

What matters is that there are 30 Turbos and 41 387s available for the start of Service and I would say that on average we achieve that far more times than we don’t and when we don’t it’s usually because something has gone pop at the last minute.

 

[JN114]

But where are these extra spare trains going to come from?

They’re already in the process of procuring a larger fleet (as a whole), so the only option remaining would be to cut services and reduce the number of units required. Would you care to nominate and justify which services should be cancelled to achieve greater unit availability?

 

[Deepgreen]

But where are these extra spare trains going to come from?

They’re already in the process of procuring a larger fleet (as a whole), so the only option remaining would be to cut services and reduce the number of units required. Would you care to nominate and justify which services should be cancelled to achieve greater unit availability?

This takes me back to my point about the lack of planning previously (five+ years ago) such that the current debacle could have been avoided. The current situation is that:
1. According to GWR's own messages, there is not enough serviceable stock to cover the timetable,
2. From observation over several months, the stock that IS available is being rostered very poorly - hence the reversal of the correct allocations on the North Downs line that I mentioned in post 117.

 

[jimm]

This takes me back to my point about the lack of planning previously (five+ years ago) such that the current debacle could have been avoided. The current situation is that:
1. According to GWR's own messages, there is not enough serviceable stock to cover the timetable,
2. From observation over several months, the stock that IS available is being rostered very poorly - hence the reversal of the correct allocations on the North Downs line that I mentioned in post 117.

Five years ago, and more recently than that as well, as far as Network Rail was concerned, all was going just swimmingly with the electrification project and there would be emus to Oxford and Newbury from December 2016, with IETs entering service in the following spring.

So how exactly was GWR supposed to plan in 2013 for what has subsequently happened after the electrification schedule got torn up?

How was GWR meant to plan five years ago for not being told by Network Rail until well into last year that it could not start staff training on IETs last May - and that in the end training would not actually start until September? And delayed introduction of new rolling stock and delayed cascades of Turbos to Bristol, etc.

All resulting in them trying to play catch-up with training for crews and depot staff ever since. Oh, and keep the service running as well.

 

[fgwrich]

Five years ago, and more recently than that as well, as far as Network Rail was concerned, all was going just swimmingly with the electrification project and there would be emus to Oxford and Newbury from December 2016, with IETs entering service in the following spring.

So how exactly was GWR supposed to plan in 2013 for what has subsequently happened after the electrification schedule got torn up?

How was GWR meant to plan five years ago for not being told by Network Rail until well into last year that it could not start staff training on IETs last May - and that in the end training would not actually start until September? And delayed introduction of new rolling stock and delayed cascades of Turbos to Bristol, etc.

All resulting in them trying to play catch-up with training for crews and depot staff ever since. Oh, and keep the service running as well.

That is true but, and the but is this. Surely there should have been a back up plan created in case something went wrong. And that's whats happened. Placing your eggs in one basket rather comes to mind with far too much faith placed in Network Rail at the time - and subsequently building the cascade plans around them. I could see at the time it was being far too optimistic and unfortunately those chickens have come home to roost.

Incidentally another infrastructure failure today on the GWML causing GWR to play catch up for part of this morning. During my commute today I also had some interesting conversations with the crews of both HST and IET sets. The designs of the IET sets are still providing crews with regular headaches including a recent spell of technical faults causing no hot drinks to be available for a number of days due to faults with the boilers. All in all, with more 5 car sets vice 10 (10 car sets running but only 5 in use due to staffing issues) and technical faults (which even happened on my train with the catering boilers tripping out) the introduction of the IETs isn't helping to place GWR in a good light. Of course some of the faults can be traced back to Hitachi, but perhaps it almost needs First to do a Stagecoach* and admit that they are not perfect and that there are issues which need attention.

*I'm referring to the time when Stagecoach went rather public with their unhappiness and reliability of the Juniper fleet from Alstom.

 

[fgwrich]

Something else I've rather also noticed of late is that Train Presentation seems to be failing again - all of the units I used over the weekend from the West Fleet looked rather like they haven't seen a washing plant for a while. In fact 150001 seems to be so appallingly caked that the silver doors has turned a bronze colour with the windows almost un-seeable out of. It just adds to a overworked, under cared for impression - and rather goes against the effect GWR are going for the with the green livery.

 

[Deepgreen]

Five years ago, and more recently than that as well, as far as Network Rail was concerned, all was going just swimmingly with the electrification project and there would be emus to Oxford and Newbury from December 2016, with IETs entering service in the following spring.

So how exactly was GWR supposed to plan in 2013 for what has subsequently happened after the electrification schedule got torn up?

How was GWR meant to plan five years ago for not being told by Network Rail until well into last year that it could not start staff training on IETs last May - and that in the end training would not actually start until September? And delayed introduction of new rolling stock and delayed cascades of Turbos to Bristol, etc.

All resulting in them trying to play catch-up with training for crews and depot staff ever since. Oh, and keep the service running as well.

As I mentioned previously, it required, and requires, a joined-up approach by DfT, rather than looking at planning in such a disparate manner. To assume, for example, that electrification and its attendant stock implications will go to plan is very risky and leaves no room for change. The divisions between DfT, NR and TOCs are far too prohibitive to permit strategic efficiency.

 

[pt_mad]

Regarding electrification, a poster somewhere I think on this thread said its only been deferred to Bristol Temple Meads temporarily and isn't cancelled. I think they said the preparation works between Parkway and Filton/Temple Meads are underway. Again wiki says between Parkway and Temple Meads is deferred indefinitely.

Indefinitely sounds to me like it may never happen.

Wikipedia says it's deferred indefinitely due to costs. Doesn't sound very likely to me it will happen anytime soon from that.

What's everyone else think?