The decline of GWR...

[Wilts Wanderer]

There are two problems that GWR are having to deal with in addition to the obvious;

Trains are being taken off lease - ie given to other TOCs - at a contractually agreed rate. The DfT has refused to budge on these programmes, hence the continuous rush to get new rolling stock into play, and just keep current units going that little bit longer (and yes that means they might not get washed frequently.) Having several small fleets as compared to one big relatively homogenous fleet - which GWR increasingly have during this transition period - has a proven tendency to reduce overall fleet reliability.

The head counts at GWR engineering locations have been decimated by aggressive recruitment by Hitachi. This has impacted the HST maintenance at Old Oak Common and the DMU and HST operations at St Philips Marsh. There is a shortage of depot drivers in Bristol which has been so acute at times it has not been possible to bring sets in and out of traffic during weekdays, and has resulted in cancellations.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

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?

Bristol Temple Meads electrification will not happen until Bristol East Junction has been remodelled. This is scheduled for early-mid CP6. No point in putting the wires up to then have to take them straight back down again.

 

[GodAtum]

I think the main issue facing GWR is electrification. Before it all started they were pretty useless, now they have a hug additional part to maintain it's beyond their capability.

 

[HowardGWR]

I think the main issue facing GWR is electrification. Before it all started they were pretty useless, now they have a hug additional part to maintain it's beyond their capability.

Well that's your opinion, but seeing that this thread started on the basis that the reverse was the case, before the electrification project, you seem to be on your own with that one.

 

[Jonny]

Bristol Temple Meads electrification will not happen until Bristol East Junction has been remodelled. This is scheduled for early-mid CP6. No point in putting the wires up to then have to take them straight back down again.

Taking them up only to have to take them back down soon after is considered to have been one of the major errors of the 1960s WCML electrification.

 

[bnm]

Well that's your opinion, but seeing that this thread started on the basis that the reverse was the case, before the electrification project, you seem to be on your own with that one.

He's not on his own. FGW/GWR have been on the slide since day one of the original Greater Western franchise.

 

[greaterwest]

I live on the North Downs line. My last few trips from Dorking Deepdene to Guildford and back (spread over the period December 2017 to late April 2018) have included:

1. The use of class 165s on most Gatwick Airport workings (no first class, trolley service or adequate luggage space), while at the same time using 166s on several Redhill 'slow' diagrams which are not advertised to have first class or a trolley service!

2. The complete lack of any form of shelter at Dorking Deepdene on both platforms. The shelters were removed in late 2017 and nothing has replaced them, and not a word is posted about what is happening! The last journey was in pouring rain and people were not happy.

3. Many guards' ticket machines (mobile 'phones clipped to larger devices) having run down batteries and being unable to sell tickets.

4. The external and internal information displays being faulty - many trains simply show "Great Western Railway" as their destinations. This has been going on for years with no effort to provide the required information.

5. Platform litter bin bags simply dumped on the ground instead of attached to their frames.

An absolutely disgraceful performance over a long period. My complaints to GWR as far back as December have also been unanswered, so I have now gone to the ORR to take action over their dire failures.

1. Remember that GWR have an ever dwindling supply of 166's at Reading due to them going to Bristol. I can't explain the reasoning behind a 166 vice 165 and in reverse on Redhill/Gatwick diagrams. That may just be how it comes out of the depot.

2. Dorking Deepdene's shelters were, as I remember them, rather run down, a magnet for antisocial behaviour and quite frankly, they were dangerous. I'm surprised the new TVMs at Deepdene have survived as long as they have so far.

3. This is a common issue not just on the North Downs Line.

4. This is a common issue with the TrainFX passenger information system, but seems to be especially so on board the Turbos. Perhaps bad wiring?

5. This is probably, again, due to vandalism. Do you think staff just put the bin bags there and leave them?

 

[jimm]

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.

But what should this back-up plan have been? How was someone supposed to know when they would need it? Who else was FGW supposed to ask about progress with electrification than Network Rail - You? Deepgreen?

With the way that Network Rail and the DfT kept moving the goalposts and deadlines, there would need to be a back-up plan for the back-up plan for the back-up plan, ad infinitum.

Building the cascade plans around them? It's not just a matter of the internal cascade. The departure of the 150/1s, 180s and HSTs was dictated by contracts agreed by other parties - and all approved by the DfT. You make it sound as though GWR should have just turned round and told the government where to go... I'm sure that would have worked out well.

And I've said it before, but why not yet another time - there are more drivers on GWR's books right now than ever before. Which doesn't exactly smack of lack of preparation on GWR's part - but I would love to know how you would get round losing four months of a training programme, as happened last year due to issues with the overhead between Reading and Didcot. Please do share share your back-up plan for that one with us - borrow a bit of the WCML perhaps?

 

[The Ham]

But what should this back-up plan have been? How was someone supposed to know when they would need it? Who else was FGW supposed to ask about progress with electrification than Network Rail - You? Deepgreen?

With the way that Network Rail and the DfT kept moving the goalposts and deadlines, there would need to be a back-up plan for the back-up plan for the back-up plan, ad infinitum.

Building the cascade plans around them? It's not just a matter of the internal cascade. The departure of the 180s and HSTs was dictated by contracts agreed by other parties - and all approved by the DfT. You make it sound as though GWR should have just turned round and told the government where to go... I'm sure that would have worked out well.

And I've said it before, but why not yet another time - there are more drivers on GWR's books right now than ever before. Which doesn't exactly smack of lack of preparation on GWR's part - but I would love to know how you would get round losing four months of a training programme, as happened last year due to issues with the overhead between Reading and Didcot. Please do share share your back-up plan for that one with us - borrow a bit of the WCML perhaps?

Quite, although there are times when a backup plan is a good idea there comes a point when the costs involved become silly.

For instance should GWR ordered a new fleet of DMU's on the off chance that they were needed? Should GWR have recruited and trained (say) 20 extra staff for during the training period of the introduction of the 80x's so that more staff could be trained at once, only for those staff to not have a job after about 2 years?

Personally what should have happened was that the delivery order of the 80x's should have been shuffled around so that 9 coach units could arrive earlier (less staff requirements) when it was known that staff training was going to be over a shorter timeframe. That would have helped with there being less 5+5 trains with one unit locked out of service. However that wasn't something that GWR could have insisted on, as it would have been down to the DfT to request a change to the contract (which would have cost them to do, and may not have been of much benefit depending on how far in advance the production of end/mid coaches are programmed).

 

[jimm]

I sure that in reality GWR has burned through a considerable number of back-up plans, or hastily rewritten plans, that have then gone up in smoke themselves as a result of further changes of circumstances, as a result of matters out of their hands.

Despite what some seem to suggest above, the current situation is the result of a series of events, over an extended period - there was never a point five, four, three, two, or even one year ago when all the factors involved came together, so some neat and tidy scheme could have been devised.

The 800s are the DfT's trains - not a snowball's chance in hell that the DfT would ever have allowed the TOCs to try to dictate what got built and when. And by the time the issue over training became apparent last year, Hitachi were well into the build programme for the five-car sets anyway.

I'm still not sure what kind of back-up plan anyone is supposed to devise for an assistant train manager or second train manger rostered to assist on a 2x5 formation calling in sick, or getting delayed on a previous service, so not being in the right place at the right time.

 

[jdxn]

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!

If you think that the answer to this is Crossrail you will be disappointed then! The problems on LTV on Sundays are caused by half the lines being closed. There tends to be a possession either on the main or relief lines. The fact is that slow stopping LTV services (or Crossrail) just don't work running on the same lines as IC trains from Cornwall, South Wales, or Bristol which ran fast from Reading, and Heathrow Express services.

 

[jimm]

But rather a lot of the Sunday closures of a pair of lines in the Thames Valley is due to work linked to Crossrail - the GW timetable was deliberately rewritten for evenings and weekends a few years back to make allowance for the impact of Crossrail-related work.

Of course there will still have to be closures for programmed maintenance in the future but once Crossrail is up and running the number of lengthy engineering possessions should be reduced.

 

[Non Multi]

I expect more disruption on the inner Thames Valley: Construction of Heathrow western access portals/lines, Old Oak Common Station construction and associated HS2 works. Crossrail station rebuilds haven't really got going at the Western end yet, may end up being completed after the December 2019 full line launch. Electrification of the Henley and Windsor branches.

On the outer end of TV there's the line to Oxford - major station rebuild and electrification from Didcot.

 

[HowardGWR]

He's not on his own. FGW/GWR have been on the slide since day one of the original Greater Western franchise.

Fair enough, but what would you pinpoint as being the chief areas where this has been so? I travel only occasionally and I can't say my experiences over the recent years have been poor, whether on a local train like the Weymouth or the inter-cities. There is a lot that has needed improving, but those matters have been so since the year dot.

 

[The Ham]

The 800s are the DfT's trains - not a snowball's chance in hell that the DfT would ever have allowed the TOCs to try to dictate what got built and when. And by the time the issue over training became apparent last year, Hitachi were well into the build programme for the five-car sets anyway.

I did hint at many of those problems in my post (chiefly it being a DfT ordered train and not a TOC ordered one).

However, IF it could have been done it may have been relatively easy to change. As I would expect that to change to a different delivery order would primaraly be the need to produce more middle coaches compared to end coaches (obviously there's more to it than that, but that's likely to be the significant item)

However, I am also mindful that even doing something like this would only have a VERY minor impact given all the problems that GWR are dealing with. However for those that think there's some magic bullet, you have to be mindful that the suggestion I made would require a lot of effort but wouldn't impact on many of the problems.

 

[HowardGWR]

Just run fewer trains?

 

[WelshBluebird]

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.

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?

If there are consistently not enough units available to run the timetable, and getting more stock isn't possible, then yes, some services should be removed from the timetable. I'd rather have a realistic and accurate timetable than one which is over ambitious and doesn't work in reality.

 

[JN114]

Just run fewer trains?

If there are consistently not enough units available to run the timetable, and getting more stock isn't possible, then yes, some services should be removed from the timetable. I'd rather have a realistic and accurate timetable than one which is over ambitious and doesn't work in reality.

And the 2nd part of my question - which services would you nominate to cancel? What is your justification for choosing those services over others?

 

[FGW_DID]

Just run fewer trains?

If there are consistently not enough units available to run the timetable, and getting more stock isn't possible, then yes, some services should be removed from the timetable. I'd rather have a realistic and accurate timetable than one which is over ambitious and doesn't work in reality.

How many fewer trains do you propose need to be cut to achieve this realistic and accurate timetable?

Out of our 30 LTV Turbo diagrams how many do you propose to cut, how many of the 41 387 diagrams? Can you imagine the reaction when somebody has their services axed and then sees rows of units parked up in the Sidings!

 

[nickswift99]

How many fewer trains do you propose need to be cut to achieve this realistic and accurate timetable?

Out of our 30 LTV Turbo diagrams how many do you propose to cut, how many of the 41 387 diagrams? Can you imagine the reaction when somebody has their services axed and then sees rows of units parked up in the Sidings!

That would be the reaction that passengers have when they are turfed off their Didcot stopper when it is unexpectedly terminated short at Reading and their 387 goes straight into the depot?

If GWR were to show how a short term cull of services would help a more rapid improvement it would have some public support.

Telling the public its all great when it’s obviously not is only going to make things worse.

 

[FGW_DID]

That would be the reaction that passengers have when they are turfed off their Didcot stopper when it is unexpectedly terminated short at Reading and their 387 goes straight into the depot?

If GWR were to show how a short term cull of services would help a more rapid improvement it would have some public support.

Telling the public its all great when it’s obviously not is only going to make things worse.

What was the reason given for the early termination? Unit failure, no driver to continue past Reading or some other issue? When was this, was this around the 18th April?

But it’s not the company proposing a short term cull of services, it’s being proposed above because of “the supposed need for extra units”. How would any of it be a rapid improvement?

 

[HowardGWR]

How many fewer trains do you propose need to be cut to achieve this realistic and accurate timetable?

Out of our 30 LTV Turbo diagrams how many do you propose to cut, how many of the 41 387 diagrams? Can you imagine the reaction when somebody has their services axed and then sees rows of units parked up in the Sidings!

That's for the GWR to work out. The service obligation for the franchise may not allow for cuts, but if the shortcomings are blameable on NR, then DfT have an obligation, ISTM, to allow a lower frequency of service and I would have thought those services that enjoy the higher frequency would be those best cut, to avoid inconvenience. The reports we are getting above from such users as Parallel indicate that the system is on the point of collapse. Perhaps Parallel is just unlucky.

 

[hassaanhc]

Telling the public its all great when it’s obviously not is only going to make things worse.

Indeed, if anything things have got worse with the amount of infrastructure problems in April, and an aggressive missing of stops to not delay HeX and their precious fasts is back (they were less extreme with missing stops for a while).

The main thing GWR promised was increased capacity in the peak. So what do they do? Last month they quietly reduce the 2R60 1759 London Paddington to Reading (a busy stopping service slap bang in the middle of the evening peak) from an 8-car 387 to a 5-car 165. No mention about it at all anywhere. If GWR were open about these things then people would be a tiny bit more understanding, but as things stand it once again shows GWR as not caring about their passengers, a reputation they've had for many many years. I did think things improved a bit once they rebranded in 2015, but since 2017 they've gone downhill again.

 

[FGW_DID]

That is such as BS cop out response. You and Welsh Bluebird proposed cut the timetable to run fewer trains to alleviate the supposed “not enough units for trains” problem. So the question still stands, how many diagrams would you cut so we can have units sat round in the Sidings spare?

 

[jimm]

I expect more disruption on the inner Thames Valley: Construction of Heathrow western access portals/lines, Old Oak Common Station construction and associated HS2 works. Crossrail station rebuilds haven't really got going at the Western end yet, may end up being completed after the December 2019 full line launch. Electrification of the Henley and Windsor branches.

On the outer end of TV there's the line to Oxford - major station rebuild and electrification from Didcot.

Almost everything you describe above can be done without any major impact on the Great Western main line, bar a junction for Heathrow western access.

Re electrification between Didcot and Oxford, almost all the piling work was completed between Didcot and Kennington Junction, at the south end of Oxford, at least three years ago. The current Oxford area resignalling work means there won't be any issues with hidden cables lurking lineside when piling is done the rest of the way to the station. And a station rebuild is still unfunded, so could be a long way off anyway.

 

[matt_world2004]

If gwr have a shortage of units why did they enter into a contract to use some of those units on the heathrow express.

 

[Domh245]

If gwr have a shortage of units why did they enter into a contract to use some of those units on the heathrow express.

Because they'll have a unit surplus once they take over the heathrow express operation as a result of Crossrail taking over a lot of Thames Valley services.

 

[Non Multi]

Almost everything you describe above can be done without any major impact on the Great Western main line, bar a junction for Heathrow western access.

My point is that there is going to be localised disruption, usually during late evenings, weekends/bank holidays until all these projects are fully completed. The GWML is going to remain a building site in places for years to come.

 

[matt_world2004]

Because they'll have a unit surplus once they take over the heathrow express operation as a result of Crossrail taking over a lot of Thames Valley services.

They are taking over heathrow express quite a bit before mtr take over the thames valley services.

 

[Domh245]

They are taking over heathrow express quite a bit before mtr take over the thames valley services.

No they aren't? The move from 332s to 387s is supposed to take place in December 2019, which is at the same time as Crossrail reaches Reading, so at best they occur simultaneously. However, some units will be freed up this month when TfL rail take over Heathrow Connect and the Hayes & Harlington services, and why the 769s being procured for GWR will also be used on Thames Valley services temporarily to release a few more units for conversion work...