FGW HST Lengthening

[AlanFry1]

Mainly because they have priced themselves out of the market and people are too lazy to walk to the buffet when there is a trolley coming through. Cut the price of tea and coffee to around £1 while halving the size of cups, and you would see a massive upsurge in buffet customers.

Besides, there is hardly the time to get there and back on a Bristol service.

Do FGW provide a Trolley service on their HST trains?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Are there any Mark 3 (Non-Sleeper) carriages that are unused?

Also, could they replace the Class 90/Mark 3 stock on the GEML and tranfer the Class 90s to FOC's and the Mark 3s (after converting them to HST standard) to FGW?

 

[starrymarkb]

Also, could they replace the Class 90/Mark 3 stock on the GEML and tranfer the Class 90s to FOC's and the Mark 3s (after converting them to HST standard) to FGW?

What's the point, in a few years time FGW will be seeing most of their HST fleet replaced (When the DfT hurries up and places the order)

 

[warriorwarlord]

(When the DfT hurries up and places the order)

That could be a while away. Last year there was an article in the railway gazette that suggested MK3 coaching stock could (if required) continue in service with a small amount of re-engineering until 2030.

 

[LE Greys]

Do FGW provide a Trolley service on their HST trains?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Are there any Mark 3 (Non-Sleeper) carriages that are unused?

Also, could they replace the Class 90/Mark 3 stock on the GEML and tranfer the Class 90s to FOC's and the Mark 3s (after converting them to HST standard) to FGW?

Doubt the latter would be very popular with the people of Norwich. If they are to be replaced, I hope it will be with refurbed MkIVs when whatever replaces them appears on the ECML. Seats in the DVT would be a bonus.

And I think FGW do provide a trolley, but I haven't been to Bristol for years, so that might be wrong. As for the MkIIIa's, no idea. Not even sure if the Irish stock is still available.

 

[AlanFry1]

Doubt the latter would be very popular with the people of Norwich. If they are to be replaced, I hope it will be with refurbed MkIVs when whatever replaces them appears on the ECML. Seats in the DVT would be a bonus.

And I think FGW do provide a trolley, but I haven't been to Bristol for years, so that might be wrong. As for the MkIIIa's, no idea. Not even sure if the Irish stock is still available.

Well under my plan when the Class 90/Mark 3 fleet is withdrawn it will be replaced by the Class 91/Mark 4 fleet from East Coast who would replace it with New Class 390s

Also it could be possible that the East Coast HST fleet (which operates as a 9 car set) could also be moved to FGW, that will also be replaced by the Class 390 fleet, with the help of the remaining electrification of the ECML

 

[LE Greys]

Well under my plan when the Class 90/Mark 3 fleet is withdrawn it will be replaced by the Class 91/Mark 4 fleet from East Coast who would replace it with New Class 390s

Also it could be possible that the East Coast HST fleet (which operates as a 9 car set) could also be moved to FGW, that will also be replaced by the Class 390 fleet, with the help of the remaining electrification of the ECML

You'd need to regear the 91s, unless you went for my ideas of speed increases to make Norwich a regular 100-minute journey. I've never checked on the practicalities of getting a 2+9 up Dainton from a standing start, but I like the idea of increasing capacity down there once the Bristol route is electrified.

 

[ainsworth74]

Also it could be possible that the East Coast HST fleet (which operates as a 9 car set) could also be moved to FGW, that will also be replaced by the Class 390 fleet, with the help of the remaining electrification of the ECML

That's a hell of a light of extra wiring. Leeds - Harrogate, Doncaster - Hull (though that might already be happening), Edinburgh - Aberdeen/Inverness. Now I'm not saying that those routes should never be done, mostly because I think all of them will be done at some point (though Inverness is a bit dodgy). But, they certainly won't be done for at least 10-15 years. So that's not going to be a solution in the short/medium turn, also it why are we sending more HSTs to FGW when a chunk of it is about to wired meaning that fewer HSTs are going to be needed on the GWML.

 

[AlanFry1]

That's a hell of a light of extra wiring. Leeds - Harrogate, Doncaster - Hull (though that might already be happening), Edinburgh - Aberdeen/Inverness. Now I'm not saying that those routes should never be done, mostly because I think all of them will be done at some point (though Inverness is a bit dodgy). But, they certainly won't be done for at least 10-15 years. So that's not going to be a solution in the short/medium turn, also it why are we sending more HSTs to FGW when a chunk of it is about to wired meaning that fewer HSTs are going to be needed on the GWML.

Well if they IEP plan fall though we could order 60+ (11+ car) Class 390s instead

 

[LE Greys]

That's a hell of a light of extra wiring. Leeds - Harrogate, Doncaster - Hull (though that might already be happening), Edinburgh - Aberdeen/Inverness. Now I'm not saying that those routes should never be done, mostly because I think all of them will be done at some point (though Inverness is a bit dodgy). But, they certainly won't be done for at least 10-15 years. So that's not going to be a solution in the short/medium turn, also it why are we sending more HSTs to FGW when a chunk of it is about to wired meaning that fewer HSTs are going to be needed on the GWML.

I quite agree. Inverness is of debatable value, because the service just isn't intensive enough and winter weather might create a few problems. Aberdeen ought to extend to Dyce really (with double track) to allow for the few extensions per day. I'm almost certain it will happen as well, but it's going to take a while. Wiring London-Bristol/Swansea will release plenty of sets and even if they all end up on XC (which is possible) they could transfer 1 trailer to the other GW sets and increase capacity that way.

 

[swt_passenger]

Unless I've been misinformed, the fifteen buffet cars that are being converted to Mk III HST trailer standards are ex loco hauled vehicles.

You have been misinformed I fear. Here's a video of 12 of them being moved up north from Eastleigh, you'll see they are in a variety of FGW liveries, including the current livery:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjKD-6ewbMA

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Actually the cars are the redundant buffet cars that were taken up north at various times last year from Laira for storage, now they're being converted into the standard cars. Saw the report on Spotlight last week & basically thought what a joke, 1 extra car per whatever train! Well, that just about sums FGW up to a 'T'. God help us if they win the next franchise. :-/

Taken up north as in mostly taken to Eastleigh. Well it is a little north of Laira I suppose...

But the deal isn't JUST to lengthen a few trains by one coach. There are also the 5 x 180s, as I posted earlier, and the various 150s. 48 coaches in total as announced, but they are also splitting up a 2+7 set to provide additional coaches to lengthen other rakes.

 

[Flamingo]

That will take a lot pf pressure off. 84 extra seats per train is a large amount, I can think of very few trains I work where we would have more than this standing on the Reading - London stretch (or at least more than this standing and WANTING seats).

The challenge now will be to persuade people to walk along the platform at Pad and RDG to the far end of the train where the empty seats will be. I can have 60-70-100 empty seats in A and B leaving London, and 40 people standing around the buffet/1st class complaining the train is "dangerously overcrowded"

But it still never going to be enough for some people.

 

[jon0844]

You have been misinformed I fear. Here's a video of 12 of them being moved up north from Eastleigh, you'll see they are in a variety of FGW liveries, including the current livery:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjKD-6ewbMA

You certainly wouldn't go hungry on that service!

 

[swt_passenger]

That will take a lot pf pressure off. 84 extra seats per train is a large amount, I can think of very few trains I work where we would have more than this standing on the Reading - London stretch (or at least more than this standing and WANTING seats).

The challenge now will be to persuade people to walk along the platform at Pad and RDG to the far end of the train where the empty seats will be. I can have 60-70-100 empty seats in A and B leaving London, and 40 people standing around the buffet/1st class complaining the train is "dangerously overcrowded"

But it still never going to be enough for some people.

How about announcing over the PA that there's a fire in the buffet which is spreading forward rather quickly, but you're hoping to get to Reading where the fire brigade are waiting...

It might be best to do this after you've already retired though...

Seriously though, one of the side effects of the Reading rebuild really might serve to help spread people out. With the duplicated routes from the new mid platform overbridge people's preferences could change, especially as most down trains will be on the eventual P8/P9 island?

 

[Drsatan]

How about announcing over the PA that there's a fire in the buffet which is spreading forward rather quickly, but you're hoping to get to Reading where the fire brigade are waiting...

It might be best to do this after you've already retired though...

Seriously though, one of the side effects of the Reading rebuild really might serve to help spread people out. With the duplicated routes from the new mid platform overbridge people's preferences could change, especially as most down trains will be on the eventual P8/P9 island?

Alternatively, there could be continual announcements to remind passengers to walk down to the end of the platform to ensure a more equal distribution of passengers. However, I'm still sceptical that 300 to 400 people can board & alight in 90 seconds from an HST, which is, AFAIK, the maximum dwell time allowed for an HST once the rebuilding of Reading station has been finished.

 

[swt_passenger]

Alternatively, there could be continual announcements to remind passengers to walk down to the end of the platform to ensure a more equal distribution of passengers. However, I'm still sceptical that 300 to 400 people can board & alight in 90 seconds from an HST, which is, AFAIK, the maximum dwell time allowed for an HST once the rebuilding of Reading station has been finished.

Isn't the idea of the new layout, with three main down platforms, to allow closer headways and still allow for the longer dwell times, by having three trains platformed at once?

All the same, IEPs (or whatever they decided on) should be quicker to deal with than HSTs.

 

[LE Greys]

Alternatively, there could be continual announcements to remind passengers to walk down to the end of the platform to ensure a more equal distribution of passengers. However, I'm still sceptical that 300 to 400 people can board & alight in 90 seconds from an HST, which is, AFAIK, the maximum dwell time allowed for an HST once the rebuilding of Reading station has been finished.

Perhaps if people don't specify which coach they want to reserve in, put them as far forwards as possible.

 

[Drsatan]

Perhaps if people don't specify which coach they want to reserve in, put them as far forwards as possible.

That would make sense. If there are two unreserved coaches at the end of the train, then anyone without a seat reservation would be told to go to the end of the platform where the unreserved coaches will arrive.

 

[TEW]

Do FGW provide a Trolley service on their HST trains?

All HSTs have buffets, either full size buffets, the same as those being converted or micro-buffets; a smaller version of the counter built in to the end of one TSO vehicle, without the kitchen as in the full buffets. The micro-buffet sets work the shorter distance services where the kitchen was just a waste of space anyway, it's only used on the longer distance services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Alternatively they could stop the Reading pick up. Expect the same ones who complain that they can't get a seat on the HSTs to be complaining about the journey time on a Turbo/Crossrail EMU

If you stopped HSTs picking up at Reading everyone would be complaining about overcrowding. Remember the 10 most overcrowded trains in Britain list, and all the FGW services on there. They are the stopping trains from Reading, and generally they are more overcrowded than the HSTs since they are only 5 carriages long, are less frequent and serve more stations.

 

[Flamingo]

Personally, after many years of working them, I think the only solution is to issue the platform staff with cattle prods.

Most people seem to think the "move along the platform" announcements must be referring to everybody else.

 

[AlanFry1]

If the GA Mark 3 fleet is tranfered to FGW, then there would be enough stock for all 58 HST formations to have 10 cars each, would that require more powerful engines for the class 43?

 

[TEW]

Probably not, the MTUs are currently downrated. The may problem would be platform lengths. 2+10 trains won't fit at Paddington very well.

 

[AlanFry1]

Probably not, the MTUs are currently downrated. The may problem would be platform lengths. 2+10 trains won't fit at Paddington very well.

So the platforms cannot be extended by another 46 meters then?

 

[Flamingo]

So the platforms cannot be extended by another 46 meters then?

Not without a huge amount of work.

If the GA Mark 3 fleet is tranfered to FGW, then there would be enough stock for all 58 HST formations to have 10 cars each, ...

Longer trains would also have increased journey times, it would remove any recovery times between stations (due to the decreased acceleration rates with all the extra weight), and it would mean that SDO would have to be used at a much greater number of stations, further increasing delays.

And all that to increase the number of seats between London and Reading (a 25-30 minute journey) in the morning and evening peaks (which is where and when 90% of the seating capacity is required).

I don't know if anybody else would agree that is a good trade-off? Personally I think not.

 

[AlanFry1]

Not without a huge amount of work.

Longer trains would also have increased journey times, it would remove any recovery times between stations (due to the decreased acceleration rates with all the extra weight), and it would mean that SDO would have to be used at a much greater number of stations, further increasing delays.

And all that to increase the number of seats between London and Reading (a 25-30 minute journey) in the morning and evening peaks (which is where and when 90% of the seating capacity is required).

I don't know if anybody else would agree that is a good trade-off? Personally I think not.

Well something has to be done sooner rather than later, got any better ideas to increase capacity?

Also under my plan, capacity on the HST's will rise by 25%

 

[Flamingo]

The trick is to find the right balance. Personally (and don't forget, I work these trains day in day out), I think we don't need an increase in capacity of anything like 25% across the fleet, and the consequences of that will have a greater negative impact on a larger number of passengers than the people who stand between London and Reading (a large number of whom chose to stand despite plenty of seats being available).

Certain services do need looking at, and I think that FGW could be a little more imaginative in it's approach to those individual services, but a shotgun approach is not required.

 

[swt_passenger]

Well something has to be done sooner rather than later, got any better ideas to increase capacity?

Also under my plan, capacity on the HST's will rise by 25%

Under Network Rail/DfT's plans there'll be IEPs running at higher frequencies, electrification to Oxford and Newbury allowing for additional longer EMUs on those routes, Reading to Paddington peak extra shuttle services, potentially services from Basingstoke to Paddington, oh and Crossrail.

Extending HSTs for ever isn't really necessary - they are obsolescent technology, and all these current changes are just short term fixes until scrapping starts in earnest.

 

[starrymarkb]

*deleted - beaten to it*

 

[John55]

All HSTs have buffets, either full size buffets, the same as those being converted or micro-buffets; a smaller version of the counter built in to the end of one TSO vehicle, without the kitchen as in the full buffets. The micro-buffet sets work the shorter distance services where the kitchen was just a waste of space anyway, it's only used on the longer distance services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If you stopped HSTs picking up at Reading everyone would be complaining about overcrowding. Remember the 10 most overcrowded trains in Britain list, and all the FGW services on there. They are the stopping trains from Reading, and generally they are more overcrowded than the HSTs since they are only 5 carriages long, are less frequent and serve more stations.

You surely mean "the ten most overcrowded trains in the london commuter region". Nowhere else is monitored by the DfT.

 

[AlanFry1]

The trick is to find the right balance. Personally (and don't forget, I work these trains day in day out), I think we don't need an increase in capacity of anything like 25% across the fleet, and the consequences of that will have a greater negative impact on a larger number of passengers than the people who stand between London and Reading (a large number of whom chose to stand despite plenty of seats being available).

Certain services do need looking at, and I think that FGW could be a little more imaginative in it's approach to those individual services, but a shotgun approach is not required.

Well FGW should look into it, especially if the IEP takes longer than we first expected
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Under Network Rail/DfT's plans there'll be IEPs running at higher frequencies, electrification to Oxford and Newbury allowing for additional longer EMUs on those routes, Reading to Paddington peak extra shuttle services, potentially services from Basingstoke to Paddington, oh and Crossrail.

Extending HSTs for ever isn't really necessary - they are obsolescent technology, and all these current changes are just short term fixes until scrapping starts in earnest.

How much would capacity rise?

Also it will take some time until the IEPs arrive and we have to sort out the problem sooner than that, so why not make the most out of current NR stock

 

[swt_passenger]

Also it will take some time until the IEPs arrive and we have to sort out the problem sooner than that, so why not make the most out of current NR stock

Which current stock are you referring to?

Proposing moving the GA Mk3 fleet should be considered out of the question without finding a suitable replacement for it. You mention timescales for IEP as a problem, but what are your timescales for the replacement of the GA fleet, starting now - and what's the business case for that anyway?

If there were any usable spare HST vehicles, why would they be rebuilding buffet cars at vast expense? Why would they be breaking up an HST set to augment additional 2+7 sets up to 2+8?