GWR short train lengths

[Snow1964]

Looking fairly bad for the Paddington - South Wales services today...
1323 ex Swansea is 5 vice 10 and has left Cardiff Central full and standing.

To make matters worse, the 1818, 1848 and 1918 tonight out of Paddington to South Wales are all 5-car units with no reservations - these can get busy even with 10-car units, and it seems more people are travelling today before the strike tomorrow, so am expecting these to be very busy / overcrowded services.

You can add the 17:28 to Taunton via Bath, down to 5,
no reservations (all showing green light and available)
passengers confused as reservation suspended not announced until train had left, not announced at Paddington either.
Doorways busy
trolley refusing to come around (and no hot drinks)

And stupid announcements approaching Reading and Didcot (for pick up only) of approaching Reading/Didcot, take care when alighting, mind step down, dont take heavy luggage on Reading escalators.
Why give alighting announcement if alighting supposed to be banned, complete lack of common sense.

 

[islandmonkey]

Not telling people that there will be no reservations until they get on the train...that's super poor and someone Twitter complained about this. It's customer service 101: if there's a problem with something that a customer expects, tell them ASAP!

 

[Siemens Staines]

plus there are at least three IET turns covered by alternative traction today

43016 + 43189 (set GW12)
2C65 0734 Bristol Parkway to Penzance
2P16 1315 Penzance to Plymouth
2C29 1547 Plymouth to Penzance
2E26 1815 Penzance to Exeter St Davids

387148 + 387150
1B14 1218 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
1L23 1454 Cardiff Central to London Paddington

165110
1D32 1623 London Paddington to Oxford
1P37 1802 Oxford to London Paddington
1D38 1923 London Paddington to Oxford
1P43 2102 Oxford to London Paddington
1D44 2218 London Paddington to Oxford

 

[MasterPhillips]

Wow, a Turbo on an Oxford. Must be getting desperate…

 

[irish_rail]

Well nothing is going change, that seems obvious following previous similar posts on here. Its such a shame, but apparently the big trains are more needed for the East Coast where they make more revenue, and I think we all know this governemnt is never going to authorise additional coaches. So I think we need to learn to live with this and on the Western at least, consider this the new normal and try to be pragmatic about it. Frustrating , but as long as the Western isn't seen as as important as the ECML or WCML then nothing will be resolved.

 

[Topological]

Rather than take the whole thing off topic I added a new thread in speculative discussions: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-intercity-emu.252261/

In that thread I ask whether there are parts of the GWR where the IET operating entirely under wires would allow use of an EMU and hence to take stress off the fleet.

 

[Taunton]

The issue of "number of trains out of service requiring repair" in quite significant part goes back to ordering fixed formation trains rather than an ability to just take out the individual vehicle needing work. It's not a new revelation; HSTs were first ordered as supposedly fixed formations, but it was soon realised that it was far more efficient to shunt them around. Over on the ECML, at the new Bounds Green HST depot, they pretty soon got round to getting their own Class 08 shunter, which got used most nights shunting various issues in and out. A magazine article described a failed AC module, which they didn't have a spare for, but did have a spare coach of that type, so it was substituted. It would surely be silly for a whole 9-car train to be out of service just because the stores didn't have one necessary spare part.

Of course, when the train is not specified by lifelong operators, this sort of thing is just not taken into account. Incidentally, it took them about 20 minutes, at 4am, to switch the coaches around in that example; the Crossrail 345 units, when extended from 7 to 9 cars, seemed to each require about a fortnight and a full works visit to do the same thing.

 

[irish_rail]

The issue of "number of trains out of service requiring repair" in quite significant part goes back to ordering fixed formation trains rather than an ability to just take out the individual vehicle needing work. It's not a new revelation; HSTs were first ordered as supposedly fixed formations, but it was soon realised that it was far more efficient to shunt them around. Over on the ECML, at the new Bounds Green HST depot, they pretty soon got round to getting their own Class 08 shunter, which got used most nights shunting various issues in and out. A magazine article described a failed AC module, which they didn't have a spare for, but did have a spare coach of that type, so it was substituted. It would surely be silly for a whole 9-car train to be out of service just because the stores didn't have one necessary spare part.

Of course, when the train is not specified by lifelong operators, this sort of thing is just not taken into account. Incidentally, it took them about 20 minutes, at 4am, to switch the coaches around in that example; the Crossrail 345 units, when extended from 7 to 9 cars, seemed to each require about a fortnight and a full works visit to do the same thing.

Indeed. Similar antics regularly performed daily at Laira to keep the trains in service. Oh well progress eh.

 

[Garulon]

Well nothing is going change, that seems obvious following previous similar posts on here. Its such a shame, but apparently the big trains are more needed for the East Coast where they make more revenue

We suffered about a decade of disruption and billions of tax-payer's pounds have been spent upgrading this line to have timetables that routinely collapse and STILL being jammed into coaches. What was all the disruption and cost in aid of then?

 

[Sly Old Fox]

Progress!

 

[Master29]

Just heading from Bristol Parkway to Reading and every IET I've seen (two heading to Swansea and the one I'm on board) have been 5 carriages and rammed.

I think this will be the new norm for the foreseeable future.

And then they wonder why people prefer to drive! Overcrowding and unsuitable rolling stock is the reason why I and my colleagues have almost completely given-up travelling by train entirely in this country. I have made precisely two return trips by train over the last 20 months in the UK, whereas at one time it would have been dozens. The only route I now use on a regular basis is Sørlandsbanen between Oslo and Skien, where the service remains punctual, clean, inexpensive and excellent. And anyone can get a seat at any time of day without even thinking of having to make a reservation.

What with short-formed services, shuddering, smoky clapped-out ancient suburban diesel units on regional express services, graffiti, stations with peeling paint and muck everywhere, lack of on-board catering and constant strike action the entire network is a complete shambles.

Sadly, you're in good company.

Well nothing is going change, that seems obvious following previous similar posts on here. Its such a shame, but apparently the big trains are more needed for the East Coast where they make more revenue, and I think we all know this governemnt is never going to authorise additional coaches. So I think we need to learn to live with this and on the Western at least, consider this the new normal and try to be pragmatic about it. Frustrating , but as long as the Western isn't seen as as important as the ECML or WCML then nothing will be resolved.

This exactly. The Western has been a poor relation for many years now but this is by those standards pretty bad.

The issue of "number of trains out of service requiring repair" in quite significant part goes back to ordering fixed formation trains rather than an ability to just take out the individual vehicle needing work. It's not a new revelation; HSTs were first ordered as supposedly fixed formations, but it was soon realised that it was far more efficient to shunt them around. Over on the ECML, at the new Bounds Green HST depot, they pretty soon got round to getting their own Class 08 shunter, which got used most nights shunting various issues in and out. A magazine article described a failed AC module, which they didn't have a spare for, but did have a spare coach of that type, so it was substituted. It would surely be silly for a whole 9-car train to be out of service just because the stores didn't have one necessary spare part.

Of course, when the train is not specified by lifelong operators, this sort of thing is just not taken into account. Incidentally, it took them about 20 minutes, at 4am, to switch the coaches around in that example; the Crossrail 345 units, when extended from 7 to 9 cars, seemed to each require about a fortnight and a full works visit to do the same thing.

Again, all this has to be down to those that control the railways and through years of patch up deals and neglect. You have to wonder why when we had a much more efficient system at one time would we change it to the current levels of fiasco. I suppose it's more been counting and consultancy jobs sucking more life out of the Railway or just simply not giving a toss. Probably both.

We suffered about a decade of disruption and billions of tax-payer's pounds have been spent upgrading this line to have timetables that routinely collapse and STILL being jammed into coaches. What was all the disruption and cost in aid of then?

Not just a decade. It's had money thrown at it but it inevitably most of it ends up with various 3rd party profiteers and asset strippers.

 

[irish_rail]

We suffered about a decade of disruption and billions of tax-payer's pounds have been spent upgrading this line to have timetables that routinely collapse and STILL being jammed into coaches. What was all the disruption and cost in aid of then?

Indeed. A sign of the times that the more profitable ECML takes priority for the longer trains. This is where some kind of BR type management would be able to allocate the stock accordingly and move stuff about. I accept the ECML is more profitable, but we are talking public transport here and priority should go to where the need is greatest, not where the profits are biggest.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2023 ==

Not just a decade. It's had money thrown at it but it inevitably most of it ends up with various 3rd party profiteers and asset strippers.

Another wonderful privatisation benefit i suppose.

 

[Energy]

Indeed. A sign of the times that the more profitable ECML takes priority for the longer trains. This is where some kind of BR type management would be able to allocate the stock accordingly and move stuff about. I accept the ECML is more profitable, but we are talking public transport here and priority should go to where the need is greatest, not where the profits are biggest.

... and BR would keep its longest trains on its most profitable routes.

 

[Snow1964]

Indeed. A sign of the times that the more profitable ECML takes priority for the longer trains. This is where some kind of BR type management would be able to allocate the stock accordingly and move stuff about. I accept the ECML is more profitable, but we are talking public transport here and priority should go to where the need is greatest, not where the profits are biggest.

Is ECML more profitable ?

Using ORR data
table 5.1 vehicle Km LNER 47.6m, GWR 63.9m
table 1.2 journeys LNER 6.0m, GWR 18.8m
table 4.1 train Km LNER 5.3m GWR 10.5m

So GWR operates just third more vehicle Km, but it has over 3 times passengers, but only operates about double the distance

I don't have average fare rate per mile (or Km) for each, or average distance traveled, so don't know the average income per passenger

But if we assume their train leasing costs are similar per vehicle (they both operate IETs of similar age) and track access costs similar, then I'm not convinced that LNER is more profitable

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/2207/passenger-rail-usage-jan-mar-2023.pdf

 

[Clarence Yard]

Please, not this again. I explained before about the comparative finances and LNER intercity operations takes far more in revenue than GWR. It isn't even close, as I pointed out by quoting the individual flows and how much the difference was in % terms. Resourcing the ECML is also easier.

In BR days the ECML got rid of its daytime ic lhcs trains years before the WR did. BR always went for resourcing where it could get the biggest take at least cost, not necessarily for carrying the largest number of punters.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

No improvements for quite some time then. A seat will be a thing of the past I guess, same as XC.

 

[JonathanH]

A seat will be a thing of the past I guess, same as XC.

That is hyperbole. The challenge GWR seems to face is the number of services with poor loadings relative to those which are, as you say, full, and trying to move passengers to travel on those less busy trains.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The challenge GWR seems to face is the number of services with poor loadings relative to those which are, as you say, full, and trying to move passengers to travel on those less busy trains.

I'm not sure that's a fair judgement given the main reason a lot of those services are full are because they have essentially been almost halved in terms of capacity! Had the service I was on last night been a 9 or 10 car service as it should be then it would have been fine. It was only rammed because we only got 5 carriages.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm not sure that's a fair judgement given the main reason a lot of those services are full are because they have essentially been almost halved in terms of capacity! Had the service I was on last night been a 9 or 10 car service as it should be then it would have been fine. It was only rammed because we only got 5 carriages.

Yes, but 5 carriages isn't the scheduled formation in those cases. Poor supply of rolling stock by the third party maintainer is different from the stock not existing.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Yes, but 5 carriages isn't the scheduled formation in those cases. Poor supply of rolling stock by the third party maintainer is different from the stock not existing.

To the passenger it is literally identical though.

And I don't think it was the third party maintainers idea to stretch the IET fleet more thinly by using them to replace the old HSTs / castle classes. Granted it wouldn't have been GWRs first choice either (and as I said previously, largely I do think they are doing a good job with what they have available), but the reality is that even before the fleet was stretched more thinly short formations were a problem, so it shouldn't be surprising that such events are becoming more of an issue. It may just be nice for GWR to be a bit more upfront to passengers about it all! (Though I suspect their hands are a little tied in terms of how much they can blame the DfT).

 

[JonathanH]

And I don't think it was the third party maintainers idea to stretch the IET fleet more thinly by using them to replace the old HSTs / castle classes.

I think the structure of the contract is that Hitachi have to supply units to cover a set number of diagrams. In theory, if Hitachi can't supply that number of diagrams they should be building more units at their own cost.

It is up to GWR to use those units as it sees fit. If Hitachi can't supply units for those diagrams, it is hardly appropriate for GWR to let Hitachi off by scheduling less usage.

The fleet isn't, as far as it is reported, being used more than contacted, or being stretched by the spare capacity (eg Bedwyn and Bristol fast units) being used to remove HSTs.

Short formations often result from units being in the wrong place. That can happen even with 100% availability.

I agree that having 5-car turn up for a 10-car service isn't a great experience.

 

[Benjwri]

In theory, if Hitachi can't supply that number of diagrams they should be building more units at their own cost.

This bit isn’t that simple and is more complicated, but they should be hiring more staff and spending money upgrading production lines. They agreed they could manage to send out that many units.

However there are a lot of get out clauses Hitachi are using such as trains being left at the same places.

 

[3RDGEN]

To the passenger it is literally identical though.

And I don't think it was the third party maintainers idea to stretch the IET fleet more thinly by using them to replace the old HSTs / castle classes. Granted it wouldn't have been GWRs first choice either (and as I said previously, largely I do think they are doing a good job with what they have available), but the reality is that even before the fleet was stretched more thinly short formations were a problem, so it shouldn't be surprising that such events are becoming more of an issue. It may just be nice for GWR to be a bit more upfront to passengers about it all! (Though I suspect their hands are a little tied in terms of how much they can blame the DfT).

It's been quoted that GWR diagram 80 from 93 sets, 86% availability, the fleet isn't spread thiny. Hitachi need to reliable deliver the required sets.

 

[JonathanH]

This bit isn’t that simple and is more complicated, but they should be hiring more staff and spending money upgrading production lines. They agreed they could manage to send out that many units.

Thanks for that clarification. I guess the point is that GWR aren't using more than the contractually agreed number of units.

 

[800301]

Another problem that hinders maintenance is when units are swapped about, for example, if 800301 is scheduled a GU change or work of a similar nature to be done at North Pole and is on a diagram that finishes at that location, but then this unit is swapped onto another diagram that finishes in Penzance to avoid having a peak west country service be operated with a 5car unit, while it may be beneficial from a customer viewpoint, having that unit on another diagram finishing at another location that doesn't have the parts or time before the next diagram it should work means that the work isn't carried out and GWR are responsible for that, it really must be a big juggling act for the GWR control to get the units in the right places for when they are needed for maintenance while also providing a service.

 

[Horizon22]

Rather than take the whole thing off topic I added a new thread in speculative discussions: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-intercity-emu.252261/

In that thread I ask whether there are parts of the GWR where the IET operating entirely under wires would allow use of an EMU and hence to take stress off the fleet.

Already done - the only place this is possible is Cardiff Central services, which is often served by 387s. No other direct IET routes are fully under the wires, because it was binned off and never reached Bristol Temple Meads, Oxford etc.

 

[Topological]

Already done - the only place this is possible is Cardiff Central services, which is often served by 387s. No other direct IET routes are fully under the wires, because it was binned off and never reached Bristol Temple Meads, Oxford etc.

Yes, but not fully.

To fully move Cardiff to Paddington to EMU requires some rejigging of the IET diagrams and presumably more EMU, as per the speculative thread linked in the previous post.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The very worst thing you can do when a fleet is in availability hell is to give the maintainers more units to look after so the solution isn’t Hitachi building more units, it’s getting their maintenance right.

Having said that GWR have to (and do try) to get the units to the right depot and the right time.

 

[Xavi]

Is ECML more profitable ?

Using ORR data
table 5.1 vehicle Km LNER 47.6m, GWR 63.9m
table 1.2 journeys LNER 6.0m, GWR 18.8m
table 4.1 train Km LNER 5.3m GWR 10.5m

So GWR operates just third more vehicle Km, but it has over 3 times passengers, but only operates about double the distance

I don't have average fare rate per mile (or Km) for each, or average distance traveled, so don't know the average income per passenger

But if we assume their train leasing costs are similar per vehicle (they both operate IETs of similar age) and track access costs similar, then I'm not convinced that LNER is more profitable

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/2207/passenger-rail-usage-jan-mar-2023.pdf

GWR passenger receipts 25% higher than LNER. GWR passenger vehicle kilometres 33% higher than LNER. Less of a difference than might be expected considering diverse GER business.

 

[Benjwri]

GWR passenger receipts 25% higher than LNER. GWR passenger vehicle kilometres 33% higher than LNER. Less of a difference than might be expected considering diverse GER business.

And yet profitability is far higher than would be expected on LNER. For various reasons, but it isn’t about passenger reciepts and vehicle kilometres with the current, or likely any future government.

Not to mention LNER has its fair share of problems, and pretty much every LNER train I’ve been on has been quite full, and certainly they couldn’t deal with shorter trains any more than GWR can.