IEP and the Cotswold line

Regarding my earlier suggestion for possible 222s on the Cotswold line, I hadn't realised their seating capacity was no more than a 180 - so apologies if it seemed a silly suggestion.

HSTEd said:

Class 180s are obviously far cheaper to run than HSTs for a variety of reasons including fuel and track access

Click to expand...

That's not what I was told! Apparently leasing costs are similar and they drink fuel.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

MidlandMainlie said:

jimm said:

Did you bother to look at that stuff I linked to about the study into wires west of Newbury? A couple of short passenger trains an hour and "diversionary aspects" do not make a viable case for electrification. Only when the case is made for XC wiring between Birmingham and Bristol will you see catenary at Cheltenham and Gloucester, because you have to have a critical mass of traffic to make it pay. This is easily achieved on the core GW routes that are to be wired - but wiring the likes of Severn Tunnel Junction to Gloucester is likely to require converting freight flows to and from South Wales to electric traction as well

Click to expand...

The Network Rail Electrification RUS gives a BCR of 5.1 for Cross country wiring following completion of the GWML, MML and North Transpennine. Interestingly it also gives wiring of the Berks and Hants line from Newbury to Cogload Junction a positive financial case following completion of cross country electrification to Plymouth.

Click to expand...

Exactly what I've been saying for months. If electrifying Newbury to Bedwyn has a business case of 3 then surely anything else will be higher!

jimm said:

The point I was addressing was the one Rhydgaled endlessly repeats about how terrible coupling up any kind of non-gangwayed trains is, although train operators here and abroad will persist in doing it. The French use pairs of 2+8 TGVs, to get 700-plus seat formations.

Click to expand...

It is only terrible if you do portion working with it. If catering etc. are duplicated you can run 'em in multiple as long as they stay together throughout, although it'd still be better if the sets were gangwayed. A portion working without gangways is what I have issue with, since you have to get off the train if you are in the wrong unit. In my view that means it should be treated as a connection, with plenty of time allowed for passengers to transfer.

Did you bother to look at that stuff I linked to about the study into wires west of Newbury?

Click to expand...

I had already seen it.

A couple of short passenger trains an hour and "diversionary aspects" do not make a viable case for electrification.

Click to expand...

What currently runs Paddington - Bedwyn services? My guess is a Networker Turbo, in which case for wires from Newbury to Bedwyn, with a BCR of 2.58, looks to be on the basis of one short diesel train per hour (I've looked at the journey planner and it seems to be an hourly service).

The extension of wires to Westbury seems to have suffered as it has been done on the basis of the existing timetable. That means there are very few trains which terminate, meaning most services would have to remain diesel anyway. Contrast that to Swindon - Cheltenham, where expensive Intercity trains are expected to run every hour, all of which could be converted to electric traction. Severn Tunnel Junction to Gloucester would be a harder case to make, without wires to Birmingham too for the XC service, but you would get an hourly Swansea/Cardiff - Cheltenham service and an electrified diversionary route for freight and long Intercity trains. Is there much GWML freight from south Wales that goes via Gloucester rather than through the Severn tunnel?

Not a problem with TGVs, being as they are mandatory reservation.. You will be booked in the correct portion...

Also in France and Germany portions are much better indicated with Platform Zones and Indicator boards/Posters.

Rhydgaled said:

It is only terrible if you do portion working with it. If catering etc. are duplicated you can run 'em in multiple as long as they stay together throughout, although it'd still be better if the sets were gangwayed. A portion working without gangways is what I have issue with, since you have to get off the train if you are in the wrong unit. In my view that means it should be treated as a connection, with plenty of time allowed for passengers to transfer.

I had already seen it.

What currently runs Paddington - Bedwyn services? My guess is a Networker Turbo, in which case for wires from Newbury to Bedwyn, with a BCR of 2.58, looks to be on the basis of one short diesel train per hour (I've looked at the journey planner and it seems to be an hourly service).

The extension of wires to Westbury seems to have suffered as it has been done on the basis of the existing timetable. That means there are very few trains which terminate, meaning most services would have to remain diesel anyway. Contrast that to Swindon - Cheltenham, where expensive Intercity trains are expected to run every hour, all of which could be converted to electric traction. Severn Tunnel Junction to Gloucester would be a harder case to make, without wires to Birmingham too for the XC service, but you would get an hourly Swansea/Cardiff - Cheltenham service and an electrified diversionary route for freight and long Intercity trains. Is there much GWML freight from south Wales that goes via Gloucester rather than through the Severn tunnel?

Click to expand...

So it's your view, but railways all over the place operate portion working without gangways and will carry on doing so, whatever you think.

As has been said by starrymarkb, many in Europe are far better at indicating at the stations which portion is going where than UK operators, so there is room for improvement, but IEP is specified to have a very sophisticated CIS system, including screens at the doors. Station systems here are getting better all the time. Just because a handful of people insist on ignoring all manner of station and train door screens/destination labels, announcements, internal screens etc, does not mean you need to build your timetable around those few people.

The key reason that there was a request to look at wires beyond Newbury was precisely because of the potential for electrified diversionary access to Bristol - it wasn't exactly surprising that beyond Bedwyn the maths was less than promising - there is an established flow at Bedwyn and at Hungerford. Theoretical projections of services further west are just that - theories. Going all the way to Westbury is another 30 miles from Bedwyn, which would require more rolling stock and crews - does the demand justify that? The study would suggest not.

Gloucester and Cheltenham are simply not going to happen without the XC route, due to it carrying the majority of trains through the area, and the costs that wiring the triangular layout at Gloucester will incur - you are never going to spend the money for the Cardiff stoppers (ie just half the regular passenger service on the route via Chepstow) and a few weekend diversions a year.

I didn't mean GWML freight, I was talking about the traffic that runs from South Wales and Bristol to and from the West Midlands and beyond, sharing the same tracks as the XC services. Without wires north of Cheltenham, you cannot convert any of that freight via Chepstow to electric traction - so no contribution to making a positive cost-benefit ratio.

jimm said:

Rhydgaled said:

It is only terrible if you do portion working with it. If catering etc. are duplicated you can run 'em in multiple as long as they stay together throughout, although it'd still be better if the sets were gangwayed. A portion working without gangways is what I have issue with, since you have to get off the train if you are in the wrong unit. In my view that means it should be treated as a connection, with plenty of time allowed for passengers to transfer.

I had already seen it.

What currently runs Paddington - Bedwyn services? My guess is a Networker Turbo, in which case for wires from Newbury to Bedwyn, with a BCR of 2.58, looks to be on the basis of one short diesel train per hour (I've looked at the journey planner and it seems to be an hourly service).

The extension of wires to Westbury seems to have suffered as it has been done on the basis of the existing timetable. That means there are very few trains which terminate, meaning most services would have to remain diesel anyway. Contrast that to Swindon - Cheltenham, where expensive Intercity trains are expected to run every hour, all of which could be converted to electric traction. Severn Tunnel Junction to Gloucester would be a harder case to make, without wires to Birmingham too for the XC service, but you would get an hourly Swansea/Cardiff - Cheltenham service and an electrified diversionary route for freight and long Intercity trains. Is there much GWML freight from south Wales that goes via Gloucester rather than through the Severn tunnel?

Click to expand...

So it's your view, but railways all over the place operate portion working without gangways and will carry on doing so, whatever you think.

As has been said by starrymarkb, many in Europe are far better at indicating at the stations which portion is going where than UK operators, so there is room for improvement, but IEP is specified to have a very sophisticated CIS system, including screens at the doors. Station systems here are getting better all the time. Just because a handful of people insist on ignoring all manner of station and train door screens/destination labels, announcements, internal screens etc, does not mean you need to build your timetable around those few people.

The key reason that there was a request to look at wires beyond Newbury was precisely because of the potential for electrified diversionary access to Bristol - it wasn't exactly surprising that beyond Bedwyn the maths was less than promising - there is an established flow at Bedwyn and at Hungerford. Theoretical projections of services further west are just that - theories. Going all the way to Westbury is another 30 miles from Bedwyn, which would require more rolling stock and crews - does the demand justify that? The study would suggest not.

Gloucester and Cheltenham are simply not going to happen without the XC route, due to it carrying the majority of trains through the area, and the costs that wiring the triangular layout at Gloucester will incur - you are never going to spend the money for the Cardiff stoppers (ie just half the regular passenger service on the route via Chepstow) and a few weekend diversions a year.

I didn't mean GWML freight, I was talking about the traffic that runs from South Wales and Bristol to and from the West Midlands and beyond, sharing the same tracks as the XC services. Without wires north of Cheltenham, you cannot convert any of that freight via Chepstow to electric traction - so no contribution to making a positive cost-benefit ratio.

Click to expand...

So because theres no "established" flow (which there is just with no regular service) we should stay stuck in the past with short sighted useless services? The established flow is around 2-10 people after Hungerford anyway so not a very good established flow!

I mean there's loads of services which aren't used well but are still run even when a credible alternative is available. For example off-peak London-Hereford services are a waste of time IMO and the Westbury-Warminster shuttles carrying only fresh air!

What needs to happen as I have said MANY times before is an hourly Exeter-London semi-fast services serving principle intermediate stations on a deserved regular basis. Then we will finally have a service which people can use and will want to use to destinations they actually want to go to! (Not Bedwyn!)

TheWalrus said:

So because theres no "established" flow (which there is just with no regular service) we should stay stuck in the past with short sighted useless services? The established flow is around 2-10 people after Hungerford anyway so not a very good established flow!

I mean there's loads of services which aren't used well but are still run even when a credible alternative is available. For example off-peak London-Hereford services are a waste of time IMO and the Westbury-Warminster shuttles carrying only fresh air!

What needs to happen as I have said MANY times before is an hourly Exeter-London semi-fast services serving principle intermediate stations on a deserved regular basis. Then we will finally have a service which people can use and will want to use to destinations they actually want to go to! (Not Bedwyn!)

Click to expand...

You keep saying it needs to happen, but as I have said before, thus far there has been very little sign of any great enthusiasm for your semi-fast on the part of FGW - and BR before them, so hardly a basis for incorporating it into this kind of study. Were wires to reach Pewsey and Westbury but no further, then the odds of any such service to Exeter happening would likely diminish even further with a frequent service all the way to Westbury.

The study wasn't asked to look at Exeter, just to Westbury. And the only logical service that would make regular, frequent use of such wiring for some years - unless IEP bi-modes were used to the South West all the time or freight operators discover a sudden enthusiasm for electric heavy-haul out of Westbury - would be extensions of the Bedwyn commuter service - and Bedwyn sits just inside the 90-minute journey time from London boundary, which is a key trigger in terms of commuting traffic.

Go on the 30 miles to Westbury and Pewsey and you are getting well outside that key commuter zone - excluding the few HSTs calling Newbury and Reading only, as their stopping patterns in no way resemble anything that applies to the Bedwyn services now, nor could be expected on any potential semi-fast, the existence of which would likely put paid to most intermediate calls by West Country expresses at the likes of Westbury and Newbury anyway.

Returning to the Cotswold Line, I would love to see it wired but I am realistic enough to know that is some way off down the line, due to factors like the expenditure needed in the Worcester area and the youth of the 170s and 172s that work almost all the LM services to and from the West Midlands. If XC wiring happens in 10 years' time, then you may well be able to make the case to wire through Shrub Hill for diversions while the Worcester avoiding line is closed for engineering work, and to justify electrifying the Birmingham services and moving those dmus with a good few years' life left in them elsewhere, thus making it logical to extend GW wiring from Oxford and on to Hereford.

In the meantime, something will be needed to maintain the London through services (ie almost the entire Cotswold Line timetable) that can also exploit the electrification over almost two thirds of the journey between Worcester and Paddington and is flexible enough to be formed in a way that reflects the heavy peak flows (on seven days of the week) and not so heavy off-peak flows. I wonder what that might look like?

jimm said:

In the meantime, something will be needed to maintain the London through services (ie almost the entire Cotswold Line timetable) that can also exploit the electrification over almost two thirds of the journey between Worcester and Paddington and is flexible enough to be formed in a way that reflects the heavy peak flows (on seven days of the week) and not so heavy off-peak flows. I wonder what that might look like?

Click to expand...

Hmm, you'd need something with a pantograph capable of 125mph for the Oxford - London side of the route but diesel for the route west of Oxford.

Ideally you'd want it to be able to have about 260m of length for the busy London end, but maybe only half that on most Hereford-end services.

Hmm, is the answer a seven coach 222? Oh, no...

Well you might be able to build units with a gangwayed flat end and a sloped 125mph capable end.

Arrange the trains so the 125mph end is on the outside and the 110mph end is on the "inside" of the formation.
Since you could expect that the western end of the route has no 110mph running, this handicap would not be a serious problem.

HSTEd said:

Well you might be able to build units with a gangwayed flat end and a sloped 125mph capable end.

Arrange the trains so the 125mph end is on the outside and the 110mph end is on the "inside" of the formation.
Since you could expect that the western end of the route has no 110mph running, this handicap would not be a serious problem.

Click to expand...

The risk with doing that is what happens when a unit fails and the spare one is facing the wrong way? Do you invest in sidings so that the spare can come out either way around depending on what is needed?

Also it could require careful planning to ensure that there is an equile mix of trains facing in either direction.

Slightly off topic but I have seen a mock up timetable posted on Wnxx which was produced by the DFT for the Bristol TM - London services.

Seems the DFT are planning on some south wales - London services being worked by 5 carriage bi-modes.

I wont post the timetable on here yet although I will email if if someone send me a PM.

anthony263 said:

Slightly off topic but I have seen a mock up timetable posted on Wnxx which was produced by the DFT for the Bristol TM - London services.

Seems the DFT are planning on some south wales - London services being worked by 5 carriage bi-modes.

I wont post the timetable on here yet although I will email if if someone send me a PM.

Click to expand...

Oh dear looks like they have cocked it up even before they have started. 5 car just too short.

Ow yes you are correct in fact you only have to see the comments on other forums to see many others think so too.

That said it seems the 5 car bi-modes could be used just on the London - Cardiff short services doubling up in peaks with the 9 carriage electrics used on London Paddington - Swansea & Bristol TM via Bath services

The "short" London to Cardiff services seem to be quiet enough for FGW to use single 180s on them a few years ago.

130m long is still a reasonable length of train - though of course this is all just speculation at the moment - we are arguing about the timetable and scheduling of trains that aren't even built yet.

Attached is the timetables put together by the DFT. Seems the cotswold line is to get an hourly London - Worcester service with 1 train every 2 hours running through to Hereford.

It doesnt show some of the services which call at all stops. Didcot doesn't look to be fairing too well. Newport - Reading non stop?

Is it Bristol or Swansea men that drive tha Cardiff to Paddington services or both?

anthony263 said:

Attached is the timetables put together by the DFT. Seems the cotswold line is to get an hourly London - Worcester service with 1 train every 2 hours running through to Hereford.

It doesnt show some of the services which call at all stops. Didcot doesn't look to be fairing too well. Newport - Reading non stop?

Click to expand...

Is Great Malvern getting an increase or decrease in services? There. Seems less to me but more evenly spread out.

Also, am I right in thinking that only two services in each direction will be formed of greater than 5 coaches: I can see this being inadequate.

The peak service is reduced as well, or more spread out if not reduced. Currently there are 1722, 1750, 1822 and 1922 departures for the Cotswold line. That will become 1646, 1746, 1846 and 1946.

Also Slough will be losing 1 fast an hour, so from 2tph will now become 1tph. However, this could change with Oxford Semi-fasts making their last stop at Slough before going fast to london, as Crossrail can cater for the rest.

Also this is by no means a finalized time table, and the TOC at the time may have different idea's

Also what is evident, there won't be enough stock in the peaks to cater for doubling up, and also for the cotswold extra's. For extra cotswold peaks, would mean losing those two doubled up peak services, as EMU's will be running the Oxford Terminators (which will more likely become part of the E + W route once that has been completed)

It is a product of DafT - what more does one need to say?

anthony263 said:

Attached is the timetables put together by the DFT. Seems the cotswold line is to get an hourly London - Worcester service with 1 train every 2 hours running through to Hereford.

It doesnt show some of the services which call at all stops. Didcot doesn't look to be fairing too well. Newport - Reading non stop?

Click to expand...

Are you sure this isn't a minimum service provision? Bidders for the next franchise have to include these services but can make their own decisions over what and where extra services run - that would seem a plausible explanation.

Chris

anthony263 said:

Attached is the timetables put together by the DFT. Seems the cotswold line is to get an hourly London - Worcester service with 1 train every 2 hours running through to Hereford.

Click to expand...

Thanks - very interesting. I was under the impression that only 1 of the proposed 4 tph to Bristol would be via Parkway, whereas those timetables show essentially the current 2 tph plus an extra 2 non-stop between Parkway and Paddington (apparently also meaning no direct services between GWML stations and Weston?).

South Wales doesn't get a great deal either, with no improvement in frequency (and xx40/xx58 departures wouldn't be too popular either). A 5-coach train on the off-peak Swanseas could get very cosy too - maybe this is part of the reason for running non-stop between Reading and Newport, as it seems to save little time. Don't know about daytime services, but the current 2245 is often standing room only, and the 2258 is down for bimode.

On the Cotswold line, doesn't look too bad to me although having doubled up trains on the 0512 and 0612 and not on the 0712 from Worcester could be a problem. I'll admit I rarely use it however.

Cheltenham - looks OK, the peaks are doubled which was my concern. Still, it's replacing HST+sprinter = 10 coaches with 10 coaches, and providing a faster, more frequent service, which is likely to lead to the Voyager effect...

Overall seems very Bristol and London-centric (as expected I think) - not sure why Bristol justifies 4 tph when IME Bristol trains now are generally quieter than South Wales ones. Quite a few journeys seem to lose direct trains (not that this is necessarily a bad thing).

It doesnt show some of the services which call at all stops. Didcot doesn't look to be fairing too well. Newport - Reading non stop?

Click to expand...

Didcot seems to do better off-peak but worse in the peak - probably not a problem for London commuters as there are likely to be semifasts not shown but not good for those commuting to Didcot or going from Didcot/Oxford west.

Apologies if this has already been discussed and I've missed it!

LexyBoy said:

Thanks - very interesting. I was under the impression that only 1 of the proposed 4 tph to Bristol would be via Parkway, whereas those timetables show essentially the current 2 tph plus an extra 2 non-stop between Parkway and Paddington (apparently also meaning no direct services between GWML stations and Weston?).

Click to expand...

It's always been proposed that there would be 2tph via Parkway, but I think this is the first time that it has been shown as 2tph non-stop Parkway-London. Even a 5-car IEP is surely going to be very quiet on the Bristol-London via Parkway services. The demand for Bristol-London just can't be that great.

TEW said:

It's always been proposed that there would be 2tph via Parkway, but I think this is the first time that it has been shown as 2tph non-stop Parkway-London. Even a 5-car IEP is surely going to be very quiet on the Bristol-London via Parkway services. The demand for Bristol-London just can't be that great.

Click to expand...

I would have thought with faster services, new shiny seriously expensive(couldn't help it) trains with a bit of promotion would have some good growth??

Maybe, but at Off-Peak times now I haven't found Bristol-London HSTs to be too busy, and that's picking up passengers at lots more stations. The two-hourly Weston-super-Mare extensions would probably create more growth.

Class172 said:

Is Great Malvern getting an increase or decrease in services? There. Seems less to me but more evenly spread out.

Click to expand...

GMV get a decrease in London trains. I count 10 each way in the current timetable, and the DfT timetable shows 9 each way, but, as you say, they are more evenly spread out.

Why are people so keen to invest this document with the status of being a "timetable"?
It isn't - and the notes on the document say so.

No-one in their right mind is ever going to run two-hourly to Hereford, especially not with an hourly Birmingham-Hereford service now running, and, as has been pointed out on another forum, on the Cotswold Line westbound trains are shown leaving Evesham just after an eastbound service leaves Pershore - bit tricky with the single line...

anthony263 said:

Attached is the timetables put together by the DFT. Seems the cotswold line is to get an hourly London - Worcester service with 1 train every 2 hours running through to Hereford.

It doesnt show some of the services which call at all stops. Didcot doesn't look to be fairing too well. Newport - Reading non stop?

Click to expand...

Does the IC125 to/from Paddington stable overnight at Carmarthen? The IEP seems to be shown as diagram starting and ending there.

Rhydgaled said:

Does the IC125 to/from Paddington stable overnight at Carmarthen? The IEP seems to be shown as diagram starting and ending there.

Click to expand...

The current weekday service spends the night at Llandore.

krus_aragon said:

The current weekday service spends the night at Llandore.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I thought it probably did (and given the weekend's morning services are later, I'd guess there isn't any overnight stabling of FirstGW trains at Carmarthen on any night of the week).