GWR Dec 19 timetable

irish_rail said:

You don't seem to get it jimm for the umpteenth time I am not calling for every Penzance train to be 9 car all day.
I AM however saying running pairs of 5s that don't even split is inefficient and wasteful.
I am also saying that the coupling and uncoupling at Plymouth is shambolic. As someone who is actually doing it day in day out I think I have a better idea on how it is going than you.
And if there are no short forms today, then congratulations, GWR have finally provided for the first time since mid December a day with no short forms on the Plymouth route. Lets hope it's not the last time either.....

Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the point in the summer both the 09.04 and 13.04 divide at Plymouth to run additional portions on into Cornwall. That is why in the winter you will see the 13.04 running around as a 10 car that doesn’t split, not wasteful just a timetable that has seasonal variations.

These two trains being extended to Cornwall in summer has happened for many years now.

HamworthyGoods said:

You seem to have missed the point in the summer both the 09.04 and 13.04 divide at Plymouth to run additional portions on into Cornwall. That is why in the winter you will see the 13.04 running around as a 10 car that doesn’t split, not wasteful just a timetable that has seasonal variations.

These two trains being extended to Cornwall in summer has happened for many years now.

Click to expand...

I'm aware of that but would expect different stock diagrams in July and August anyway to reflect the increase in passenger numbers down here.

irish_rail said:

I'm aware of that but would expect different stock diagrams in July and August anyway to reflect the increase in passenger numbers down here.

Click to expand...

It’s much easier to keep the base diagrams the same all year round and just put the seasonal variations as overlays onto them.

irish_rail said:

You don't seem to get it jimm for the umpteenth time I am not calling for every Penzance train to be 9 car all day.
I AM however saying running pairs of 5s that don't even split is inefficient and wasteful.
I am also saying that the coupling and uncoupling at Plymouth is shambolic. As someone who is actually doing it day in day out I think I have a better idea on how it is going than you.
And if there are no short forms today, then congratulations, GWR have finally provided for the first time since mid December a day with no short forms on the Plymouth route. Lets hope it's not the last time either.....

Click to expand...

But you used to - and repeatedly treated us to overblown claims about all the empty 9-car IETs being used in other places that should be sent to Cornwall/the West Country instead - a game you are still playing now, the instant anyone hints that a 9-car in use somewhere else might have some empty seats at some stage of its daily diagram.

Since the DfT did not see fit to lavish 93 nine-car IETs on GWR, I'm afraid you'll just have to get used to 2x5 formations.

If the coupling and uncoupling of trains at Plymouth is "shambolic", why are the realtimetrains reports from Plymouth not showing a sea of red ink, day after day, when the London services to and from Penzance depart? As persistent late-running would be the likely outcome if things are shambolic.

Over the past week, where trains have left late, it seems mostly to be in cases where services reached Plymouth late, after late starts at Penzance or Paddington, or delays en route, not things that may, or may not, be happening in the platforms at Plymouth station.

As you are doing this "day in and day out", then it can't be that hard to come up with a detailed description/some numbers to demonstrate what is going on, can it? Just telling us that you are "better informed" doesn't help to inform the rest of us, so that we understand the situation that you claim exists.

Was yesterday actually the first day since December without a short-formed service to the West Country? Again, do you have any stats to back up that claim?

Are any services to South Wales booked a class 802 instead of a class 800 or are the 802's random as fill ins when 800's are not available for a diagram?

in the LTP, the only booked 802 workings to South Wales are a 9 car on the 1518 Pad-Cardiff & return (SX) and a 10 car on the 1118 Pad-Cardiff & return (SuO).

There may be some that appear on STP diagrams or as substitutes for cl.800. The latter will almost certainly be 9 car.

Can anyone tell they're on a 802 rather than 800 from inside the train?

Clarence Yard said:

in the LTP, the only booked 802 workings to South Wales are a 9 car on the 1518 Pad-Cardiff & return (SX) and a 10 car on the 1118 Pad-Cardiff & return (SuO).

There may be some that appear on STP diagrams or as substitutes for cl.800. The latter will almost certainly be 9 car.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the info..most helpful. Since the IET introduction, it has been quite common to see a 9 car 802 or a 10 car 802 working to/from Swansea, but with the new tinetable based on your info, it looks like they will only appear as substitutions at Swansea now.

404250 said:

Can anyone tell they're on a 802 rather than 800 from inside the train?

Click to expand...

I could yes, the braking noise on the 802 seemed louder and a bit different, not sure if thats just me or if anyone else could verify it?

Thunderer said:

I could yes, the braking noise on the 802 seemed louder and a bit different, not sure if thats just me or if anyone else could verify it?

Click to expand...

Some of the fleet have still had their dynamic braking isolated, which will result in more noise from the brake blocks as it will be 100% friction as opposed to a blend of dynamic and friction. The 800/2 fleet is pretty much identical, so that would probably account for the different noise you heard rather than it being one type against another - though I believe the 802 dynamic brake can also work in diesel mode, whereas it's electric mode only on 800s.

II said:

Some of the fleet have still had their dynamic braking isolated, which will result in more noise from the brake blocks as it will be 100% friction as opposed to a blend of dynamic and friction. The 800/2 fleet is pretty much identical, so that would probably account for the different noise you heard rather than it being one type against another - though I believe the 802 dynamic brake can also work in diesel mode, whereas it's electric mode only on 800s.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the detail there, glad its not just me and going mad ha.

Clarence Yard said:

in the LTP, the only booked 802 workings to South Wales are a 9 car on the 1518 Pad-Cardiff & return (SX) and a 10 car on the 1118 Pad-Cardiff & return (SuO).

There may be some that appear on STP diagrams or as substitutes for cl.800. The latter will almost certainly be 9 car.

Click to expand...

If I may pursue this thread about planned use of 802 9 car units, I have attempted to compile from various unofficial sources what I believe currently applies.
Since the December 2019 timetable change, by and large the service plan seems to have settled down by now, apart from the unavoidable one off disruptions/emergencies.
I can account for 5 x 9 car 802's on W of E services including forays onto the Cotswold route and adding the diagram containing the 15.18 Padd - Cdf, there are still about 8 units unaccounted for (including a maintenance requirement). Can you please enlighten me what the other services are, presumably Padd-Bristol/Oxford?

Thanks in advance for your time and help.

7001SirJames said:

If I may pursue this thread about planned use of 802 9 car units, I have attempted to compile from various unofficial sources what I believe currently applies.
Since the December 2019 timetable change, by and large the service plan seems to have settled down by now, apart from the unavoidable one off disruptions/emergencies.
I can account for 5 x 9 car 802's on W of E services including forays onto the Cotswold route and adding the diagram containing the 15.18 Padd - Cdf, there are still about 8 units unaccounted for (including a maintenance requirement). Can you please enlighten me what the other services are, presumably Padd-Bristol/Oxford?

Thanks in advance for your time and help.

Click to expand...

With the current LTP diagrams there are 12 diagrams for the 802 9 car units. They are roughly:
1. West Country
2. West Country (then after a break at North Pole) N.Cotswolds
3. Cardiff (break at NP) N.Cotswolds
4. Bristol / Cardiff / Cheltenham
5. Weston SM / Bristol / Taunton
6. N.Cotswolds / Oxfords
7. Oxfords (break at NP) N.Cotswolds
8. Maintenance diagram
9. Oxfords / Banburys with a few hours downtime at NP
10. Oxfords (Break at NP) Cheltenhams.
11. N.Cotswolds / West Country
12. West Country.

FGW_DID said:

With the current LTP diagrams there are 12 diagrams for the 802 9 car units. They are roughly:
1. West Country
2. West Country (then after a break at North Pole) N.Cotswolds
3. Cardiff (break at NP) N.Cotswolds
4. Bristol / Cardiff / Cheltenham
5. Weston SM / Bristol / Taunton
6. N.Cotswolds / Oxfords
7. Oxfords (break at NP) N.Cotswolds
8. Maintenance diagram
9. Oxfords / Banburys with a few hours downtime at NP
10. Oxfords (Break at NP) Cheltenhams.
11. N.Cotswolds / West Country
12. West Country.

Click to expand...

Many thanks, really helpful.

13.04 to Plymouth was 10 car today. It was 9 car when I used it two weeks ago. Excellent Pullman lunch both times.
I saw the 10.04 to Penzance leave Paddington yesterday and it was just 5 car.
Paignton services have to be 9 car (or I suppose 5 car).
Unfortunately the through Torquay train is now too early for Super Off Peak ticket, so I've taken to going later and having lunch.

On the 06.50 to Great Malvern out of Paddington today and the crossing of the main line just before Didcot over to the Oxford line seems to cause a lot of delay; are there any plans for a grade separation here?

None whatsoever.

Clarence Yard said:

None whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Aspirations exist - it’s been identified as the next capacity constraint needing solving alongside Didcot - Oxford 4 track. But no, no formal plans.

The 'halts' train, 2E14, 17:03 from Didcot to Moreton-In-Marsh was cancelled again at Oxford last night.

It was the same 'perfect storm' that has hit before, quite appropriate given Ciara swirling around the area:

1) 1D32, 16:20 PAD-OXF significantly delayed, leaving Reading 20 minutes late.
2) The TM for 2E14 travels from Reading on 1D32, diagramming that is asking for trouble, and 2E14 ran ahead of 1D32 from Didcot.
3) No AOM (Area Operations Manager) on duty at Oxford yesterday evening to notice the problem and act on it.
4) Nobody at Swindon Control/TVSC Didcot noticing and taking any action, as no doubt snowed under with other problems.
5) The TM either not realising, or realising and quite happy to see one of their trains cancelled. Either way, not telling anyone.
6) 2E14 occupying the platform for well over ten minutes whilst heads were no doubt being scratched, until everyone was hoofed off with 1D32 trapped behind when it could have been brought into platform 3.

The following 17:45 did make calls at all four smaller stations, though the fallout from the 2E14/1D32 situation led to it leaving Oxford 10 minutes late, and the extra stops causing a further ten minute delay between there and Kingham.

With regard to point 4, the signallers at TVSC aren't given train crew diagrams so we wouldn't know. However, now I do, I will leave a note on the Didcot and Oxford desk about it when I am next in on Friday.

Nippy said:

With regard to point 4, the signallers at TVSC aren't given train crew diagrams so we wouldn't know. However, now I do, I will leave a note on the Didcot and Oxford desk about it when I am next in on Friday.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Nippy. I know you aren't given the train crew diagrams, but did wonder whether notes may have been left (and subsequently forgotten about) when it last happened. And of course if a signaller has been bitten by it once, they would be more likely to realise next time if working the same desk.

That, and the 06:32 coupling issues in the morning, really hit Oxford hard when they go wrong. In the case of 1D32, just holding it at OD2359, rather than letting it through to OD2365, until confirmation is given that a TM is on 2E14 would make a big difference.

It's all very easily resolved by either ensuring the AOM shifts are covered at Oxford, or, better still, amending the crew diagram so the TM travels down on the previous train - it's the first thing they do after booking on and is a reasonably short shift.

Yes 1P11 coupling can be a pain. I rarely work Oxford as I'm based on the Link 1 (Padd-Maidenhead) desks, but I worked it on Thursday night and the coupling went ok on Friday morning.

II said:

The 'halts' train, 2E14, 17:03 from Didcot to Moreton-In-Marsh was cancelled again at Oxford last night.

It was the same 'perfect storm' that has hit before, quite appropriate given Ciara swirling around the area:

1) 1D32, 16:20 PAD-OXF significantly delayed, leaving Reading 20 minutes late.
2) The TM for 2E14 travels from Reading on 1D32, diagramming that is asking for trouble, and 2E14 ran ahead of 1D32 from Didcot.
3) No AOM (Area Operations Manager) on duty at Oxford yesterday evening to notice the problem and act on it.
4) Nobody at Swindon Control/TVSC Didcot noticing and taking any action, as no doubt snowed under with other problems.
5) The TM either not realising, or realising and quite happy to see one of their trains cancelled. Either way, not telling anyone.
6) 2E14 occupying the platform for well over ten minutes whilst heads were no doubt being scratched, until everyone was hoofed off with 1D32 trapped behind when it could have been brought into platform 3.

The following 17:45 did make calls at all four smaller stations, though the fallout from the 2E14/1D32 situation led to it leaving Oxford 10 minutes late, and the extra stops causing a further ten minute delay between there and Kingham.

Click to expand...

Certainly the sort of diagramming issue that needs to be resolved fairly sharp, depending on the tendency of that pass (or does the TM work it?) to be a late-runner. At that point you'd be hoping local instructions are in place to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Always the most frustrating thing when you are awaiting crew for a stock because its blocking a platform, only to find out the crew are on the train awaiting the platform!

Regarding Point 5, even if the prospective TM had contacted that they were on the (now) following train, could anything have been done about that?

Horizon22 said:

Certainly the sort of diagramming issue that needs to be resolved fairly sharp, depending on the tendency of that pass (or does the TM work it?) to be a late-runner. At that point you'd be hoping local instructions are in place to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Click to expand...

It's a Paddington to Oxford DOO service, so they just travel 'pass'.

HowardGWR said:

Regarding Point 5, even if the prospective TM had contacted that they were on the (now) following train, could anything have been done about that?

Click to expand...

The terminating train could've been routed into platform 3 to allow the guard to transfer and the Moreton could've run with around a ten minute late start, or if that would have caused too many issues (other trains would've then been impacted), a decision to cancel the Moreton train could've been made with a bit more notice for everyone, i.e. before it arrived, and not making GWR look quite so incompetent with it sat in the platform for ten minutes whilst it loaded up with everyone, before then having to turf them all out (not for the first time).

II said:

It's a Paddington to Oxford DOO service, so they just travel 'pass'.



The terminating train could've been routed into platform 3 to allow the guard to transfer and the Moreton could've run with around a ten minute late start, or if that would have caused too many issues (other trains would've then been impacted), a decision to cancel the Moreton train could've been made with a bit more notice for everyone, i.e. before it arrived, and not making GWR look quite so incompetent with it sat in the platform for ten minutes whilst it loaded up with everyone, before then having to turf them all out (not for the first time).

Click to expand...

That's even more of a rostering failure then; obviously without knowing the TMs previous working (and whether they have a break at Pad), its hard to know but seems like there could be a better train to pass to Oxford on.

30907 said:

... intrigued at the nature of your business which can brook no margin for public transport delays and manages to avoid delays on the road network.

Click to expand...

Agreed, that wouldn't make sense. Which is why I was precise and specific in saying:

mikeb42 said:

From my own records I know that driving most of the way down the M4 and then getting the tube is statistically both quicker and more reliably so door-to-door.

Click to expand...

Risk of delays and disruption goes with either - the question is how much risk. The records (which exist because it all has to be documented) tally with anecdotal perception - rail has proved significantly worse on this particular journey with a large enough sample to be confident in the conclusion. That's just a statement of fact.

Judicious use of Google maps with realtime crowdsourced data on this contra-tidal-flow journey along with intimate familiarity with all the one-junction diversion routes off the M4 and the likely consequences mean this is actually a really rather reliable journey at the +/- 10 minutes level.

Wychwood93 said:

Agreed. Crossing county lines? - not that. Delays by road - as unpredictable as rail delays. What is it then?

Click to expand...

See above (and below). A county lines operation would be a good deal less legal but a good deal more lucrative!

HowardGWR said:

Your post confused me: Bristol doesn't have a tube. Also, your complaint was about the reverse direction at the end of the afternoon. I assumed thus that your work was in Bristol and that you were on your way back. Any chance of elucidating what was so disastrous about being half an hour late home from work; annoying agreed.

Click to expand...

To be clear, this is not a commute. This is a trip into London, often to the City or Southwark, timed to arrive soon after normal office hours end and returning on the penultimate or last trains of the day. I did this 83 times in 2019 - about 50% entirely by rail, the rest mainly by road, sometimes with tube or a bit of SWR. A pretty good sample then.

Obviously, if you have an important one-off meeting to attend somewhere, regardless of transport mode you allow lots of slack and absorb the waste of time as a necessary one-off cost. If you have to do something 80 times a year you don't - you regard a, say, 5% risk of failing to start on time as part of the deal. When that suddenly shoots up to 50%+, that's a problem.

I note that, since I stopped using it (!) the reliability of this service suddenly stabilised for a while. Before reverting to type...

All this waffle aside, I return to my basic question:

What is the actual point of a super-unreliable super-fast service? People who can afford to pad their schedule with a load of slack have no reason to care much about 10-15 minutes here and there. The people who do care (me - I'd love this service to run properly - I'd use it every single time if it did) paradoxically care precisely because 10-15 minutes actually matters. Blasting to London 15 minutes faster with a plan of... wasting an extra 15 minutes... makes no sense.

Horizon22 said:

That's even more of a rostering failure then; obviously without knowing the TMs previous working (and whether they have a break at Pad), its hard to know but seems like there could be a better train to pass to Oxford on.

Click to expand...

More of a planning than a rostering problem. Drivers and gaurds will travel on whatever train is specified on their diagram.

Bikeman78 said:

More of a planning than a rostering problem. Drivers and gaurds will travel on whatever train is specified on their diagram.

Click to expand...

Of course; I meant the rostering planning team, as opposed to just train planning.

mikeb42 said:

To be clear, this is not a commute. This is a trip into London, often to the City or Southwark, timed to arrive soon after normal office hours end and returning on the penultimate or last trains of the day. I did this 83 times in 2019 - about 50% entirely by rail, the rest mainly by road, sometimes with tube or a bit of SWR. A pretty good sample then.

Obviously, if you have an important one-off meeting to attend somewhere, regardless of transport mode you allow lots of slack and absorb the waste of time as a necessary one-off cost. If you have to do something 80 times a year you don't - you regard a, say, 5% risk of failing to start on time as part of the deal. When that suddenly shoots up to 50%+, that's a problem.

I note that, since I stopped using it (!) the reliability of this service suddenly stabilised for a while. Before reverting to type...

All this waffle aside, I return to my basic question:

What is the actual point of a super-unreliable super-fast service? People who can afford to pad their schedule with a load of slack have no reason to care much about 10-15 minutes here and there. The people who do care (me - I'd love this service to run properly - I'd use it every single time if it did) paradoxically care precisely because 10-15 minutes actually matters. Blasting to London 15 minutes faster with a plan of... wasting an extra 15 minutes... makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Thanks very much for your extensive reply, very interesting. I did not mean to ask intrusive questions, so your reply has explained that, for some reason, you often have to arrive in London after their office hours and then after your business visit, get the last(-ish) train home again. I can well imagine, that after a (presumed) day at the office in Bristol, you naturally wish to minimise the time involved in this activity, and also with a great deal of reliability.

I suspect that the new service via Badminton will eventually settle down to a high degree of reliability, as GWR is setting great stall out that this non-stop service from Parkway will attract people from the M4. Perhaps, indeed, it would have been better to await full availability of the stock before commencing it, and I'll bet that there are managers reading this who have a wry expression on their face. The fact that Hitachi and NR have to pick up the tab for the shortcomings will not be sufficient recompense to these managers.

Edit, one final thought: the road trip with tube /SWR added must nevertheless be very tiring after a day already worked.