GWR special non-stop Oxford to Paddington

Nicholas43 said:

I confirm that we switched to electric at Moreton (as 80x coming from Oxford normally do). My impression was that we accelerated faster than usual. But the really knuckle-whitening bit was dashing through Reading.

Click to expand...

Probably because it seemed so strange to do so. I assume that speed limits were adhered to.

HowardGWR said:

Probably because it seemed so strange to do so. I assume that speed limits were adhered to.

Click to expand...

95 through both platforms at Reading, commencing at the flyover, and Kennet Bridge respectively, if I remember correctly!
Not a very common thing to happen; if the through ML platforms could be closed off (9 and 10), then the full 125 could be permitted through there!
I believe it was a safety case that stopped it from being so.

HowardGWR said:

No I hadn't forgotten those things and there also is the opportunity to work on the train, as pointed out by the other poster and then there is price. I would think that nobody commutes ('nine to five' jobs) with private transport into central London, from anywhere, except perhaps chauffeur-driven big cheeses with underground car-parks at their offices, but I think leisure travellers, at least half of pax I believe, could have a different set of issues to deal with in making a choice. I think that the GWR commercial consideration is that neither Worcester, nor Oxford, even together, could generate enough traffic to justify frequent non-stoppers. It's almost a captive market for commuting, except on price, (see competing coach services from Oxford), whereas from Bristol, GWR obviously think that such will be justified all through the day from December. OK, strictly speaking only from and to Bristol Parkway, but BRI (Temple Meads) in 80 minutes with the one stop is not shabby. I presume that GWR has judged that such just knocks any competition into a cocked hat and it still has its 'slow' service (!) via Bath to provide connections at Reading. The Badminton route is a Bath and Chippenham bypass. That is not possible on the Worcester route due to the lack of paths from Didcot, as explained. So it's quantity of the available market and its competitors, that is deciding who gets these non-stop paths, I conclude, with Bristol snaffling nearly the whole lot!

Click to expand...

How on earth is anyone supposed to have extrapolated all that from your initial post, which simply commented on the rail journey time between London and Worcester - which is to say the current one, as opposed to the best timings to be seen later this year between Paddington, Oxford, Worcester and beyond - and the typical road journey time, as though this was somehow a decisive factor in people's travel choices?

Even if there were more than a couple of fast paths per hour available between Paddington and Reading, no one would ever allocate one to a Worcester service.

Despite the fervent conviction among some people in the Worcester area that it is somehow on a par as a metropolis with the likes of Birmingham, Bristol or Cardiff and thus should have trains that miss out all the annoying stops at the 'villages' along the way to Oxford, the hourly service to Worcester is only made financially viable by those stops, which provide the bulk of the route's revenue, rather than Worcester. The Cotswold Line trains are as much local and inter-regional services as they are long-distance ones.

Japan0913 said:

Will it be a first step towards realizing the following various measures in the future?

◆removal of services starting at Paddington and ending at Didcot Parkway.
◆reduction in services between Oxford and Paddington, in favour of Chiltern Railways service between London Marylebone and Oxford.
◆introduction of a service between Birmingham New Street and London Paddington.

◆increasing service frequency between Paddington and Cheltenham Spa.
◆increasing service frequency between Paddington and Hereford.

Click to expand...

Unlikely, as lots more houses are being built in Didcot, which will result in even more commuters, so there is always likely to be a need for some trains that start and end their journeys at Didcot, even if future electrification to Oxford means many Class 387 services will be extended to run there.
No
No
The London-Cheltenham service will operate hourly from December this year
No

Er, coming back on topic, here's a link to a good report on the 12 June run.
http://didcotoxfordgwr175.org/record.html

Nicholas43 said:

Er, coming back on topic, here's a link to a good report on the 12 June run.
http://didcotoxfordgwr175.org/record.html

Click to expand...

Note that it was a 5-car set, and not a 9-car - seen as 9-car sets are now commonplace on that route, I thought it was weird for GWR to run a 5-car unit. However, 4 less cars means faster journeys, wouldn't it?
Anyway, it was nice that the route for the train was set and essentially locked in place to ensure a smooth and quick journey, but the LNER (back in steam days) were heavily criticised for putting their slower passenger services in sidings and loops to allow for the "Coronation" and similar trains pass through! GWR better not start making this a regular thing!

-Peter

5 car IET are common enough on Oxf - Pad services.

FGW_DID said:

5 car IET are common enough on Oxf - Pad services.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I would have thought that GWR would have wanted the better press of a nine-car set being able to do that instead of 5 cars. I bet that Joe public would be able to tell that 4 more cars than a 5 car set and 1 more car than an old HST being able to go so fast would be quite the feat.

-Peter

Isn't the power to weight ratio more or less the same for both the 5 and 9 car sets though?

Peter Mugridge said:

Isn't the power to weight ratio more or less the same for both the 5 and 9 car sets though?

Click to expand...

Fair. I just would have thought that maybe, because the public might not have cottoned on to that, it would have seemed more impressive for a 9-car set to do the run.

-Peter

Dunno if Hitachi offered a cut price for this occasion. But normally GWR pay Hitachi a lot for a day's use of a 5-car set, and a lot more for a 9. And Greta Thunberg would point out that a 9 uses lots more energy to accelerate, and somewhat more to maintain line speed.

Nicholas43 said:

Dunno if Hitachi offered a cut price for this occasion. But normally GWR pay Hitachi a lot for a day's use of a 5-car set, and a lot more for a 9. And Greta Thunberg would point out that a 9 uses lots more energy to accelerate, and somewhat more to maintain line speed.

Click to expand...

The train was worked by a Class 802 - GWR do not pay Hitachi for the use of these sets, just for maintenance, as the 802s are nothing to do with the IEP contract.