• 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.

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Resonate happens to be run by some of the tech editors friends...
That may be the case but Roger Ford copy seems to refer to a lot of 'chums' throughout the industry so chances are he has contacts in rival firms too.
It would be interesting to hear from somebody in the know as to the extent to which the Resonate technology has been responsible for the relatively painless introduction of the new timetable compared to similarly large recent timetable recasts on Northern and GTR.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
That may be the case but Roger Ford copy seems to refer to a lot of 'chums' throughout the industry so chances are he has contacts in rival firms too.
It would be interesting to hear from somebody in the know as to the extent to which the Resonate technology has been responsible for the relatively painless introduction of the new timetable compared to similarly large recent timetable recasts on Northern and GTR.
In this particular case he doesn't have that many good signalling contacts with rival firms. At least Resonate are an intelligent contractor preventing screw ups unlike some others (e.g. the TMS supplier for Thameslink were NR and the supplier both screwed up badly so still not anywhere near in service)
The issue with GTR wasn't the timetable or signalling (hence not comparable to GWR) - it was that they didn't have enough route trained drivers for new stock / new (joined up) routes / new infrastructure (still don't on the GN side). One of the big things with the GTR (or rather Southern as that is 66% of GTR service come under that brand) May 2018 TT was being realistic about station dwell times hence trains were then arriving at critical junctions at the right time and in the right order for the first time is several decades. GTR now preforming really well in stats once most of the training issues were sorted. (Ditto SE performance)
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
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.

Sorry, but since when has the REALITY in Cornwall been that all the London trains across the day must have 650 seats?

There are busy trains elsewhere at this time of the year too - how about three-car Turbos with way more than 300 people and their luggage wedged on board well west of Oxford? A popular feature on the Cotswold Line before and after many recent Christmas and New Year periods, when the 180s were given extended holidays - but it was hardly a clinching argument for the use of HSTs year-round on everything that moved. I must have missed all the times that you demanded something must be done about this shocking state of affairs...

How many of those passengers on today's 09.15 were making local journeys and got off at Plymouth and headed into the city centre? How busy was the following 09.25 XC departure from Penzance? Or the GWR services at 08.50 and 09.50, or any other services this morning?

I expect people at GWR (and XC) might be looking at the big picture when it comes to the spread of loadings, before drawing any conclusions from what happened on one service - who knows, a lot of people might just have chosen Friday morning as the time they wanted to head home.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
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??

Having the split fleet gives the opportunity to (theoretically) introduce new services and keep existing ones going which otherwise might be lost. (e.g. Weston-super-Mare terminators)

The comparison with the WCML fleet isn't entirely accurate - plenty of 5 car services run on it.
 

RealTrains07

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2019
Messages
1,748
Having the split fleet gives the opportunity to (theoretically) introduce new services and keep existing ones going which otherwise might be lost. (e.g. Weston-super-Mare terminators)

The comparison with the WCML fleet isn't entirely accurate - plenty of 5 car services run on it.
Agreed however their are a lot more split services on the GWML now than the WCML

for now at least the GWR 5 cars should stay
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,813
Location
Plymouth
Sorry, but since when has the REALITY in Cornwall been that all the London trains across the day must have 650 seats?

There are busy trains elsewhere at this time of the year too - how about three-car Turbos with way more than 300 people and their luggage wedged on board well west of Oxford? A popular feature on the Cotswold Line before and after many recent Christmas and New Year periods, when the 180s were given extended holidays - but it was hardly a clinching argument for the use of HSTs year-round on everything that moved. I must have missed all the times that you demanded something must be done about this shocking state of affairs...

How many of those passengers on today's 09.15 were making local journeys and got off at Plymouth and headed into the city centre? How busy was the following 09.25 XC departure from Penzance? Or the GWR services at 08.50 and 09.50, or any other services this morning?

I expect people at GWR (and XC) might be looking at the big picture when it comes to the spread of loadings, before drawing any conclusions from what happened on one service - who knows, a lot of people might just have chosen Friday morning as the time they wanted to head home.
Yes there did USED to be turbos on the Cotswold tho They have been virtually eliminated. And the 27th of December used to be rammed and that was about it. Certainly not the 3rd of January.

And for the last time, my last however many posts have stated I am looking for 3 or 4 trains a day to Penzance to be 9 cars, not every train. The 9.15 and 10.15 off Penzance could be 9 cars as long rock holds one 9 car a night and and 1015 is formed off a set from Laira.
Not too many got off at Plymouth , and the fact customers are choosing to travel on the fast London trains over the slower trains that only go to Plymouth is hardly surprising seeing as most passengers are not doing local trips judging by all the luggage!!!
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
In this particular case he doesn't have that many good signalling contacts with rival firms. At least Resonate are an intelligent contractor preventing screw ups unlike some others (e.g. the TMS supplier for Thameslink were NR and the supplier both screwed up badly so still not anywhere near in service)

Perhaps you will forgive me a little confusion: you consider Ford's positive comments on Resonate to be based on personal opinion, but if I understood the above correctly you concur that Resonate is indeed the best traffic management supplier? Not that the two are completely exclusive, maybe you feel he goes overboard on the praise somewhat?

The issue with GTR wasn't the timetable or signalling (hence not comparable to GWR) - it was that they didn't have enough route trained drivers for new stock / new (joined up) routes / new infrastructure (still don't on the GN side). One of the big things with the GTR (or rather Southern as that is 66% of GTR service come under that brand) May 2018 TT was being realistic about station dwell times hence trains were then arriving at critical junctions at the right time and in the right order for the first time is several decades. GTR now preforming really well in stats once most of the training issues were sorted. (Ditto SE performance)

Maybe the deciding factor as to how recent major timetable recasts went is the level of control technology? As you note, Thameslink has some sort of TMS functionality (with ETCS self driving operation no less) in the core. GWR has a sophisticated TMS. Northern didn't to my knowledge have anything that sophisticated where it counted, which might be why things fell apart much worse.
 

Wilts Wanderer

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2016
Messages
2,463
One big benefit with Resonate on Western Route is they also manage and support the ARS systems installed on the same lines that utilise their TMS. This is part of the problem with alternative TMS suppliers - fundamentally the system might be sound in principal, but integrating it is a complete nightmare.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Yes there did USED to be turbos on the Cotswold tho They have been virtually eliminated. And the 27th of December used to be rammed and that was about it. Certainly not the 3rd of January.

And for the last time, my last however many posts have stated I am looking for 3 or 4 trains a day to Penzance to be 9 cars, not every train. The 9.15 and 10.15 off Penzance could be 9 cars as long rock holds one 9 car a night and and 1015 is formed off a set from Laira.
Not too many got off at Plymouth , and the fact customers are choosing to travel on the fast London trains over the slower trains that only go to Plymouth is hardly surprising seeing as most passengers are not doing local trips judging by all the luggage!!!

The thing that's worth noting is that between Q2 2018/19 and Q2 2019/20 GWR has seen growth of 5.6%, now not all that growth will have been equally spread across the network (for instance the Gatwick services on the busiest services have no space for extra passengers with circa 400 passengers on some services which only have seats for 288 people).

What had to be borne in mind is that such growth probably wasn't anticipated 5 years ago when the timetabling was being planned, and so if some services have seen significant growth in that timeframe then a train which would have been expected to be well loaded is now overloaded.

The other thing to understand is how that unit is used during the rest of the day, if it is likely not so see any other busy periods and could be very lightly loaded, then it could be that GWR try and manage the loading of the one leg which is well used (i.e. few advanced tickets for that service). Conversely a service which is lightly loaded on one leg of its diagram for the day may well justify a 9/10 coach train as for the other 3 legs it makes.

You also have the problem that a unit can only be at one place at once, so you can't use a 9 coach train to arrive into Paddington at 8:20 and then use it to arrive into Plymouth from Penzance at 10:15.

You also don't know how busy some of the other 9 coach services are, a train with 420 passengers on board would have 1/3 seats empty, yet would still justify being a 9 coach train more than one with 410 passengers.

Depending on who's traveling (so as to define how people travel at party of a group) a train which is 2/3 full could have pairs of seats available in a couple of places as well about 1 seat in each row of 4 being empty (especially if there's lots of groups of fours and pairs).

Whilst I agree that there's probably a need for extra units on various services, you perhaps over estimate the number of extra coaches needed to provide such a service. To provide 2 extra 9/10 coach trains would require the acquisition of 8 coaches. However they would likely allow 6 Cornish services to be run as full length trains.

As if you replace a 2*10 coach trains with a 9 coach units (by lengthening 3*5 coach units to 9 coach units) you release 3*5 coach units to be used elsewhere.

Those 2*5 coach units now run in pairs with 2 other 5 coach units. However, each diagram takes 5 and a half hours to run between London and Penzance, that allows a single diagram to run this up to 3 times a day. That means that a further 6 services could be full length trains.

That's about 1/4 of all services now running as full length services when before they weren't, this is on top of any existing full length services which currently exist.

The 9:15 service could potentially run as a 5 coach train to Truro where it could then couple to a 5 coach unit which runs a semi fast service from Plymouth (arrives to Truro just behind the stopping service to Penzance), which would then join it to run as a 10 coach train from there (with a circa 8:15 departure from Laira, so a fairly reasonable start time).
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Perhaps you will forgive me a little confusion: you consider Ford's positive comments on Resonate to be based on personal opinion, but if I understood the above correctly you concur that Resonate is indeed the best traffic management supplier? Not that the two are completely exclusive, maybe you feel he goes overboard on the praise somewhat?
The last bit - he goes overboard on praise some what.
In this case it is the right product in the right place given existing equipment installed in this case (often by Resonate's predecessor companies in this case the ARS system) - in different locations it won't be the best choice, but Roger behaves as if it is based on a single example.


Maybe the deciding factor as to how recent major timetable recasts went is the level of control technology? As you note, Thameslink has some sort of TMS functionality (with ETCS self driving operation no less) in the core. GWR has a sophisticated TMS. Northern didn't to my knowledge have anything that sophisticated where it counted, which might be why things fell apart much worse.

Thamslink has no TMS currently as it doesn't work - it was procured to use the timetable feeds as in input which uses 30second increments but signalling decisions in the London Bridge and Croydon areas have been manually executed on a handful of second increments manually of a very long time and the distance between some tiploc in those area is less that 30s so using the timetable feeds as an input doesn't work (more to it that this but that is the basic version) as the computer can't cope with being in 2 places at once.
Roger suggests Resonate as magic bullet but the underlying equipment is very different to GW.

There is no point in "Northern" worrying about TMS till plenty of other changes are made e.g. no end doors stock on Castlefield corridor, plenty of minor infrastructure works and they have got dwell times down significantly in key locations (sorted driver + guard training introduced new stock...)
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
The last bit - he goes overboard on praise some what.
In this case it is the right product in the right place given existing equipment installed in this case (often by Resonate's predecessor companies in this case the ARS system) - in different locations it won't be the best choice, but Roger behaves as if it is based on a single example.




Thamslink has no TMS currently as it doesn't work - it was procured to use the timetable feeds as in input which uses 30second increments but signalling decisions in the London Bridge and Croydon areas have been manually executed on a handful of second increments manually of a very long time and the distance between some tiploc in those area is less that 30s so using the timetable feeds as an input doesn't work (more to it that this but that is the basic version) as the computer can't cope with being in 2 places at once.
Roger suggests Resonate as magic bullet but the underlying equipment is very different to GW.

There is no point in "Northern" worrying about TMS till plenty of other changes are made e.g. no end doors stock on Castlefield corridor, plenty of minor infrastructure works and they have got dwell times down significantly in key locations (sorted driver + guard training introduced new stock...)

Thank you for the enlightenment on signalling systems; as you can probably tell I rely on modern railways and the usually excellent coverage from their technical editor. Mind you I think he was wrong about the IEP which, despite some flaws, does not seem to have been the failure that was predicted (Those reading at that time might recall he pontificated endlessly that the power to weight ratio was inadequate and would never match the HST performance). I recall something about thirty second delays to the thameslink system but it the implications probably eluded me. It seemed a little puzzling to me why this should be the case as I remember from when I used it that even facebook manages to make stuff you enter appear straightaway. Now a thirty second delay for stuff on facebook would have been a good idea!

Getting back on topic, I maintain the rapid acceleration of IET, under the guidance of an advanced TMS, makes the Great Western more 'metro-like' in terms of performance and allows them to get away with a paradigm based on lots of short trains wizzing about. Unfortunately the weak link is now the legacy ATP system which, I'm sure others will correct if I am wrong, is usually responsible for the trains having difficulty in talking to each other on joining.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Thank you for the enlightenment on signalling systems; as you can probably tell I rely on modern railways and the usually excellent coverage from their technical editor. Mind you I think he was wrong about the IEP which, despite some flaws, does not seem to have been the failure that was predicted (Those reading at that time might recall he pontificated endlessly that the power to weight ratio was inadequate and would never match the HST performance). I recall something about thirty second delays to the thameslink system but it the implications probably eluded me. It seemed a little puzzling to me why this should be the case as I remember from when I used it that even facebook manages to make stuff you enter appear straightaway. Now a thirty second delay for stuff on facebook would have been a good idea!

Getting back on topic, I maintain the rapid acceleration of IET, under the guidance of an advanced TMS, makes the Great Western more 'metro-like' in terms of performance and allows them to get away with a paradigm based on lots of short trains wizzing about. Unfortunately the weak link is now the legacy ATP system which, I'm sure others will correct if I am wrong, is usually responsible for the trains having difficulty in talking to each other on joining.
Agree on him being wrong about IET - Roger is an old school diesel engineer (ex English Electric) and has failed to pick up on the significance of the replacing traditional DC traction motor and control (with plenty of performance issues) on Diesel-Electrics with 3 phase drives/motors on recent stock (IET / 70 / 68 / 88 / 755) that make hp/tonne comparison vs old stock a bit meaning less unless you add a 10% bonus to the new stock. The tractive effort is of course much much better with 3 phase and distributed traction (i.e. more but smaller motors). The individual axle control of motors with 3pahse drives vs typical* all motors on bogie approach with DC allows the tractive effort on each axle to be maximised /optimised as the "weight" balance on the shifts under power /braking (just as car does front - back) rather than being for the worst case axle so as not to get wheel slip

* not class 60...

Lots of small differences all add up.

As many drivers especially FOC ones in the area will tell you that taking "Swindon" /"Didcot"(Signallers) out of the loop on decision making will improve performance! They are some what renowned for making things worse than they should be if you transplanted signallers from outside the western region in en-mass. e.g. stopping all freights at 1751 coming of Reading West Curve westbound and then clearing them when they crawl upto the signal - the timetable timings assumes a clear run...
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
Thank you for the enlightenment on signalling systems; as you can probably tell I rely on modern railways and the usually excellent coverage from their technical editor. Mind you I think he was wrong about the IEP which, despite some flaws, does not seem to have been the failure that was predicted (Those reading at that time might recall he pontificated endlessly that the power to weight ratio was inadequate and would never match the HST performance)...
I think a lot of that early criticism from RF was specifically about the original 9 car bi-mode proposal with an underpowered diesel ‘power house” at just the one end. It didn’t necessarily read across to the ordered units. But it got repeated often in these and other forums, because it assisted the general anti-IEP agenda...
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
Yes there did USED to be turbos on the Cotswold tho They have been virtually eliminated. And the 27th of December used to be rammed and that was about it. Certainly not the 3rd of January.

And for the last time, my last however many posts have stated I am looking for 3 or 4 trains a day to Penzance to be 9 cars, not every train. The 9.15 and 10.15 off Penzance could be 9 cars as long rock holds one 9 car a night and and 1015 is formed off a set from Laira.
Not too many got off at Plymouth , and the fact customers are choosing to travel on the fast London trains over the slower trains that only go to Plymouth is hardly surprising seeing as most passengers are not doing local trips judging by all the luggage!!!

Yes. Turbos have now been eliminated from everything but the weekday halts trains - but they were an overcrowded fact of life from the 1990s on Oxford and Cotswold Line services, at times other than Christmas as well. And yet no one demanded that squadrons of HSTs or nine-car IETs should be provided instead, because that would have been an absurd over-provision of capacity much of the time - as you would no doubt have told us...

I think you (and Master29) need to look at which days Christmas and New Year fell on in 2019/20 when trying to explain travel patterns in recent days. As they were in the middle of the week this time round, large parts of Britain seem to have shut down for a fortnight and many people will not return to work until Monday, along with the schools reopening. This year Christmas Day and New Year's Day in 2021 will be on Fridays, so people will probably take less time off and the return to work will be concentrated into fewer days.

And for the last time - though I doubt it will be, as you seem unable to grasp this basic point - when we take the assorted trains that you have demanded should be a nine-car IET west of Plymouth, it does not add up to '3 or 4 trains', because what goes down to Penzance has to come back again.

In recent days you have told us:

in the morning departures from Penzance after 9 until 11ish also need more than 5 coaches

I cannot accept certain services , namely the 1004 1204 and 1404 going into Cornwall as a 5 car.

For the 09.15 from Penzance to be a nine-car, that requires something coming from Paddington the previous afternoon to be a nine-car.

A nine-car for the 10.15 departure could come from Plymouth the same morning, but is there actually a need for a 640-seat train from Plymouth to Penzance at 7.15am as part of a half-hourly frequency? You kept telling us nine-car IETs should not be allowed to be used in this way elsewhere, such as the off-peak trip to Hereford and back (an HST for many years previously) that formed a key afternoon peak working back into London from Oxford (use of the nine-car set ended last month, but the 15.18 from Hereford to London is one of the services where I suspect use of a five-car IET will be an issue in the long run).

If the 10.04 from London is a nine-car, then the 16.15 back is also a nine-car.

If the 12.04 is a nine-car, then the 17.45 back is also a nine-car.

The 14.04 could provide the set for the 09.15 the following day, though on Friday evenings it appears that the set off the 14.04 goes back to Plymouth at 20.15 (a service just crying out for 640 seats...), if the trolley and compulsory bike reservations symbols on the timetable are anything to by - so that would mean one of the later services from London to Penzance on a Friday afternoon would need a nine-car diagrammed as well, in order for the Saturday 09.15 to be nine-car.

So that's at least four trains from Penzance out of 10 on weekdays and four out of nine on Saturdays.

And at least four from London out of nine trains on weekdays (and five out of 10 on Fridays) and four out of eight on Saturdays. Plus a Plymouth-Penzance working to get a nine-car set to Penzance in the morning.

So your few trains a day already amounts to the best part of half the London-Penzance services from Monday to Saturday. And should you want nine-car trains back to London on a Sunday afternoon as well, then those would have to come from somewhere.

How many is 'not too many'? 10, 50, 100, 150? Did anyone transfer to the other set waiting in the platform at Plymouth or did they all remain wedged in the set that had come from Penzance?

What 'slower' trains to Plymouth? Most of the HST and 158 services take a whole five more minutes to traverse Cornwall than the IETs.
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,813
Location
Plymouth
Yes. Turbos have now been eliminated from everything but the weekday halts trains - but they were an overcrowded fact of life from the 1990s on Oxford and Cotswold Line services, at times other than Christmas as well. And yet no one demanded that squadrons of HSTs or nine-car IETs should be provided instead, because that would have been an absurd over-provision of capacity much of the time - as you would no doubt have told us...

I think you (and Master29) need to look at which days Christmas and New Year fell on in 2019/20 when trying to explain travel patterns in recent days. As they were in the middle of the week this time round, large parts of Britain seem to have shut down for a fortnight and many people will not return to work until Monday, along with the schools reopening. This year Christmas Day and New Year's Day in 2021 will be on Fridays, so people will probably take less time off and the return to work will be concentrated into fewer days.

And for the last time - though I doubt it will be, as you seem unable to grasp this basic point - when we take the assorted trains that you have demanded should be a nine-car IET west of Plymouth, it does not add up to '3 or 4 trains', because what goes down to Penzance has to come back again.

In recent days you have told us:





For the 09.15 from Penzance to be a nine-car, that requires something coming from Paddington the previous afternoon to be a nine-car.

A nine-car for the 10.15 departure could come from Plymouth the same morning, but is there actually a need for a 640-seat train from Plymouth to Penzance at 7.15am as part of a half-hourly frequency? You kept telling us nine-car IETs should not be allowed to be used in this way elsewhere, such as the off-peak trip to Hereford and back (an HST for many years previously) that formed a key afternoon peak working back into London from Oxford (use of the nine-car set ended last month, but the 15.18 from Hereford to London is one of the services where I suspect use of a five-car IET will be an issue in the long run).

If the 10.04 from London is a nine-car, then the 16.15 back is also a nine-car.

If the 12.04 is a nine-car, then the 17.45 back is also a nine-car.

The 14.04 could provide the set for the 09.15 the following day, though on Friday evenings it appears that the set off the 14.04 goes back to Plymouth at 20.15 (a service just crying out for 640 seats...), if the trolley and compulsory bike reservations symbols on the timetable are anything to by - so that would mean one of the later services from London to Penzance on a Friday afternoon would need a nine-car diagrammed as well, in order for the Saturday 09.15 to be nine-car.

So that's at least four trains from Penzance out of 10 on weekdays and four out of nine on Saturdays.

And at least four from London out of nine trains on weekdays (and five out of 10 on Fridays) and four out of eight on Saturdays. Plus a Plymouth-Penzance working to get a nine-car set to Penzance in the morning.

So your few trains a day already amounts to the best part of half the London-Penzance services from Monday to Saturday. And should you want nine-car trains back to London on a Sunday afternoon as well, then those would have to come from somewhere.

How many is 'not too many'? 10, 50, 100, 150? Did anyone transfer to the other set waiting in the platform at Plymouth or did they all remain wedged in the set that had come from Penzance?

What 'slower' trains to Plymouth? Most of the HST and 158 services take a whole five more minutes to traverse Cornwall than the IETs.
're the stoppers they generally stop at Devonport saltash st Germans etc etc and on paper seem a long drag. But as I keep pointing out, MOST people are actually travelling long distances, especially on a Friday. And you can bang on about the days Xmas falls this year but I have driven the 9 o clock and 10 o'clock regularly off Penzance in the past and they are always busy on a Friday, Christmas or not. The majority of people using them use these trains because they are going long distances and want to arrive at a reasonable time. Putting lots of stoppers to Plymouth on isn't going to attract their custom when they are travelling to Reading London or further afield.
And whilst putting some 9 car diagrams onto the Cornish services would inevitably lead to some quieter contra workings in the grand scheme of things it's a small price to pay to provide adequate accommodation for the very busy inward service. After all this happens all over the network as it is.
Stop expecting the people of the South West to pay for the mistakes made when too many 5 car sets where procured for GWR.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
're the stoppers they generally stop at Devonport saltash st Germans etc etc and on paper seem a long drag. But as I keep pointing out, MOST people are actually travelling long distances, especially on a Friday. And you can bang on about the days Xmas falls this year but I have driven the 9 o clock and 10 o'clock regularly off Penzance in the past and they are always busy on a Friday, Christmas or not. The majority of people using them use these trains because they are going long distances and want to arrive at a reasonable time. Putting lots of stoppers to Plymouth on isn't going to attract their custom when they are travelling to Reading London or further afield.
And whilst putting some 9 car diagrams onto the Cornish services would inevitably lead to some quieter contra workings in the grand scheme of things it's a small price to pay to provide adequate accommodation for the very busy inward service. After all this happens all over the network as it is.
Stop expecting the people of the South West to pay for the mistakes made when too many 5 car sets where procured for GWR.

But the extra stoppers create more capacity for local journeys, which is what most passengers on the route are making.
As in the old timetable the London IC was also your local stopper west of Plymouth
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
But the extra stoppers create more capacity for local journeys, which is what most passengers on the route are making.
As in the old timetable the London IC was also your local stopper west of Plymouth

That extra capacity seems to be a drop in the ocean compared to people travelling to/from further afield - at least for certain times.

I remain utterly unconvinced by the arguments in favour of these Cornish 5-car trains. In the grand scheme of things we’re not talking about much to extend them to 9 cars, and there’s performance benefits in terms of avoiding splitting/joining, and quite probably by reducing dwell times thanks to the extra doors and avoiding people faffing about having to worry about which section they’re in.

The industry just needs to bite the bullet on this one.
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,813
Location
Plymouth
But the extra stoppers create more capacity for local journeys, which is what most passengers on the route are making.
As in the old timetable the London IC was also your local stopper west of Plymouth
Anecdotally at least, on a Friday morning the London trains are full of long distance passengers and not people only going to Plymouth.
 

Facing Back

Member
Joined
21 May 2019
Messages
900
Forgive my simple mindedness on this - I'm still probably missing something...

… but if the 5 car trains between Plymouth and Penzance, or Penzance and Plymouth are full at peak then it would suggest that more capacity is required. If they tend not to be full then, is this a problem which needs fixing right now?

Its probably perfectly clear so my apologies - but I can't see from the above posts whether the 5 cars are full or not. I see a preference for a 9 car train but not the simple statement that it is necessary because the current service is full. If the issue is delays around coupling trains and Plymouth then that issue should be fixed. If the issue is around future proofing capacity then I'd say the new capacity should be provided when it is needed. Perhaps it should have been factored into the original order but it wasn't so that's now ancient history.
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,813
Location
Plymouth
That extra capacity seems to be a drop in the ocean compared to people travelling to/from further afield - at least for certain times.

I remain utterly unconvinced by the arguments in favour of these Cornish 5-car trains. In the grand scheme of things we’re not talking about much to extend them to 9 cars, and there’s performance benefits in terms of avoiding splitting/joining, and quite probably by reducing dwell times thanks to the extra doors and avoiding people faffing about having to worry about which section they’re in.

The industry just needs to bite the bullet on this one.
Correct. Extending some 5s to 9s would save a fortune on staff - both in the need to crew both units with customer host and trolley attendant, plus the need to employ many extra drivers due to all the new ECS moves we are now doing at Plymouth. I'd love to know how many extra drivers have been taken on purely for all the additional ECS stuff associated with portion working and each at 60 odd grand a time.
The cost in confusing and annoying passengers is perhaps less easy to quantify, at least at this early stage. But the lengthening needs to happen sooner rather than later too get the maximum payback over the life of the train. No point in extending them in 10 years time when all the damage in additional costs is done.
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,813
Location
Plymouth
Forgive my simple mindedness on this - I'm still probably missing something...

… but if the 5 car trains between Plymouth and Penzance, or Penzance and Plymouth are full at peak then it would suggest that more capacity is required. If they tend not to be full then, is this a problem which needs fixing right now?

Its probably perfectly clear so my apologies - but I can't see from the above posts whether the 5 cars are full or not. I see a preference for a 9 car train but not the simple statement that it is necessary because the current service is full. If the issue is delays around coupling trains and Plymouth then that issue should be fixed. If the issue is around future proofing capacity then I'd say the new capacity should be provided when it is needed. Perhaps it should have been factored into the original order but it wasn't so that's now ancient history.
Certain services are running full in Cornwall, yes. That is why many are arguing that these services at least should be formed of 9 cars. Simples.
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,252
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
That extra capacity seems to be a drop in the ocean compared to people travelling to/from further afield - at least for certain times.

I remain utterly unconvinced by the arguments in favour of these Cornish 5-car trains. In the grand scheme of things we’re not talking about much to extend them to 9 cars, and there’s performance benefits in terms of avoiding splitting/joining, and quite probably by reducing dwell times thanks to the extra doors and avoiding people faffing about having to worry about which section they’re in.

The industry just needs to bite the bullet on this one.

As do i. Although it seems GWR has found a solution to the problem of missing 5 car attachments. A friend of mine travelled on a service from Liskeard on the 27th to Paddington (09:15 from Penzance). It was 5 car and standing, and was due to attach to another 5 car at Plymouth. It didn't, and left even fuller and standing. Late arrival into Paddington so put in a claim for the delay repay, GWR refunded his entire ticket instead.
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,423
As do i. Although it seems GWR has found a solution to the problem of missing 5 car attachments. A friend of mine travelled on a service from Liskeard on the 27th to Paddington (09:15 from Penzance). It was 5 car and standing, and was due to attach to another 5 car at Plymouth. It didn't, and left even fuller and standing. Late arrival into Paddington so put in a claim for the delay repay, GWR refunded his entire ticket instead.
This is an issue, standing for part of the journey is bad but for such a long journey I don't think anybody here would call it acceptable, it may have meant to gain 5 cars but it didn't showing that splitting and joining has its issues, if this was a 9 car it would have had nearly double the carriages for the whole journey.
 

Master29

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
1,967
What 'slower' trains to Plymouth? Most of the HST and 158 services take a whole five more minutes to traverse Cornwall than the IETs.

Agreed but it,s the Plymouth stations as well as St Germans and Saltash that will have people travelling solely to Plymouth probably touting for the IET's. Stupid I agree much like Reading commuters.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,230
're the stoppers they generally stop at Devonport saltash st Germans etc etc and on paper seem a long drag. But as I keep pointing out, MOST people are actually travelling long distances, especially on a Friday. And you can bang on about the days Xmas falls this year but I have driven the 9 o clock and 10 o'clock regularly off Penzance in the past and they are always busy on a Friday, Christmas or not. The majority of people using them use these trains because they are going long distances and want to arrive at a reasonable time. Putting lots of stoppers to Plymouth on isn't going to attract their custom when they are travelling to Reading London or further afield.
And whilst putting some 9 car diagrams onto the Cornish services would inevitably lead to some quieter contra workings in the grand scheme of things it's a small price to pay to provide adequate accommodation for the very busy inward service. After all this happens all over the network as it is.
Stop expecting the people of the South West to pay for the mistakes made when too many 5 car sets where procured for GWR.

Never mind what they seem like, the fact is that local services are scarcely any slower than an IET - no wonder with the speed limits that apply through Cornwall.

Excuse me, but are you or are you not the same person who has spent several years telling us that pretty much everywhere else on the GWR network where IETs are used is not allowed to have "some quieter contra workings"? Whatever those sets may end up doing on other parts of their diagrams through the day.

But it's just fine and dandy in Cornwall for this to happen - in other words, we are right back where you started, which is that rules that you demand should be applied everywhere else should not be applied in Cornwall.

And this despite the inconvenient truth about the overall level of demand on GWR long-distance services through Cornwall:

You have to show the DfT that you have the passenger numbers to justify it, something that just isn’t there at the moment. Only when everything settles down in the new timetable will we be able to see if it really exists.
- from post 194 on page 7 of this thread.

Or the truth about what your "three or four" trains would actually amount to out on the ground each day, in terms of being at at least double that number.

Certain services are running full in Cornwall, yes. That is why many are arguing that these services at least should be formed of 9 cars. Simples.

If it is "simples" then why is it so hard for you, or anyone else from the area, to actually provide us with a detailed list of which IET services are suffering regular overcrowding west of Plymouth?

As opposed to anecdotes about this, that or the other service, or declaring that

I cannot accept certain services , namely the 1004 1204 and 1404 going into Cornwall as a 5 car.

That position will win over the DfT for sure...

The industry just needs to bite the bullet on this one.

See the quote from Clarence Yard above.

This is an issue, standing for part of the journey is bad but for such a long journey I don't think anybody here would call it acceptable, it may have meant to gain 5 cars but it didn't showing that splitting and joining has its issues, if this was a 9 car it would have had nearly double the carriages for the whole journey.

And no one is calling it acceptable - and it isn't the plan to operate the service in this way in the first place - but running nine-car trains around for many miles with nothing remotely like 640 passengers on them also has issues - called spending a lot of money in track access fees and fuel and mileage-related maintenance, that you are not earning back in fares.
 

Pete_uk

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2017
Messages
1,250
Location
Stroud, Glos
Certain services are running full in Cornwall, yes. That is why many are arguing that these services at least should be formed of 9 cars. Simples.

Gosh! But that would mean at some point you will have a 9 car 800 less than half full!

Sarcasm aside, it seems the railway would rather not have enough capacity and leave people standing than risk have more capacity than needed at times. Applies to places like Northern as well.
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,423
Sarcasm aside, it seems the railway would rather not have enough capacity and leave people standing than risk have more capacity than needed at times. Applies to places like Northern as well.
Yep, its one of the issues with a privatised system, if the capacity isn't right then somebody gets left behind. Not that the government could do it better though...
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,532
Yep, its one of the issues with a privatised system, if the capacity isn't right then somebody gets left behind. Not that the government could do it better though...

What? The DfT and a private company have reached an agreement on a particular service level. The private company appear to have pushed not only for new trains but a more frequent service. There is no link between privatisation / nationalisation and someone being left behind.

Do more people cram aboard when it isn't a privatised company operating the train? Nationalisation may be many things but it isn't an opportunity to spend more money on the train service - it still has to cover its costs.
 

Facing Back

Member
Joined
21 May 2019
Messages
900
Yep, its one of the issues with a privatised system, if the capacity isn't right then somebody gets left behind. Not that the government could do it better though...
Erm, sorry Energy I must disagree. I would see capacity planning and management as intrinsic to a well run railway whether or not it is private or public ownership.

To be clear I'm not suggesting that it is done well now but also I don't agree that a public system running every train with spare capacity is a good of a tax-payer subsidy either and doesn't strike me as well planned or well managed.

I can imagine this planning is a complex task with many variables and I'd accept that lead times for new rolling stock/contingency for changes in habits/seasonality etc should be considered but doubling the capacity without a really good reason doesn't seem right either. I don't know whether such a reason exists - it might do but I'd like to see more numbers. Whenever I've travelled west of Plymouth there has always been plenty of space but I'll be the first to admit its not a scientific sample and is a few years out of date so I keep an open mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top