FGW HST Lengthening

[gswindale]

so then we would need to order more EMUs then

Well they won't get you very far out of Reading

I'd agree that the turbos probably need some sort of strengthening.

How many units are required to run the Reading - Gatwick service? Would infilling that line with 3rd rail and some follow on 450s to SWT help at all?

The HST sets are pretty much fine. They're for Intercity services, not commuters.

Sent by Androids

 

[AlanFry1]

Well they won't get you very far out of Reading

I'd agree that the turbos probably need some sort of strengthening.

How many units are required to run the Reading - Gatwick service? Would infilling that line with 3rd rail and some follow on 450s to SWT help at all?

The HST sets are pretty much fine. They're for Intercity services, not commuters.

Sent by Androids

Reading to Gatwick should be done by more DMUs

 

[Drsatan]

Reading to Gatwick should be done by more DMUs

No, the non-electrified sections (Wokingham to North Camp and Shalford Junction to Reigate), ought to be electrified and operation of the route transferred to SWT. Any DMUs made spare can be used to lengthen trains around Bristol, especially the Gloucester to Weymouth & the Bristol Parkway to Western Super Mare services.

On the other hand, EMUs to operate the Reading to Gatwick service would have to come from somewhere.

 

[gswindale]

Reading to Gatwick should be done by more DMUs

Why? The majority of the line is 3rd rail electrified.


Sent by Androids

 

[TEW]

About the only other solution I can think of is to have the Eastbound Intercity services do set down only at Reading and the Westbound ones do pick up only. That seems to be SWT's strategy for expresses that call at CLJ. For sure, some people will figure it out and manage to board anyway, but if you take away the already-packed HSTs from the departure boards and don't announce platforms, you might manage to push commuters on to the less-crowded local/regional services.

That's not a solution though, because the stopping services to London are more not less crowded than the HSTs. The Reading commuters will get seats but all the commuters currently using the services would have to stand or wouldn't be able to board at all. There is a huge difference in journey time between stopping and fast services as well. From Clapham Junction slow and fast trains take about the same time.

 

[jon0844]

Like I have said the government could afford it, if they cracked down on tax evasion and avoidance both past and present

The Government spends OUR money and I am sure that what money they might save from cracking down on tax evasion or avoidance would be spent on other things ahead of the railway.

What's more, I am not sure how anyone could go after people who did things in the past. Imagine increasing income tax and then sending a bill to every single tax payer for the last nn years! That would be popular!

 

[jopsuk]

the police go after people that did things in the past all the time...

He's not suggesting changing the tax rules and rates retrospectively; rather, he's (sensibly for once, but off topic) suggesting enforcing the rates that were in place at the time that some large companies (such as a mobile network currently using a small green sci-fi character in their advertising) managed to avoid by methods that really don't appear to have been legal.

 

[AndyLandy]

That's not a solution though, because the stopping services to London are more not less crowded than the HSTs. The Reading commuters will get seats but all the commuters currently using the services would have to stand or wouldn't be able to board at all. There is a huge difference in journey time between stopping and fast services as well. From Clapham Junction slow and fast trains take about the same time.

Sorry, that was intended as a follow-on from an earlier comment I'd made, suggesting that the place to look for capacity improvements would be the local commuter services. Obviously piling Reading commuters onto the existing local services is clearly a non-starter. But if you could get better acceleration times on some existing services and adjust the calling patterns if necessary, you might be able to squeeze in a couple of extra paths. Add an extra carriage or two to some of these services and you've got your extra capacity in probably the most affordable way.

 

[Minstral25]

Won't the long term change at Reading be when the line is electrified and Thames Valley commuters will be getting in their hastily refurbished Class 319's to work in 2017/8. So this lengthening of HST's is really just for 5/6 years before the real solution arrives and many HST's will also be replaced with IEP around then as well.

 

[swt_passenger]

Won't the long term change at Reading be when the line is electrified and Thames Valley commuters will be getting in their hastily refurbished Class 319's to work in 2017/8. So this lengthening of HST's is really just for 5/6 years before the real solution arrives and many HST's will also be replaced with IEP around then as well.

Agree - definitely.

Electrification, Crossrail, IEP, longer EMUs on Newbury and Oxford services etc etc all happen within the decade. I posted this earlier as well (#56).

 

[TEW]

Electrification, replacement stock and Reading remodelling should provide an extra couple of paths an hour out of Paddington, especially if HEX can be merged with Crossrail, the RUS suggested using these paths to run 8 or 12 carriage 319s down the fast lines, potentially just to Reading, or potentially beyond.

 

[AlanFry1]

After looking at this article I want to ask this, if the FGW HST were moved to XC and GA Mark 3s were withdrawn, would it be a good idea to extend the XC HST's and add the FGW/EC HSTS to XC so that the Class 221/222 could be moved back to VT if they gain the TPE services?

 

[LE Greys]

After looking at this article I want to ask this, if the FGW HST were moved to XC and GA Mark 3s were withdrawn, would it be a good idea to extend the XC HST's and add the FGW/EC HSTS to XC so that the Class 221/222 could be moved back to VT if they gain the TPE services?

Well, that depends on a few things.

1. The number of IEPs ordered and in service (if they happen at all)
2. Whether someone wants the IC225s
3. Whether IEP is a success
4. How much electrification happens in the mean time

That's one idea.

 

[IanXC]

After looking at this article I want to ask this, if the FGW HST were moved to XC and GA Mark 3s were withdrawn, would it be a good idea to extend the XC HST's and add the FGW/EC HSTS to XC so that the Class 221/222 could be moved back to VT if they gain the TPE services?

Well that wouldn't be good for XCs timing as the acceleration would be much worse.

There doesn't seem to be a case for TPE and ICWC being merged, and TPE North and Scotland are moving towards electric operation.

What do the GA mark 3s have to do with this plan?

 

[w1bbl3]

After looking at this article I want to ask this, if the FGW HST were moved to XC and GA Mark 3s were withdrawn, would it be a good idea to extend the XC HST's and add the FGW/EC HSTS to XC so that the Class 221/222 could be moved back to VT if they gain the TPE services?

8 to 10 coach HST's would likely over-provide on the XC fringe whilst still not solving core (birmingham / sheffield) peak capacity problems. XC really needs slightly longer trains generally and extra paths to run a peak core only shuttle service.

I'm not sure an express 4/5 car intercity trainset is correct route for TPE long term as it doesn't address the issue of peak time overcrowding in the commuter core around Manchester or offer electric traction for Manchester to Scotland services. TPE is IMHO a large series of short distance local routes strung together to form a much smaller series of long distance routes. The stock really needs to reflect this so I'd be looking for DMU/EMU sets with corridor connections to allow splitting and joining en-route.


Coming back to the original point of this thread with reading remodelling, crossrail etc ultimately creating two extra fast paths I do wonder if there is also logic in running at least one of the long distance intercity services non stop through reading at peak time to create an extra reading, Paddington only fast shuttle path. The Cheltenham and Oxford/Worcester services could with IEP be formed as five car services split/joined at Didcot thus freeing up a path.

 

[LE Greys]

TPE is IMHO a large series of short distance local routes strung together to form a much smaller series of long distance routes. The stock really needs to reflect this so I'd be looking for DMU/EMU sets with corridor connections to allow splitting and joining en-route.

That was partly a BR trick to reduce stock numbers, link lots of shorter routes together into one long one. North TPE, though, is another run-down express passenger route.

Coming back to the original point of this thread with reading remodelling, crossrail etc ultimately creating two extra fast paths I do wonder if there is also logic in running at least one of the long distance intercity services non stop through reading at peak time to create an extra reading, Paddington only fast shuttle path. The Cheltenham and Oxford/Worcester services could with IEP be formed as five car services split/joined at Didcot thus freeing up a path.

That's something that happened regularly until recently, especially with the ertswhile Red Dragon and Bristolian. It might make things easier on full meal service trains to reduce crowding, but still uses a path on the mains. Might work or might not, but possibly worth a try for a bit.

 

[TEW]

There are a couple of trains that skip Reading in the morning, a Bristol and a Swansea to improve journey times and a Didcot so there is spare capacity for people boarding at Maidenhead. In the evening peak every train is going to be crawling through Reading anyway due to congestion so might as well stop.

 

[The Planner]

Disagree, having a train stop for a mandatory 2 minute dwell when it isn't meant to will knacker the plan. Just because it appears it can stop doesn't mean it will work.

 

[LE Greys]

Disagree, having a train stop for a mandatory 2 minute dwell when it isn't meant to will knacker the plan. Just because it appears it can stop doesn't mean it will work.

Dwell times there often end up way longer than two minutes anyway.

 

[Zoe]

That's something that happened regularly until recently, especially with the ertswhile Red Dragon and Bristolian. It might make things easier on full meal service trains to reduce crowding, but still uses a path on the mains. Might work or might not, but possibly worth a try for a bit.

The Up Golden Hind was fast from Taunton to Paddington until December 2004 although there was a period around 2000 when a Reading call was introduced. Going back more the Cornish Riviera was non-stop Paddington to Exeter.

 

[The Planner]

Dwell times there often end up way longer than two minutes anyway.

That is a problem for FGW to sort out then.

 

[LE Greys]

That is a problem for FGW to sort out then.

I think it has something to do with the passenger distribution problem Flamingo likes to talk about. Hopefully the new layout should help.

 

[TEW]

Disagree, having a train stop for a mandatory 2 minute dwell when it isn't meant to will knacker the plan. Just because it appears it can stop doesn't mean it will work.

Every train already does stop in the down direction. It's the few up trains in the morning that don't stop at Reading. The Swansea and Bristol train called at Reading until around sometime in 2010 I believe when they were cut to improve the journey times slightly. Cutting some stops at Reading in the evening would probably have performance benefits, should be able to move the inevitable queue outside Reading a bit faster.

 

[w1bbl3]

That's something that happened regularly until recently, especially with the ertswhile Red Dragon and Bristolian. It might make things easier on full meal service trains to reduce crowding, but still uses a path on the mains.

I'd assumed a five car Temple Meads or Swansea service combined into one service prior to Reading to free up a path from reading wouldn't provide enough capacity at Bristol/Swindon to be run as one fast path through Reading. Today with queueing outside the station there isn't really much point in not stopping every service as a path on the mains is consumed anyway. The capitals united still runs fast through reading with a full meal service which is IIRC the only service to do so. However will the full meal service still exist post re-franchising, if HST's where to be life extended converting all the buffets to high density seating would add 40-60 extra seats for nominal extra operating cost.

 

[andydcm]

Whilst there is maybe an argument that stopping everything at Reading is inefficient, it is a large town with a huge commuter flow in and out, big tech industry, university etc., and a major strategic interchange, tho dedicated, high capacity services that people could aim to get a seat on would probably help. The real travesty, however, is the amount of trains that stop at Didcot Parkway.

From 0700 to 0900, the only trains from Swindon that don't call at Didcot are the two that don't call at Reading (1A05 0640 BTM - PAD & 1L20 0558 SWA - PAD which is supported by the Welsh government to provide a fast service to London); Didcot also get Oxford / Reading local trains, semi-fasts in the peak and some fast services ex. North Cotswold line. The numbers boarding and alighting really don't seem to stack up, but as its catchment area is nether Oxfordshire the pax never seem to suffer come timetable change.