• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Do GWR 800/802s decouple in service and should sets be extended to 9 cars?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Facing Back

Member
Joined
21 May 2019
Messages
900
Do Bristol, Plymouth etc get many 5 coach trains to London? Reading here it seemed like they got either 9 or 10 coach trains.

Are we saying here that if a 10 coach train splits at Oxford or Plymouth that the 5 coach train which travels onwards is generally overfull and therefore there should be more capacity? Or are we saying that the splitting/joining is problematic and causes regular delays?

I'm sure this is all covered but I'm forgetting some of the detail in earlier posts.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Joined
20 Nov 2019
Messages
693
Location
Merthyr Tydfil
Why? Again, post a list of services where GWR are scheduling 5 car trains that are insufficient for the numbers travelling to any of the destinations you have listed.

You can't just run 9-car trains to places because they present a better image. That is just wasteful.

You do realise that train carriages are incredibly expensive to make and operate?

Do you object to LNER running 5-car IETs to Lincoln?

Don't patronise me, of course I know carriages are expensive to make. Maybe I am just stuck in the glory days of HSTs when everything was 8 coaches and everything was simpler.

And no, I don't object to LNER running five coach trains to Lincoln. The new two hourly service didn't exist not long ago, so it's great they're getting these new trains.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,538
Don't patronise me, of course I know carriages are expensive to make. Maybe I am just stuck in the glory days of HSTs when everything was 8 coaches and everything was simpler.

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause offence.

It is just that there is very little evidence being offered to support the claims being made in this thread and recognition that the fact there are so many 5-car trains is a sunk cost rather than necessarily an ongoing one.

As you say Lincoln is a new service and seems to be coping with 5-car operation. Some of the GWR services are similar.
 
Joined
20 Nov 2019
Messages
693
Location
Merthyr Tydfil
Sorry, I didn't mean to cause offence.

It is just that there is very little evidence being offered to support the claims being made in this thread and recognition that the fact there are so many 5-car trains is a sunk cost rather than necessarily an ongoing one.

As you say Lincoln is a new service and seems to be coping with 5-car operation. Some of the GWR services are similar.

It's OK. I just find it frustrating to see the occasional short formed services to South Wales, which to be fair have gotten much less common in the past year.

I'm optimistic GWR will sort these things out before long. Short formed trains do seem less common than they were initially, and these coupling issues can be solved with some good maintenance (I'd assume anyway, I'm no engineer). Once they're sorted out, I'll have no problem with them splitting and dividing frequently.

I'm pretty sure we can all agree that an 800 is a big improvement over turbos on the cotswold line, five or ten coaches!
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
Don't patronise me, of course I know carriages are expensive to make. Maybe I am just stuck in the glory days of HSTs when everything was 8 coaches and everything was simpler.

And no, I don't object to LNER running five coach trains to Lincoln. The new two hourly service didn't exist not long ago, so it's great they're getting these new trains.

Whilst there was some simplicity with the HST's being used all the time on services beyond where they were really needed, there's plenty of services where there were fewer than every other seat occupied where a 5 coach 80x would be more than adequate (bearing in mind that for most HST's they hold circa 60% of the passengers).

The use of the Exeter Semi Fast services will provide the extra capacity between London and Exeter, which is where much of the extra capacity is needed. Even if it's from a few people getting to Taunton a little before than of they left on a later train (as that extra 5-15 minutes made the difference between getting there on time or late).

From my experience is generally the case that the train is very busy to Exeter and then generally gets quieter the further south and west you go from there.

Very rarely have I not had a pair of seats to myself West of Plymouth when heading west on the late night services (even though there's often no seats available at Reading).

Now whilst there's often, on the middle of the day on a Sunday services, few seats on the return leg through Cornwall. This is often true from places East of Truro, rather than the whole way.

Again these services are likely to benefit from the Castle Fleet providing extra capacity for local travel. Now whilst this is likely to lead to extra growth, that extra growth is likely to then justify extra rolling stock in the future (i.e. the next franchise).
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
Whilst there was some simplicity with the HST's being used all the time on services beyond where they were really needed, there's plenty of services where there were fewer than every other seat occupied where a 5 coach 80x would be more than adequate (bearing in mind that for most HST's they hold circa 60% of the passengers).

The use of the Exeter Semi Fast services will provide the extra capacity between London and Exeter, which is where much of the extra capacity is needed. Even if it's from a few people getting to Taunton a little before than of they left on a later train (as that extra 5-15 minutes made the difference between getting there on time or late).

From my experience is generally the case that the train is very busy to Exeter and then generally gets quieter the further south and west you go from there.

Very rarely have I not had a pair of seats to myself West of Plymouth when heading west on the late night services (even though there's often no seats available at Reading).

Now whilst there's often, on the middle of the day on a Sunday services, few seats on the return leg through Cornwall. This is often true from places East of Truro, rather than the whole way.

Again these services are likely to benefit from the Castle Fleet providing extra capacity for local travel. Now whilst this is likely to lead to extra growth, that extra growth is likely to then justify extra rolling stock in the future (i.e. the next franchise).

I agree, I've been on trains towards Plymouth that have been half empty as 8 car HSTs, even east of Exeter (0903 PAD - PLY in particular)
Although the weekend/bank holiday services tend to be very busy all the way to Penzance
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,094
Location
Reading
They have the same powerplant as the Voyagers and 185s, which are notoriously thirsty. Those engines are 15-20 years older than the IEP generator engines and so are naturally going to be less efficient.
Are they 'notoriously thirsty' in fact? Or is this another platform end myth?

Any engine which develops 750bhp will, when at full chat, consume approximately twice as much fuel in a given time than a 350bhp engine. The parameter of interest is the engine's specific fuel consumption — pounds (of fuel consumed) per bhp-hr (in old money). Regardless of who designed and built the engine, for any given technology — 2 stroke or 4-stroke, individual fuel pumps or common rail, mechanical or electronic governors — there is no great spread in the measured values of specific fuel consumption between prime movers in the same power bracket.

Even if the 950bhp MTU engine under the Class 80X were to be slightly more efficient in its combustion processes than the Cummins engine then at full power it will still use more fuel in a given length of time than the 750bhp Cummins as it is more powerful. In fact with all the exhaust treatment that is now necessary —catalysts, Adblue and all that — the MTU unit may well be less efficient in terms of specific fuel consumption than the older Cummins which has none of that complication.
 

Master29

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
1,967
Do Bristol, Plymouth etc get many 5 coach trains to London? Reading here it seemed like they got either 9 or 10 coach trains.

Are we saying here that if a 10 coach train splits at Oxford or Plymouth that the 5 coach train which travels onwards is generally overfull and therefore there should be more capacity? Or are we saying that the splitting/joining is problematic and causes regular delays?

I'm sure this is all covered but I'm forgetting some of the detail in earlier posts.
Plymouth has plenty of 9 car IET's but at the moment there is only one 9 car timetabled to Penzance and that is only on occasions like Boardmasters etc. The rest of the time Cornwall has no 9 car services at all which is part of the problem. There are more frequent services between Plymouth and Penzance which will help but become problematic when punters opt for the faster services i.e. IET's (Sorry, couldn't resist that one) simply because they are faster to Plymouth.

I personally do not disagree with splitting units at Plymouth given there are many half empty services into Cornwall throughout the days but when visitor numbers start to pick up much earlier than many members seem to think (this could be from February onwards) this may create issues, although hopefully not this early.
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,252
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
It's meant to expire this year in April I believe, but back in 2019 there was rumor of another extension until 2022. (It felt really weird typing that)

Interrupting the great Cotswold Line showdown for a moment, The franchise is currently waiting on the awarding of DA 3 (The third Direct Award - which may, or may not finally see a refurbishment of the Turbo fleet at last). Announcement is imminent, however given the confusion and stumbling of the DfT it could be anytime between this week and the end of March.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
Are they 'notoriously thirsty' in fact? Or is this another platform end myth?

Any engine which develops 750bhp will, when at full chat, consume approximately twice as much fuel in a given time than a 350bhp engine. The parameter of interest is the engine's specific fuel consumption — pounds (of fuel consumed) per bhp-hr (in old money). Regardless of who designed and built the engine, for any given technology — 2 stroke or 4-stroke, individual fuel pumps or common rail, mechanical or electronic governors — there is no great spread in the measured values of specific fuel consumption between prime movers in the same power bracket.

Even if the 950bhp MTU engine under the Class 80X were to be slightly more efficient in its combustion processes than the Cummins engine then at full power it will still use more fuel in a given length of time than the 750bhp Cummins as it is more powerful. In fact with all the exhaust treatment that is now necessary —catalysts, Adblue and all that — the MTU unit may well be less efficient in terms of specific fuel consumption than the older Cummins which has none of that complication.
SFC isn't the only measure that matters though. Meridians, Voyagers and 185s have pretty good performance for diesel units. But this comes at the cost of likely higher fuel consumption per passenger-mile, even though their SFC may be better than that of Sprinter generation BR units.

This being said, I would be very surprised if 80x's had a worse SFC than Voyagers et al, seeing as the QSK19 was already a pretty old design when it was put on the Voyagers, let alone a few years later on the 185s. The MTU generator on 80x's is a pretty modern design by comparison - probably more than 30 years newer fundamentally.

Even with the urea injection and other modern emission reduction technologies that new powerplants have to include nowadays, they are still considerably better than before. C.f. the strides made in car efficiency.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
SFC isn't the only measure that matters though. Meridians, Voyagers and 185s have pretty good performance for diesel units. But this comes at the cost of likely higher fuel consumption per passenger-mile, even though their SFC may be better than that of Sprinter generation BR units.

This being said, I would be very surprised if 80x's had a worse SFC than Voyagers et al, seeing as the QSK19 was already a pretty old design when it was put on the Voyagers, let alone a few years later on the 185s. The MTU generator on 80x's is a pretty modern design by comparison - probably more than 30 years newer fundamentally.

Even with the urea injection and other modern emission reduction technologies that new powerplants have to include nowadays, they are still considerably better than before. C.f. the strides made in car efficiency.
Exactly an updated Cummins K series launched in 1973 but refreshed to be come the Quantum Series K (QSK) vs a 2009 launched MTU design - 36 years.

Having said that the MTU1800 (ex 183) has been kicking around since 1968 but still powers most M-B HGV tractor units produced today. The Cummins NT(A) series dating from 1967 under the sprinters and Perkins 2006 originating from the R-R diesel C series launched in 1951.
 

initiation

Member
Joined
10 Nov 2014
Messages
432
Just waiting to leave Bristol Temple Meads on a stopper IET heading to Taunton.. First time I can recall them trying to detach... But they can't as no driver present for rear half.

Is it normal to require a driver in both halves on other train types that split?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
Just waiting to leave Bristol Temple Meads on a stopper IET heading to Taunton.. First time I can recall them trying to detach... But they can't as no driver present for rear half.

Is it normal to require a driver in both halves on other train types that split?

It's certainly true of the SWR/SWT services I've seen doing it.
 

devonexpress

Member
Joined
8 Jul 2016
Messages
279
Just waiting to leave Bristol Temple Meads on a stopper IET heading to Taunton.. First time I can recall them trying to detach... But they can't as no driver present for rear half.

Is it normal to require a driver in both halves on other train types that split?
I think someone has to be in the cab to apply the brakes in case of an emergency etc, Often happened with 153s decouples from 150/158s on Paignton to Cardiff services.
 

w1bbl3

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2011
Messages
325
Exactly an updated Cummins K series launched in 1973 but refreshed to be come the Quantum Series K (QSK) vs a 2009 launched MTU design - 36 years.

Having said that the MTU1800 (ex 183) has been kicking around since 1968 but still powers most M-B HGV tractor units produced today. The Cummins NT(A) series dating from 1967 under the sprinters and Perkins 2006 originating from the R-R diesel C series launched in 1951.

Cummins claim a consumption of 215 g/kWh at 100% rated load whilst MTU a few years ago published a number of 196 g/kWh @660kw (885bhp). Converting these to l/h results in 215 x 560 / 1000 / 0.85 = 141l/h vs 196 x 660 / 1000 / 0.85 = 152l/h. Overall consumption of the MTU 1600 series is obviously higher whilst the BSFC remarkably similar. What MTU don't publish publicly are the values for less than 100% power unfortunately to understand how the complex power adaptation MTU have designed into the engine affects consumption.
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,094
Location
Reading
The faster one wants to travel the higher the power requirements as although the mechanical resistance rises in proportion to speed the aerodynamic resistance increases with its square.

So a train travelling at 125mph instead of 100mph will require 55% more power to overcome the additional aerodynamic resistance plus a bit more for the increase in mechanical resistance. Say 60% more power.

However, train designers know this. They even allowed for the greater mass of the Voyages, Meridians and 180s which, compared which trains of similar dimensions, demands more power for a given acceleration.

If one wants that sort of performance - that's the cost of business. If one is interested in keeping fuel consumption to a minimum then use Pacers. Light weight, no air conditioning and a maximum of 75mph.

There might not be many passengers though.
 
Joined
20 Nov 2019
Messages
693
Location
Merthyr Tydfil
I don't know if it's relevant to the conversation, but I believe the engines in Voyagers are derated to 700hp. Does that have any effect on efficiency and fuel consumption, or is it too small a difference to matter?

Either way, I'm curious as to why, as the engines in 180s, 185s and 222s remain 750hp.
 

RealTrains07

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2019
Messages
1,748
If GWR have spare 5 coach sets, they could always use them to replace the HSTs on the castle services?

(its curious really, considering GWR have managed for years without needing trains that split mid service like ECML)

For south coast services and in the case of Lincoln that need exists but I don’t see why they needed as many 5 car sets as they did considering their could have been the option for a full 10 coach set instead?? like the pendolinos on the WCML which have a high number of coaches but are not made up of two vehicles??
 
Last edited:

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
Keep dreaming jimm. IF any lengthening takes place it will be to sort out the problems on the west country route and create some longer sets , be they 9 or 7 or 8. Your beloved Cotswold line won't be going back to having 9 car trains all day long carrying round fresh air ,when a 5 car will comfortably do.

If any lengthening takes place I suspect that the first priorities will actually be to use additional nine-car sets in places where 2x5 formations spend the entire day coupled together, such as some Bristol and South Wales services, and to boost capacity on peak shoulder trains where the use of five-car trains at present may well not be sufficient if the new timetable helps to push up passenger numbers on routes where there is just an hourly service, as opposed to certain other places which already have a 2tph frequency...

And yet again you come out with your nonsense about nine-car IETs on the Cotswold Line, which was nonsense when you first came out with it - trying to give the impression to anyone not familiar with the route, and the Cheltenham route as well, lest we forget, that almost the entire Cotswold service all day was nine-car sets - and which is an even bigger bit of nonsense since the middle of December.

Carrying around air costs just the same in Cornwall as it does anywhere else.

And unlike your demands as to what the special people living in Cornwall simply must have, whatever it costs, I have never ever demanded that everything that moves on the Cotswold Line should be a nine-car IET, because I live in the real world, and know that carting around air would be a colossal waste of money, day after day. A five-car train will do the job very nicely thank you, except for the morning peak flow towards Oxford, Reading and London, and the late afternoon and early evening peak flow in the other direction - which is of course when GWR does diagram nine-car sets on the line, along with the busiest times of the weekend.

Maybe you could try to remember all that boring factual information the next time that you are tempted to repeat your tired old line.

This whole argument has sprung up because of the DfTs incompetence, out of interest, does anyone know what GWR management wanted the IETs to be? I remember someone said that some of them wanted them all to be 9 cars, which would make sense.

That was another zinger from one of irishrail's very very senior unnamed mystery sources, whose views seem to magically align with irishrail's views. I'm sure someone, somewhere at GWR thinks life would be so much simpler if all 93 IETs were nine-car sets, but it would not be simpler when it came to trying to balance the books of the business, never mind make any premium payments to the Government - which are the kind of things that the DfT and Treasury are interested in.

That I agree with. Call me old fashioned but the fact that places like Cardiff, Bristol, Plymouth, Oxford, Worcester etc get five coach trains to London is ludicrous.

Why is it ludicrous, when for quiet parts of the day and week there is no need for more than five coaches to Oxford or up the Cotswold Line? Do you really think that the route between London and Bristol could generate enough passengers in off-peak periods to justify providing more than 2,500 seats per hour across four trains both ways? There are already more than 1,900 seats available in the hours when two nine-car or 2x5s operate via Bath, along with 2 five-cars on the limited-stop services via Bristol Parkway.
Plymouth does not get five-coach trains on London services unless something has gone wrong.
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
Do you really think that the route between London and Bristol could generate enough passengers in off-peak periods to justify providing more than 2,500 seats per hour across four trains both ways?

Whilst I agree that it's currently unlikely, there could come a point when passenger growth had been enough to justify that number of coaches.

That time may not actually be that far away. If we assume 9+5+9+5 coach trains then the extra growth required to go from them being fairly busy to all 9 coach trains being fairly busy could be about 42% growth (assuming 75% full across each train). That's 15 years of 2.5% growth, or 12 years of 3% growth.

Given that'll likely be a few years before the next franchise (or whatever is happening at that point in time, but I'll use franchise as shorthand for that until we know otherwise) it could well be something that the franchise after deals with.

Depending on loading factors it may not be all 9 coaches, bit it's fairly likely that it could be 3 of the 4 services are 9 coaches long.

Especially given that if you increase the frequency of services you make trains much more attractive, and so even the possibility of a 5th service (through an open access service) although may provide extra capacity that extra capacity may well be more than used up by the extra growth generated from the increased service.

Whilst the 80x's do provide an uplift in capacity from the HST's is only 18% and so you don't need many years of growth to wipe that out.
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
(its curious really, considering GWR have managed for years without needing trains that split mid service like ECML)

Causation Fallacy.

GWR have been stuck running longer trains then necessary for large parts of the day by having a fleet of broadly fixed-formation DEMUs run the vast majority of their long distance/high speed services since the 1970s. Historically, prior to this in the days of true loco & coaches operations portion working was the widespread norm; not just on West of England services but across BR(W) and its predecessors.
 
Joined
20 Nov 2019
Messages
693
Location
Merthyr Tydfil
If any lengthening takes place I suspect that the first priorities will actually be to use additional nine-car sets in places where 2x5 formations spend the entire day coupled together, such as some Bristol and South Wales services, and to boost capacity on peak shoulder trains where the use of five-car trains at present may well not be sufficient if the new timetable helps to push up passenger numbers on routes where there is just an hourly service, as opposed to certain other places which already have a 2tph frequency...

And yet again you come out with your nonsense about nine-car IETs on the Cotswold Line, which was nonsense when you first came out with it - trying to give the impression to anyone not familiar with the route, and the Cheltenham route as well, lest we forget, that almost the entire Cotswold service all day was nine-car sets - and which is an even bigger bit of nonsense since the middle of December.

Carrying around air costs just the same in Cornwall as it does anywhere else.

And unlike your demands as to what the special people living in Cornwall simply must have, whatever it costs, I have never ever demanded that everything that moves on the Cotswold Line should be a nine-car IET, because I live in the real world, and know that carting around air would be a colossal waste of money, day after day. A five-car train will do the job very nicely thank you, except for the morning peak flow towards Oxford, Reading and London, and the late afternoon and early evening peak flow in the other direction - which is of course when GWR does diagram nine-car sets on the line, along with the busiest times of the weekend.

Maybe you could try to remember all that boring factual information the next time that you are tempted to repeat your tired old line.



That was another zinger from one of irishrail's very very senior unnamed mystery sources, whose views seem to magically align with irishrail's views. I'm sure someone, somewhere at GWR thinks life would be so much simpler if all 93 IETs were nine-car sets, but it would not be simpler when it came to trying to balance the books of the business, never mind make any premium payments to the Government - which are the kind of things that the DfT and Treasury are interested in.



Why is it ludicrous, when for quiet parts of the day and week there is no need for more than five coaches to Oxford or up the Cotswold Line? Do you really think that the route between London and Bristol could generate enough passengers in off-peak periods to justify providing more than 2,500 seats per hour across four trains both ways? There are already more than 1,900 seats available in the hours when two nine-car or 2x5s operate via Bath, along with 2 five-cars on the limited-stop services via Bristol Parkway.
Plymouth does not get five-coach trains on London services unless something has gone wrong.

Alright I get the point, I've already heard the explanations. As I said previously, I've probably just grown too used to the HST's.

When I first heard five car units were being ordered, I was scared that the Great Western expresses were all gonna be short formed and it would be just as bad as XC running four coach trains on long distance intercity services. Bear in mind I was only 12 or 13 at that time, so if that view seems absurd and exaggerated, it's because it probably is. Nevertheless it's sort of stuck with me over the years, and I still greet the news of TOCS such as EMR ordering five coach trains for intercity trains with skepticism. If they end up working for the better then that's great, I'm sure I'll get used to it in time. As I touched on in a previous post, I struggle to remember the last time I saw a short formed service from Paddington to Cardiff or Bristol.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
Alright I get the point, I've already heard the explanations. As I said previously, I've probably just grown too used to the HST's.

When I first heard five car units were being ordered, I was scared that the Great Western expresses were all gonna be short formed and it would be just as bad as XC running four coach trains on long distance intercity services. Bear in mind I was only 12 or 13 at that time, so if that view seems absurd and exaggerated, it's because it probably is. Nevertheless it's sort of stuck with me over the years, and I still greet the news of TOCS such as EMR ordering five coach trains for intercity trains with skepticism. If they end up working for the better then that's great, I'm sure I'll get used to it in time. As I touched on in a previous post, I struggle to remember the last time I saw a short formed service from Paddington to Cardiff or Bristol.

What you have to consider is how many 80x's there are compared to the HST's that they are replacing, when you look at that (and count up the number of 5+5 trains you can form as full length trains) then you end up with a fairly similar number (which you also have to remember that each 9/10 coach train has about 18% more capacity than the HST's) even if you add in the 180's as well.

As such you've not for the repeat of the Voyagers where there weren't a comparable amount of capacity being provided.
 

w1bbl3

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2011
Messages
325
I don't know if it's relevant to the conversation, but I believe the engines in Voyagers are derated to 700hp. Does that have any effect on efficiency and fuel consumption, or is it too small a difference to matter?

Either way, I'm curious as to why, as the engines in 180s, 185s and 222s remain 750hp.

The reduction in power should/would translate into a reduction in fuel consumption, but may not see an improvement in efficiency indeed at less 100% load the efficiency may and likely will actually reduce, this is in part dependant on what the targeted power output was at design stage.
Diesel gensets are at the most efficient when subject to a constant load, future hybridisation could see quite significant improvements in efficiency by allowing engines to operate accordingly.

The 185's have "eco-mode" when the train management system automatically shuts down one engine when the full power isn't required. The 22x design doesn't allow for selective disablement of an engine, in the event of failure the engine is left idling. Any permanent reduction in power will be function of how closely matched the power output is to the schedule requirements, Voyagers could keep to the scheduled WC and XC timetables with the output reduced down to 700hp hence the operators choosing to take such a reduction as it would have also reduced fuel consumption and probably increased the maintenance interval.

Modern after treatment techniques make this somewhat more complex as the lower load may have disproportionate affect on the amount of after-treatment needed this could see the efficiency increase considerably or decrease considerably. Without detailed numbers from the engine manufacturer it's hard to specific on what does actually happen to efficiency or fuel consumption.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
Whilst I agree that it's currently unlikely, there could come a point when passenger growth had been enough to justify that number of coaches.

That time may not actually be that far away. If we assume 9+5+9+5 coach trains then the extra growth required to go from them being fairly busy to all 9 coach trains being fairly busy could be about 42% growth (assuming 75% full across each train). That's 15 years of 2.5% growth, or 12 years of 3% growth.

Given that'll likely be a few years before the next franchise (or whatever is happening at that point in time, but I'll use franchise as shorthand for that until we know otherwise) it could well be something that the franchise after deals with.

Depending on loading factors it may not be all 9 coaches, bit it's fairly likely that it could be 3 of the 4 services are 9 coaches long.

Especially given that if you increase the frequency of services you make trains much more attractive, and so even the possibility of a 5th service (through an open access service) although may provide extra capacity that extra capacity may well be more than used up by the extra growth generated from the increased service.

Whilst the 80x's do provide an uplift in capacity from the HST's is only 18% and so you don't need many years of growth to wipe that out.

We are in the middle of going from fewer than 1,200 seats per hour each way - peak or off-peak - on two HSTs per hour on the Bristol route to the full new frequencies of 3 long trains per hour in the peaks or 2 long and 2 five-car off-peak, which will provide an almost 60% increase there already, hence why I am somewhat dubious about there being any need for that route to have yet more seats provided any time soon - never mind certain other places.

And whatever the overall figure for additional seats across the fleet, the switch to IET operation also produces plenty of additional capacity in particular places, such as the replacement of Turbo duties by IETs on workings to Bedwyn, Oxford and the Cotswold Line - a Class 166 to five-car 80x switch provides a third more seats in the cases where this has happened.

On the London-Cheltenham route, the overall number of seats may only have increased by a modest amount, but the capacity available is now far better distributed, in a service pattern likely to prove more attractive to passengers, as a result of the switch to an hourly five-car IET most of the day, instead of an HST every couple of hours.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
It must always be remembered that, in the customer's eyes, the main alternative to a five car bi-mode isn't a nine car straight electric intercity but a single car motorcar! With that in mind it has been mentioned in this thread that the philosophy to recover rail's place in the market in the 1970's was to get rid of long infrequent trains and replace them with short frequent trains. The trains are arguably getting longer again: five cars to replace three car turbo's, nine car to replace eight car HST. But the real story with the GWML route upgrade is that possible frequency continues to grow with upgrades such as electrification and the Resonate technology, as well as good old fashioned concrete infrastructure enhancements.

The Resonate enhanced Automatic Route Setting and Traffic Management in the Thames Valley ROC have greatly impressed the Modern Railways technical editor and are probably GWML 'secret sauce' going forward. There is good reason to think these systems will be even more impressive when ETCS unlocks finer grained control, as will the trains themselves since they can then go 140mph. I read that ETCS will be more reliable with the new trains than the legacy ATP signalling, especially when pairing up the onboard computers during coupling.

So the region will probably need a bit of tactical lengthening of trains going forward. But I wouldn't discount opportunities to keep ramping up capacity by running their railway more intelligently and faster.
 
Last edited:

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
The Resonate enhanced Automatic Route Setting and Traffic Management in the Thames Valley ROC have greatly impressed the Modern Railways technical editor and are probably GWML 'secret sauce' going forward. .
Resonate happens to be run by some of the tech editors friends...
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,813
Location
Plymouth
If any lengthening takes place I suspect that the first priorities will actually be to use additional nine-car sets in places where 2x5 formations spend the entire day coupled together, such as some Bristol and South Wales services, and to boost capacity on peak shoulder trains where the use of five-car trains at present may well not be sufficient if the new timetable helps to push up passenger numbers on routes where there is just an hourly service, as opposed to certain other places which already have a 2tph frequency...

And yet again you come out with your nonsense about nine-car IETs on the Cotswold Line, which was nonsense when you first came out with it - trying to give the impression to anyone not familiar with the route, and the Cheltenham route as well, lest we forget, that almost the entire Cotswold service all day was nine-car sets - and which is an even bigger bit of nonsense since the middle of December.

Carrying around air costs just the same in Cornwall as it does anywhere else.

And unlike your demands as to what the special people living in Cornwall simply must have, whatever it costs, I have never ever demanded that everything that moves on the Cotswold Line should be a nine-car IET, because I live in the real world, and know that carting around air would be a colossal waste of money, day after day. A five-car train will do the job very nicely thank you, except for the morning peak flow towards Oxford, Reading and London, and the late afternoon and early evening peak flow in the other direction - which is of course when GWR does diagram nine-car sets on the line, along with the busiest times of the weekend.

Maybe you could try to remember all that boring factual information the next time that you are tempted to repeat your tired old line.



That was another zinger from one of irishrail's very very senior unnamed mystery sources, whose views seem to magically align with irishrail's views. I'm sure someone, somewhere at GWR thinks life would be so much simpler if all 93 IETs were nine-car sets, but it would not be simpler when it came to trying to balance the books of the business, never mind make any premium payments to the Government - which are the kind of things that the DfT and Treasury are interested in.



Why is it ludicrous, when for quiet parts of the day and week there is no need for more than five coaches to Oxford or up the Cotswold Line? Do you really think that the route between London and Bristol could generate enough passengers in off-peak periods to justify providing more than 2,500 seats per hour across four trains both ways? There are already more than 1,900 seats available in the hours when two nine-car or 2x5s operate via Bath, along with 2 five-cars on the limited-stop services via Bristol Parkway.
Plymouth does not get five-coach trains on London services unless something has gone wrong.
Oh dear, yet again jimm you are ignoring the REALITY with your so called facts.
I've just had the pleasure on a day off of travelling back from st austell to Plymouth on the 0915 ex Penzance formed of a 5 car . Absolutely totally and utterly wedged. Had a a quick chat with the driver (A Plymouth man who gets off at Plymouth and he told me the passenger count gave 410 leaving Liskeard (a 5 car set can hold 320). Bare in mind also that most people had lots of luggage, and I'm sure you can picture the scene. Heard a lot of grumbling in the carriages and people vowing never to use GWR again.
So maybe, just maybe the likes of you who constantly insist Cornwall is only busy in July and August should either actually come down here and visit, or else listen to those of us who actually live and work down here.
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,813
Location
Plymouth
It’s Christmas/New Year, not a standard off peak period
Right but This train is always like this. Secondly passenger numbers have seemed very low across the network across the past few days, and if anything it could be argued it's less busy than a standard Friday as many people haven't been at work all week so have more choice of time to travel. Sunday will likely be much busier than normal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top