GWR West Fleet IEP Cascade Update

[Philip Phlopp]

Mark 3b? Do you mean the rubbish they suffer with on the ECML? I had hoped that given 3b is derided as not fit for purpose and nowadays not even considered suitable for anything over 100mph, that what GWML was getting would remove 90% of the failures, not half of them? This definitely sounds like one of three weak links, along with the signalling whose unreliability defies all known human intervention, and the third being largely beyond anyone's control.

I should have gone for a more basic set of reliability figures for each system.

Series 1 is expected to average around 5 years between failures per track mile, the older systems, in particular the GEML prior to the renewals project, could only manage 6 or 8 weeks between failures per track mile.

Mark 3b isn't technically that unreliable - it doesn't fail all that frequently, but when it does fail, the scale of damage and the disruption that results is disastrous.

Series 1 will obviously improve dramatically over older systems, including Mark 3b, but where it really comes into its own is the reduction in disruption that will result after failures. The GWML three and four track sections will have lines available to electric traction after a de-wirement, the ECML three and four track sections (the sections using headspans) generally don't have any lines available to electric traction, often for a day or two after a de-wirement.

 

[Rich McLean]

Better use of capacity off peak would be to have 1tph to Westbury with 1tp2hr to Exeter (Paignton), but replacing the current Paddington to Bedwyn service. In the peak, an extra Newbury train could run. No need to have a Westbury, and an Exeter Semi fast run in the same hour off peak. Those carriages free'd up can then be better used for the afternoon peak

That extra Newbury train could be one of the Planned 12 car 387 Swindon Queue busters, where it splits at Reading

 

[NotATrainspott]

jayah doesn't appear to understand that corporate or state borrowing works in very different ways to household borrowing. NR's 'credit card' hasn't been used to buy fancy holidays and spa trips which have no lasting monetary value. Its borrowing powers are used to fund investment into infrastructure that will last for decades to come, providing benefits and additional revenue throughout. All NR capital expenditure has to go through a business case approval process and this is where they find out whether the benefits to be had exceed the cost of the borrowing necessary. Being prudent by scrimping and saving and not borrowing so much is common sense for a household but for a business, borrowing money to invest in worthwhile schemes is what you have to do to maximise profitability.

 

[Xavi]

Better use of capacity off peak would be to have 1tph to Westbury with 1tp2hr to Exeter (Paignton), but replacing the current Paddington to Bedwyn service. In the peak, an extra Newbury train could run. No need to have a Westbury, and an Exeter Semi fast run in the same hour off peak. Those carriages free'd up can then be better used for the afternoon peak

That extra Newbury train could be one of the Planned 12 car 387 Swindon Queue busters, where it splits at Reading

Agreed - I think there was a note on the pdf that it does not include the proposed hourly Westbury that will replace the Bedwyn services providing additional AT-300s are approved by DfT.

 

[jimm]

I do not need a crystal ball. Of the 3 true Intercity franchises out there, only EC covers its costs, with XC and WC being subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of £330m and £170m a year (2014-15). It hardly takes a great leap of faith to say that the most marginal and frivolous semi-fast London - Exeter trains using brand new rolling stock will not be making any money. This is a truly scandalous situation given the relatively benevolent economy and colossal investment by the taxpayer. Most businesses invest to make money, not to lose even more of it.

For the past 20 years, the industy has been living on the never-never. Reality is about to catch up. Infrastructure investment has been following train service development for the past 20 years and more, putting out fires and letting the industry build its way out of problems of its own making.

In 2015 NR paid out £1.2bn in debt interest on £38bn and now debt is rapidly heading for £50bn and with it debt interest towards 20% of farebox revenue. This cannot continue. Network Rail will own as much debt as the Scottish Government in short order and still has unfunded black holes in several of its committed major investment schemes.

Only yesterday I was watching Dyan Crowther in front of the HOC Select Committee saying that the GTR bid was told to assume 10,000 delay minutes from London Bridge remodelling in a year, only to have that total in one week. In other words, 15 years on from Operation Princess, the industry still does not have a clue about Network Capacity, let alone how this interacts with performance therefore how it needs to plan infrastructure development.

National Rail Trends shows Government Support at £4.8bn a year, well down from WCRM days, but still more than double the 1990-95 average adjusted for inflation. But wait, a new line has appeared in the table for loans to Network Rail. £6.4bn in one year. £11.2bn of taxpayer support in one year. This completely blows every other year out of the water.

Now the credit card has been cut, operations and investment are the same budget. It doesn't help that the industry is so badly planned, that the more it invests, the more money it manages to lose! Infrastructure spending no long hides in the long grass. Money wasted on new trains means less infrastructure investment and money wasted on low return infrastructure enhancements means less money for supporting ongoing loss making operations. Fairly soon, the piano wire is going to snap and it will not be pretty.

In the AT300 document it does say that Westbury / Pewsey will gain 'other' extended services from Newbury and both are already well covered in the peaks. More and more loss making trains(*) is completely unsustainable. Blowing tens of thousands per month per vehicle (extra) on a new fleet of trains because they are new, shiny, not corroded, get the Chancellor a good headline, and save 3.5mins between London and Exeter with a following wind is not a sensible way to spend money when people are dying on hospital trolleys in A&E, nor is it sustainable for the industry.

* Looking at the attachment I see 25 weekday trains from London to Exeter via the B&H excluding via Bristol and 18 currently. I am making that a 39% increase, with no increase in the peak service from London which is every 30mins as now. There will be no platinum card for remodelling Exeter, Westbury or anywhere else if it doesn't work.

I think you have pretty much undermined any reason to pay a great deal of attention to anything you say right from the off with the bizarre claim that XC is a 'true Intercity franchise' - have you actually seen the way in which many people use XC trains? You know, all the short-distance commuting...

How is the more than doubling of passenger traffic in the past 20 years a problem of the rail industry's making? The growing population, increasing road congestion, etc, etc, have had a bit to do with that.

Unless you mean the railways have been far too good at marketing for their own good and should instead be indulging in yet more old-style price hikes to suppress demand? As currently practised by XC, of course.

If new rolling stock is such a colossal waste of money, what else do we do? Keep HSTs, 14xs and 15xs running until the wheels fall off, even if the HSTs' performance characteristics mean they will waste train paths galore east of Reading when electrification is complete. And what do we do when the wheels finally fall off after 50 or 60 years? Buy some new trains perhaps?

Network Rail does not own that debt - the Government does - or did you miss what happened two years ago when it was reclassified as an arm's-length government body, which it always was in reality, for all the spin from the DfT in previous years.

That decision did follow a challenge from Eurostat, so I suppose once we leave the EU, a future government could resume the pretence that Network Rail is some sort of private body, but if the organisation weren't ultimately backed by a government guarantee, no bank would ever lend it a penny.

 

[Bobandirus]

As one of the major capacity issues seems to be no more room on the physical tracks east of Reading, would laying more track be a useful solution? Or would it require an unlimited budget? I know new track would be expensive, but I have no idea quite how much it'd cost.
Having been up and down that line a decent number of times, it does seem like there is enough room to have intermittent 3 tracks in both directions (although not everywhere, obviously). While it may not be everywhere, would having a lot of 6 track available allow the freight (and slower services?) to get out the way of the faster trains?

If this idea's silly for some reason I've not spotted, sorry! I'd appreciate a good description as to why it'd be dumb. Also, if this'd be better in a different area of the forum, please say. I figured as this is relating to capacity between Reading and Paddington it'd go well here.

 

[JamesRowden]

As one of the major capacity issues seems to be no more room on the physical tracks east of Reading, would laying more track be a useful solution? Or would it require an unlimited budget? I know new track would be expensive, but I have no idea quite how much it'd cost.
Having been up and down that line a decent number of times, it does seem like there is enough room to have intermittent 3 tracks in both directions (although not everywhere, obviously). While it may not be everywhere, would having a lot of 6 track available allow the freight (and slower services?) to get out the way of the faster trains?

If this idea's silly for some reason I've not spotted, sorry! I'd appreciate a good description as to why it'd be dumb. Also, if this'd be better in a different area of the forum, please say. I figured as this is relating to capacity between Reading and Paddington it'd go well here.

The Western Route Study stated that upto 24tph should be possible on the main tracks with upgraded signaling and that a grade seperated approach to Paddington would be required for 24tph. The present peak service is 15tph. 20tph should be able to run without a grade seperated approach.

 

[Bobandirus]

The Western Route Study stated that upto 24tph should be possible on the main tracks with upgraded signaling and that a grade seperated approach to Paddington would be required for 24tph. The present peak service is 15tph. 20tph should be able to run without a grade seperated approach.

Ok, so there's a decent amount more room than I thought. Thanks!

 

[swt_passenger]

Ok, so there's a decent amount more room than I thought. Thanks!

4 paths per hour are also wasted by Heathrow Express until 2023. After that who knows what might happen.

Welcome to the forums, by the way.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Heavy rail does many things well, but it's pretty inflexible.

So - unless we insist that all new stock is like a 153 - we've got to accept that we are restricted to stock with a certain multiple of carriages.

...

Sometimes that means an imperfect number of seats, given that demand at one end of the route isn't the same as at the other end - that's life.

You keep appearing to look for a "perfect" situation, but I don't think there is one.

I agree with all of that, there's no perfect solution I admit. I just feel that the choices that have been made are not necessarily the best compromise possible.

If you would rather have medium lengths services at the "country" end, that means accepting no scope to lengthen them at the "London" end. And I think that catering to demand at the London end is more important.

I agree that you have to cater for the demand at the London end. One question is, what is the loading of the LEAST-BUSY off-peak services between London and Reading? If a 600+ seat train is required at the London end ON EVERY SERVICE, then in my opinion every one of the new trains should be 9-car. If however there are diagrams never need to carry that many passengers, at any point of any journey, then having some shorter trains could be useful. How long those shorter trains are depends on how busy those quieter services are.

Okay, you'd rather we run nine coaches at all times to Gloucester/ Hereford/ Weston etc

If those trains need to nine coaches to seat everyone at the London end then yes. If however they have, say, 100 passenger on at the "country end" and fill up to 450 passengers or less at the London end, then some 7-car units would be useful.

meaning building dozens of extra carriages

Yes and no. A long while ago I estimated that, without multiple working, IEP would need to cover 46 diagrams. 46x9 is 414 diagrammed vehicles, versus 322 ordered by DfT. That is 92 additional diagrammed vehicles, but don't forget that I've always been opposed to IC225 replacement at the present time. If you halved the IC225 replacement order, you would have saved more than enough IEP vehicles to have an all 9-car GWML fleet.

But isn't "a mix of lengths and diagram appropriate length trains to each service" what five/nine/ten coach services gives us?

Sort of, but I doubt the number of diagrams a 5-car set is suitable for is very high. Also, with IEP as it stands 10=9 and as soon as you have over 320 passengers at any point on the route you have to go to a 9-car set.

If you look at the scheme and ignore some of the more fantastical claims made on fora such as these, you would get the impression people who knew what they were doing were responsible for designing the new trains, electrification and track infrastructure for the GWML Route Modernisation program.

A good point, to which I would say that the electrification designers for the bulk of the GWML don't seem to know what they are doing with regard to making the OHLE look unobtrusive. But otherwise I agree; it isn't the pepole designing the trains who specified there would be so many 5-car sets in the GWML order.

Most of the Cotswold Line HSTs do the jobs they are on because the trains are:
a. Busy, as they are in the peaks
b. Getting stock into the right place for the morning service into London - hence late evening westbound HST - or for the busy late afternoon Oxford-London services
c. There is nothing else more suitable available, due to there being only five 180s in the fleet, hence the off-peak HSTs to Worcester and Hereford.

And c also applies to Cheltenham at the moment, where 180s operated many services from their introduction until late 2008.

Fine, so you need a 9-car set for a. and b. and something shorter for c. You say they're aren't enough 180s, so perhaps we need a few more than 5x 5-car IEPs, but how many diagrams can you find where c. applies (and a. and b. don't) all-day? I don't know, but I'd be really supprised if it was more than 10 or 11.

you most certainly proposed a jumble of different train lengths

Yes, I did, because there are undoubtedly diagrams where a. applies and you need a long train; but if neither a. or b. apply you can use something shorter. Unless you have a 'jumble of different train lengths', you can't handle quiet services differently from busy ones (and 5/9/10 is 'a jumble of different train lengths', but potentially a less useful one than 5/7/9, it depends).

the bizarre claim that XC is a 'true Intercity franchise' - have you actually seen the way in which many people use XC trains? You know, all the short-distance commuting...

Perhaps the person you were replying to there forgot the 170s XC operate, the rest of XC is an Intercity-style operation in that the services are long-distance limited-stop ones, much like the Great Western IC125/cl180 routes. When I read that post, I look it to mean that Great Western was not considered a 'true Intercity franchise' because it is now 'Greater Western' and has the local services (formerly Wessex Trains and Great Western Link) in it whereas ICEC and ICWC don't have local services.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

A good point, to which I would say that the electrification designers for the bulk of the GWML don't seem to know what they are doing with regard to making the OHLE look unobtrusive.

Biased, I know, but I find the Series 1 simple and functional, with less clutter than the BR Mark 1 system or even the new BR Mark 3 based Series 2 system.

Visual obtrusion was somewhere alongside pleasant odour in the list of demands NR used to inform F+F on the design of Series 1.

The specifications were only ever going to lead to the levels of obtrusion we see today, as the system was specified from the outset as having to have mechanically independent registration, no tail wires and to use spring tensioning rather than weight tensioning. They're all needed as they're the only way to get the level of reliability that's needed. 600-650 pantographs per day out of Paddington and around to Reading, twice that on the ECML (though it will catch up fairly soon hence its reliability improvement program).

 

[LexyBoy]

If those trains need to nine coaches to seat everyone at the London end then yes. If however they have, say, 100 passenger on at the "country end" and fill up to 450 passengers or less at the London end, then some 7-car units would be useful.

Or, you have a 5-coach train at the country end and couple it with another 5-coach train from a similar origin to provide enough capacity at the London end, whilst providing a more frequent service to those places without using more paths into London.

 

[jayah]

Is there any commercial reason for runnning aggregate trains during the daytime on that route?

I would love to know how much those trains make compared to the £100m cost of the Acton Yard dive under to allow them to continue running in the daytime.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I should have gone for a more basic set of reliability figures for each system.

Series 1 is expected to average around 5 years between failures per track mile, the older systems, in particular the GEML prior to the renewals project, could only manage 6 or 8 weeks between failures per track mile.

Mark 3b isn't technically that unreliable - it doesn't fail all that frequently, but when it does fail, the scale of damage and the disruption that results is disastrous.

Series 1 will obviously improve dramatically over older systems, including Mark 3b, but where it really comes into its own is the reduction in disruption that will result after failures. The GWML three and four track sections will have lines available to electric traction after a de-wirement, the ECML three and four track sections (the sections using headspans) generally don't have any lines available to electric traction, often for a day or two after a de-wirement.

I am probably more confused now, though I do appreciate your attempts to enlighten me.

Let's say there are 220 track miles London to Norwich and each track mile fails every 49 days. Are there really 4.5 OHLE failures a day? Are these technical failures like MPC not the sort of thing that a customer will notice? GEML is disrupted by OHLE literally a third of the times I use it, but it isn't as bad as that.

ECML is blocked to electrics for days after a dewirement. OK how long after a dewirement will GWML have working on adjacent lines and how many times a year will this happen? Are there non dewirement failures that will disrupt the HSTs IEPs?

 

[Taunton]

I would love to know how much those trains make compared to the £100m cost of the Acton Yard dive under to allow them to continue running in the daytime.

With the end of coal it's probably one of the largest bulk haul flows in the UK. The majority of the aggregates required in London & the SE for building construction, roads, etc, comes from the quarries down in Wiltshire/Somerset..

 

[jimm]

I agree that you have to cater for the demand at the London end. One question is, what is the loading of the LEAST-BUSY off-peak services between London and Reading? If a 600+ seat train is required at the London end ON EVERY SERVICE, then in my opinion every one of the new trains should be 9-car. If however there are diagrams never need to carry that many passengers, at any point of any journey, then having some shorter trains could be useful. How long those shorter trains are depends on how busy those quieter services are.

For pity's sake. What on earth makes you think a 600-seat train is required off-peak?

Are the 180s leaving passengers behind at Reading or Paddington? No, they are not. They are part of a mix of frequent services - something that is not going to change in future.

There are going to be something like a dozen IEP departures per hour, topped up by fast 387s workings, semi-fasts, Crossrail...

If those trains need to nine coaches to seat everyone at the London end then yes. If however they have, say, 100 passenger on at the "country end" and fill up to 450 passengers or less at the London end, then some 7-car units would be useful.

No, some seven coach sets would not be useful, because they would be too small for the peak demand - how many more times do you need to be told HSTs arrive at Oxford off the Cotswold Line in the peaks full up, with people getting off there making room for those getting on - and far too big for off-peak, where a five-car set will be generous provision on a fair few off-peak trains, all the more so the further west they get. Whereas 2x5 formations can handle peak loads and split for more flexible use/servicing at quieter times of the day.

Cheltenham/Gloucester peak trains load heavily - and have a Swindon stop as well, so they also need more seats in the peaks than you get in a seven-coach train... etc, etc

Sort of, but I doubt the number of diagrams a 5-car set is suitable for is very high. Also, with IEP as it stands 10=9 and as soon as you have over 320 passengers at any point on the route you have to go to a 9-car set.

You doubt it, do out? Even though you obviously have precious little idea about loadings on the routes these trains will work, whether peak or off-peak.

A good point, to which I would say that the electrification designers for the bulk of the GWML don't seem to know what they are doing with regard to making the OHLE look unobtrusive. But otherwise I agree; it isn't the pepole designing the trains who specified there would be so many 5-car sets in the GWML order.

No, it was people who know about running a train service. Jut in case you haven;t noticed, when GWR ordered the 802s for the West Country, unfettered by the DfT, they also ordered five-car sets. I wonder why?

Fine, so you need a 9-car set for a. and b. and something shorter for c. You say they're aren't enough 180s, so perhaps we need a few more than 5x 5-car IEPs, but how many diagrams can you find where c. applies (and a. and b. don't) all-day? I don't know, but I'd be really supprised if it was more than 10 or 11.

Since I have no access to the diagrams that will apply and can't be bothered to indulge in back-of-a-fag-packet calculations, I'll leave it to the people at GWR, who are pretty nifty about working these things out. And can probably manage to come up with diagrams that do stuff like running a 2x5 into London in the peak, then splitting it to give a five-car back to the Cotswolds and one to Oxford/Cheltenham, or 2x5 to Oxford or Swindon, splitting there with one going back to London, whether on its own or coupled with another set that has come from further west.

Yes, I did, because there are undoubtedly diagrams where a. applies and you need a long train; but if neither a. or b. apply you can use something shorter. Unless you have a 'jumble of different train lengths', you can't handle quiet services differently from busy ones (and 5/9/10 is 'a jumble of different train lengths', but potentially a less useful one than 5/7/9, it depends).

And like I said above, a seven-car will not be long enough for peak services and far to long off-peak. There is no '5/9/10'. There is five, 2x5 or nine.

Perhaps the person you were replying to there forgot the 170s XC operate, the rest of XC is an Intercity-style operation in that the services are long-distance limited-stop ones, much like the Great Western IC125/cl180 routes. When I read that post, I look it to mean that Great Western was not considered a 'true Intercity franchise' because it is now 'Greater Western' and has the local services (formerly Wessex Trains and Great Western Link) in it whereas ICEC and ICWC don't have local services.

Once again, you really do need to get out of West Wales more and see what happens and how passengers actually use trains in the rest of the country before posting.

How do you think most commuters between Banbury and Oxford travel? They use XC. Any Voyager between Leamington Spa and Birmingham in the peaks is rammed - and not with long-distance passengers. Do you think people travelling between the likes of Leeds and Sheffield dutifully board Northern services to leave XC services for long-distance passengers? Or Cheltenham passengers get on the GWR dmu instead of a Voyager that is non-stop to Bristol Parkway, etc, etc - similar things happen all over the XC network.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Are these technical failures like MPC not the sort of thing that a customer will notice?

Yes - items such as damaged insulators, damaged droppers, broken pulleys, auto tensioner issues (where fitted) and the like. These can be repaired quickly, sections coasted through or traction diverted on different lines.

These failures aren't too severe, most will barely be noticeable at all. The GEML in recent years would have around 1 major event per month (on average) - major event in this instance would be delay minutes exceeding 500.

These failure rates don't take into account pantographs per failure per track mile, so although the GEML dips down to 50 days per failure per mile, it's used by around 700 pantographs per day, whilst the ECML with something in the region of 2.5 years per failure per mile is only used by 250 pantographs per day.

It's only relevant in a downwards direction, i.e if previously reliable OLE becomes unreliable when service intensity is increased, given we can't reduce service intensity to increase OLE reliability.

GWML with Series 1 being twice as reliable as Mark 3b doesn't take into account the fact Series 1 will be used by almost three times as many pantographs on a daily basis. Half the yearly number of incidents, far higher utilisation.

ECML is blocked to electrics for days after a dewirement. OK how long after a dewirement will GWML have working on adjacent lines and how many times a year will this happen? Are there non dewirement failures that will disrupt the HSTs IEPs?

GWML should have at least one adjacent line open to traffic almost immediately after a dewirement, subject to a safety inspection, the remaining pair of lines will be assessed for safety and their use will be determined on safety and engineering access required to remedy the problem.

The intention is for all four lines to be re-opened as soon as debris and stranded stock is extricated, with the dewired line opened to diesel traction and all three other lines open to electric traction. Engineering work may require closure of additional lines but at least one line should be available and possibly two lines, with ESR on the remaining lines.

There are the potential for non dewirement failures to affect all stock as is the case now - bird strikes, weather damage, loss of tensioning etc. Non dewirement failure modes are also being engineered out of the OLE.

 

[Rich McLean]

Agreed - I think there was a note on the pdf that it does not include the proposed hourly Westbury that will replace the Bedwyn services providing additional AT-300s are approved by DfT.

The 1tp2hr Exeter Service would effect be an Extension of the hourly Westbury Service, freeing up a path. Didn't know if I made that clear

 

[HowardGWR]

I can't understand what this discussion is designed to achieve. We have had an input from the person who is involved with the planning of the cascade and I don't understand what has been added to that expert contribution. Perhaps I am too dim to see what exercises some correspondents.

 

[swt_passenger]

I can't understand what this discussion is designed to achieve. We have had an input from the person who is involved with the planning of the cascade and I don't understand what has been added to that expert contribution. Perhaps I am too dim to see what exercises some correspondents.

I agree, everything that is coming up now is a repeat of prior discussions in either rolling stock threads about IEP, or infrastructure threads about GW electrification. At least one correspondent just wants to talk about IEP lengths just about every few weeks, and it will achieve nothing.

 

[Rhydgaled]

For pity's sake. What on earth makes you think a 600-seat train is required off-peak?

I don't think a 600-seat train is required off-peak at the country end. But, as you correctly say, I "obviously have precious little idea about loadings on the routes these trains will work", I very rarely go to London so I've no idea what the off-peak loadings are like between Reading and Paddington. Post 271, by tbtc seems to suggest that 600-seat trains will be needed east of Reading even off-peak. If that is the case, then in my opinion every train should be that long. If that isn't the case, having some shorter trains may be sensible.

No, some seven coach sets would not be useful, because they would be too small for the peak demand - how many more times do you need to be told HSTs arrive at Oxford off the Cotswold Line in the peaks full up

You could equally say that the 180s are too small for peak demand, but presumably they are not in London in the peaks. The shorter sets will presumablly be heading into places like Hereford and Cheltenham in the morning peak, and departing from them in the evening peak. These won't be as busy as the London-peak services, but will presumably still be busier than in the middle of the day.

Cheltenham/Gloucester peak trains load heavily

Are you refering only to peak trains into London from Cheltenham/Gloucester, or are you saying peak trains into Cheltenham/Gloucester from Swindon are also heavily loaded?

How do you think most commuters between Banbury and Oxford travel? They use XC. Any Voyager between Leamington Spa and Birmingham in the peaks is rammed - and not with long-distance passengers. Do you think people travelling between the likes of Leeds and Sheffield dutifully board Northern services to leave XC services for long-distance passengers? Or Cheltenham passengers get on the GWR dmu instead of a Voyager that is non-stop to Bristol Parkway, etc, etc - similar things happen all over the XC network.

My point was that I consider an intercity service to be an intercity service whether it is loaded with loads of commuters or not. London-Swansea services calling at Reading, Swindon, Bristol Parkway, Newport, Cardiff Central, Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway, Neath and Swansea are still intercity even if they are carrying lots of short-distance commuters.

 

[jimm]

I don't think a 600-seat train is required off-peak at the country end. But, as you correctly say, I "obviously have precious little idea about loadings on the routes these trains will work", I very rarely go to London so I've no idea what the off-peak loadings are like between Reading and Paddington. Post 271, by tbtc seems to suggest that 600-seat trains will be needed east of Reading even off-peak. If that is the case, then in my opinion every train should be that long. If that isn't the case, having some shorter trains may be sensible.

Reading the entirety of tbtc's post, rather than the one line you have homed in on, it seems pretty obviously it refers to what will be needed for the peak periods. Ie 2x5 or nine-car formations, which is just what will be running into London in the morning peak and out in the afternoon...

You could equally say that the 180s are too small for peak demand, but presumably they are not in London in the peaks. The shorter sets will presumablly be heading into places like Hereford and Cheltenham in the morning peak, and departing from them in the evening peak. These won't be as busy as the London-peak services, but will presumably still be busier than in the middle of the day.

How many years have we been trying to get this point through to you. Has the penny finally dropped? You have been told many times how GWR currently uses the 180s - all you have to do if you don't believe me is look at the Cotswold Line and Oxford fast services timetables! This is why having five-coach trains - that are able to be paired up for sections of journeys where there is heavy demand - are a far more sensible way to go than a fleet of nothing but inflexible long trains - which is why the 800 and 802 fleets ordered for GWR look the way they do. Same with the EC order for five-car 800s, which are aimed at services that will go off the main line to Lincoln, Hull, etc.

Are you refering only to peak trains into London from Cheltenham/Gloucester, or are you saying peak trains into Cheltenham/Gloucester from Swindon are also heavily loaded?

Towards London am, back from London pm. Again as pointed out many times already.

My point was that I consider an intercity service to be an intercity service whether it is loaded with loads of commuters or not. London-Swansea services calling at Reading, Swindon, Bristol Parkway, Newport, Cardiff Central, Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway, Neath and Swansea are still intercity even if they are carrying lots of short-distance commuters.

The original post I was addressing claimed that XC was a long-distance operator in a similar bracket to East Coast and West Coast - it isn't. People use its trains - even if they do run over long distances - in a different way to the other two, including high levels of short-distance commuting around the big cities that XC serves. GWR is a different type of operation again, running just about type of passenger service, with the inevitable overlap in usage that brings.

 

[Bobandirus]

4 paths per hour are also wasted by Heathrow Express until 2023. After that who knows what might happen.

Welcome to the forums, by the way.

That definitely clears up that there's going to be lots of room, it'll just be a case of using it. Thanks!

Also, thank you! Hello!

 

[co-tr-paul]

As the O.P. , can I say that this thread was intended as a news item hence its original position. It has now become off topic and yet another what if discussion on the IEP and many posts are repeated elsewhere. Can I ask the mods to please close this thread now to save continued repetition. Thank you all for the intrest shown in the original topic and as soon as more news is obtained, then I shall pass it on. Regards. Paul.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Has the use of short-formed HSTs been confirmed officially or reported anywhere yet?

 

[43074]

Has the use of short-formed HSTs been confirmed officially or reported anywhere yet?

It hasn't been announced officially as yet, but posts both here and on the wnxx forum by GWR insiders confirm this is definitely on the cards.

 

[HowardGWR]

This seems to be the best thread to post this, as it could be entitled 'IEP can't come soon enough', but also affects the resulting cascade, possibly.

We travelled on GWR Mark 3 stock yesterday (HST Bath to Didcot and return) and were disappointed that on both occasions, our initial choice of std class coach was very stuffy on a hot day. This was due to the fact that some of the sliding doors were kaput (thus permanently open) and of course, as pax always leave the vestibule exit door windows open (to reach the door handle), the a/c cannot function. It was of course also very noisy in those coaches.

We solved this by moving to a coach where the sliding doors were functioning and there, it was pleasantly cool and also quiet. Of course in winter, the reverse would be the case, freezing. I did wonder whether GWR OB Staff are instructed to keep closing vestibule door windows and whether that would lead to a/c working. In other words whether the vestibule is part of the a/c area, I would assume not from the above related experience.

I doubt that they are so instructed, as we didn't see any ticket check staff either on the way or the way back.

I do wonder, even at this late stage, whether the repainting of stock in 'GWR' green is wrongly prioritised over repairing sliding doors on this stock.

 

[43096]

I do wonder, even at this late stage, whether the repainting of stock in 'GWR' green is wrongly prioritised over repairing sliding doors on this stock.

You wonder wrongly, then. Green repaints on the two sets that have been done were as part of routine, scheduled, mandatory C6 overhauls. The rest of the fleet was also repainted during their C6 overhauls, just in the existing blue.

 

[SephenWorceste]

Those doors have always been a problem. I remember they were regularly not working from the 1980s. I wonder if they just get bashed about a bit too much. I must have knocked a few with luggage over the years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[sprinterguy]

Those doors have always been a problem. I remember they were regularly not working from the 1980s. I wonder if they just get bashed about a bit too much. I must have knocked a few with luggage over the years.

It's noteworthy that on the Chiltern rebuilds with power doors, with far fewer draughts to contend with, those doors have been dispensed with altogether as presumably being not worth the hassle.

 

[SephenWorceste]

I did not know that about the Chiltern trains. I must try one of the the Silver Trains. I live quite near to Kidderminster so it would not be difficult.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk