IEP and the Cotswold line

[tbtc]

You would potentailly be looking at 150% overloading if that happens at Rush hour... meaning you will leave people behind, which muddies the waters considerably when it comes to the choice between two short formed trains and one cancelled one

...so because you don't want to cram as many as possible of the thousand passengers due to board a 260m train into just a 130m train (with capacity for only five hundred) you'd rather leave a thousand passengers behind for the next service to try to cope with?

Passengers loading on all intercity services are high even during the off peak. And with passenger loadings growing fast it would be mad to make in intercity set not a fixed formation 8/9/10 car. Like when you couple 2 voyagers together the middle cabs is a big waste of space but on there own they aren't big enough.

Passenger loadings between London - Reading - Oxford/ Swindon are high enough to justify 260m trains.

Passenger loadings between Swindon and Gloucester and between Worcester and Hereford are not high enough to justify 260m trains.

How do you solve that?

 

[Dave1987]

...so because you don't want to cram as many as possible of the thousand passengers due to board a 260m train into just a 130m train (with capacity for only five hundred) you'd rather leave a thousand passengers behind for the next service to try to cope with?



Passenger loadings between London - Reading - Oxford/ Swindon are high enough to justify 260m trains.

Passenger loadings between Swindon and Gloucester and between Worcester and Hereford are not high enough to justify 260m trains.

How do you solve that?

Encourage more train travel in those parts, but my point is eventually you will need a full 10 car all the way. If you had 2x5 cars you would have lots the middle cab capacity perminantly. As someone who works in the industry you see shortsightedness all the time people only looking at the here and now and not thinking about 5-10 years time. I may not be required now but it soon will be and 2x5 cars going around all day together is just a waste.

 

[tbtc]

Encourage more train travel in those parts, but my point is eventually you will need a full 10 car all the way. If you had 2x5 cars you would have lots the middle cab capacity perminantly. As someone who works in the industry you see shortsightedness all the time people only looking at the here and now and not thinking about 5-10 years time. I may not be required now but it soon will be and 2x5 cars going around all day together is just a waste.

You think that ten coach trains will be required all day from Worcester to Hereford in five years time?

 

[jimm]

So the effect of a cancelled 9-car or of 2 short formed 5-car trains is comparable? Its just a matter of if the overcrowding is concentrated onto a smaller number of trains or spread out of more services.
This doesn't really help your argument of "a failure will only take out half the set".

Running half-empty trains around if they simplify operations is surprisingly cheap, fuel costs are not a really large fraction of the cost of operating train services these days.

This is why there was never really meant to be significant doubled up running of Voyagers/Meridians when they first arrived, such things have only really occured relatively recently (on a large scale) to deal with the operational problems in the aftermath of Operation Princess and the reassignment of the Hull Trains sets to MML.

Since the journey time improvements are likely to disproportionately favour the route section between Hereford and Oxford, it would tend to further reduce the advantage of splitting the trains in the middle since it would reduce the excess stock requirement of running all trains through.
Additionally it is only a few minutes of saving so it shouldn't reflect on diagramming too harshly.

None of which actually addresses whether some sort of train operating is better than a cancellation - in my general experience it is better to run something. Nor how you propose to fill a single extra seat west of Oxford or Swindon outside the peaks. I doubt journey time improvements will disproportionately favour west of Oxford - you will need to take a chunk of time out between there and London as well - which will be a lot easier once you take 90mph Turbos out of the equation.

I think half the problem regarding Cheltenham and Great Malvern services being lightly loaded is poor infrastructure. It'd be quicker to drive from Cheltenham to Swindon than to catch the train, which isn't much of an incentive to take the train. On the Cotswolds line although there are higher line speeds of 100mph in places, a lot of it is slow for Intercity services and also due to the single track, waiting around at Evesham for a few minutes adds on more time which makes the train less attractive. So I believe infrastructure is our problem affecting demand on these two routes.

So it's nothing to do with the relatively small populations at the outer ends of the line, or between Oxford and Worcester, and their travel patterns? Those places are not Bristol or Cardiff or Swansea. Far more people from Worcester and Hereford commute/go shopping etc towards Birmingham than will ever to Oxford or London. Same applies to Bristol's relationship with Gloucester and Cheltenham. More, faster trains will bring in more custom - they will not increase it so much that running 600-seat trains all day round will ever be justified.

But you said that 166s/165s were used on the Cotswolds, due to IC125s being an over-provision of capacity, when FirstGW had no 180s at all. If running IC125s to Cheltenham off-peak was hurting, wouldn't they have left the 165s/166s on the Cotswolds and put the five returning 180s on Cheltenham runs off-peak?

Ok, what if they need over 300 but less than 600 seats off-peak? Same for the Cotswolds, and one of the reasons why I've suggested 7-car bi-modes in the past. That provides a more reasonable capacity for the beyond-the-wires destinations, but there is the issue of having alot of passengers wanting to board at places like Reading and Swindon, so maybe you need 9-car to make sure there's room left for them.

Yes, Turbos were used because HSTs were capacity overkill and because the only other thing FGW had available when the 180s left was... Turbos. What else were they going to use? They put the returning 180s back on the Cotswold Line because it released 16xs to strengthen Thames Valley services.

What you have suggested in the past was seven-car 22xs, not IEPs, which you keep telling us should not be built in the first place, seven-car 22xs which, as I pointed out, as currently configured on MML have fewer standard class seats than a 180. In what way is cutting capacity "more reasonable"? Stupid is what I'd call it.

As I keep telling you, FGW is concerned about the five-car plan - but that is not to say that they would favour an all-eight or all-nine car fleet either.

Encourage more train travel in those parts, but my point is eventually you will need a full 10 car all the way. If you had 2x5 cars you would have lots the middle cab capacity perminantly. As someone who works in the industry you see shortsightedness all the time people only looking at the here and now and not thinking about 5-10 years time. I may not be required now but it soon will be and 2x5 cars going around all day together is just a waste.

You know that "eventually you will need a full 10-car all the way" how?
You'll have to do better than coming out with lines like "encourage more train travel in those parts" if you're going to convince anyone. Comments like that suggest you know precious little about the size of the populations along the Cotswold Line, nor their travel patterns for work or leisure. And if the trains are going to be full west of Oxford all day as well, then how long will the formations need to be between Oxford and London? You can't magically get all your extra passengers to get off at Oxford - a lot will be going to Reading or London.

The plan is not for 2x5 cars to be going around all day together, is it? Whereas what you are advocating is the equivalent of that, whether or not the seats are actually needed.

 

[route:oxford]

Passenger loadings between London - Reading - Oxford/ Swindon are high enough to justify 260m trains.

Passenger loadings between Swindon and Gloucester and between Worcester and Hereford are not high enough to justify 260m trains.

How do you solve that?

Cut the cost of peak travel for through travellers to the same price as those who split their journey at Diddyland?

 

[cjp]

As someone who works in the industry you see shortsightedness all the time people only looking at the here and now and not thinking about 5-10 years time. It may not be required now but it soon will be and 2x5 cars going around all day together is just a waste.

Heathrow Express seem to do this all day every day and make a profit for BAA

 

[Dave1987]

I used to be based at RAF Brize Norton so I know the Cotswold lines well! Plus my partner used to live in Stow. The mistake was made with the voyagers making them too short. Looks like its gonna happen again with IEP. Plus like I said in a previous thread the bi-mode idea is jus ludicrous! Even the press think its stupid.

 

[The Ham]

I used to be based at RAF Brize Norton so I know the Cotswold lines well! Plus my partner used to live in Stow. The mistake was made with the voyagers making them too short. Looks like its gonna happen again with IEP. Plus like I said in a previous thread the bi-mode idea is jus ludicrous! Even the press think its stupid.

Saying that 5 coach IEP is going to be bad because Voyagers are bad doesn't show the whole story.

Firstly a lot of voyagers were only 4 coaches long with the rest being 5 coaches long. Compared with about 1/2 the IEP coaches being formed up as 9 coach trains (not including the possible extra 30x9 coach sets)

Secondly (and related to the above) there were only 352 voyager coaches built, of this there were 156 end coaches and 196 middle coaches. Whilst under the current plans there are 596 coaches to be built, of which 160 will be end coaches and 436 middle coaches (over double the number of middle coaches for almost the same number of end coaches).

Thirdly there is an option for more coaches, depending on when this has to be taken by, it may be possible for extra coaches (possibly all middle coaches) to be ordered to lengthen the existing 5 coach trains.

Finally, further in the future when no new IEP's could be ordered there are likely to be more routes electrified allowing more electric trains to take over some of the services which will be run by bi-modal trains allowing the replaced bi-modals to strengthen other routes which still need bi-modal trains.

Yes there are risks with IEP (or for that matter any bi-modal train) but the advantage to having a large fleet of trains which are all basically the same (other than a few extra engines on the bi-modal sets) and where they are increasing the total number of coaches (there are 581 mark 3's split between EC & GW, however it should be also noted that the current plan is that the GW services to Cornwall will not be run by the initial IEP and so the coaches which run this service will be kept as IC125's or replaced by either using 22x's or more IEP's) there is likely to be some big advantages.

 

[Dave1987]

Sorry but the whole IEP project has been a bit of a shambles from start to finish as the DFT keep changing the goalposts. I don't think the order will be finalised in time and if it is it is bound to be rushed. Only time will tell but I really hope we do not have another Voyager or Pendo at the end of it.

 

[The Ham]

Sorry but the whole IEP project has been a bit of a shambles from start to finish as the DFT keep changing the goalposts. I don't think the order will be finalised in time and if it is it is bound to be rushed. Only time will tell but I really hope we do not have another Voyager or Pendo at the end of it.

Other than the financial closer for the East Coast elements (GW elements have already obtained this), what is in the governments court with this order?

If there is nothing, then any delays are likely to be related to Agility Trains which is likely to cost them in fines and/or lost revenue from the TOC's; which is clearly not in their interest.

 

[Monkey Magic]

The problem seems to be this:

There is demand for 5+ trains between Worcester and Oxford. (The 180 services during the day from Great Malvern are normally full up & one of the main aims of the CLPG is an hourly service between Great Malvern and Paddington.)

There is probably not the demand for 10 car beyond Worcester/Great Malvern.

The problem is that multiple is problematic where you have short platforms between Worcester and Oxford - Hanborough is the obvious example which is limited to 2 HST cars.

You've got passenger demand that means that trains have to stop at Hanborough, but you don't have trains at 5 coaches that are long enough to accommodate all the passengers for journey beyond Oxford, and you don't have the infrastructure (longer platforms) to accommodate trains running in multiple.

Something has to be fudged - the 'best' solution from the point of view of the passenger would be 8/9 car IEP, or double tracking, or lengthening the platforms.

The lack of traffic between Great Malvern and Hereford is perhaps in part due to the fact that the service is so poor at the moment, and are the costs of running an 8 or 9 car bi-mode between Hereford and Great Malvern so significantly higher than running a 5 car bi-mode between those same places?

The most likely outcome is going to be 5 car and over-crowding.

Also this

appears to show the pantograph on the front car which would surely make running in multiple difficult with the standing wave problem identified elsewhere.

 

[Class172]

As a more abstract suggestion, since I have noticed other discussions about class 222s going to GW in the future, how about using some 222s on the Cotswold Line, perhaps reformed into 7 car formations. I don't know about the logistics but with a suitable interior set-up (perhaps DMS-MS-MS-MS-MS-MC(with mini-buffet)-DMF?), they could offer a capacity improvement on a Class 180/5-car IEP whilst not being completely empty like some off-peak HSTs.

Are 222s fitted (or can be fitted) with SDO?

If that worked then you could even make the 222s bi-mode...

I can only see 5-car IEPs to Worcester and Great Malvern as a disaster waiting to happen, however 10 cars would be overkill (and also not fit at any stations on the Cotswold Line).

 

[cjp]

The problem seems to be this:

There is probably not the demand for 10 car beyond Worcester/Great Malvern.

The problem is that multiple is problematic where you have short platforms between Worcester and Oxford - Hanborough is the obvious example which is limited to 2 HST cars.

You've got passenger demand that means that trains have to stop at Hanborough, but you don't have trains at 5 coaches that are long enough to accommodate all the passengers for journey beyond Oxford, and you don't have the infrastructure (longer platforms) to accommodate trains running in multiple.

Something has to be fudged - the 'best' solution from the point of view of the passenger would be 8/9 car IEP, or double tracking, or lengthening the platforms.

The most likely outcome is going to be 5 car and over-crowding.

You are referred to The Ham's earlier post which you have either overlooked or decided to ignore
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1478028&postcount=15
whereby one carriage from each 5 carriage set could be in station giving access to both five carriage sets.
And if there are too many cycles for the train then, as now, they cannot board

 

[Dave1987]

You are referred to The Ham's earlier post which you have either overlooked or decided to ignore
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1478028&postcount=15
whereby one carriage from each 5 carriage set could be in station giving access to both five carriage sets.
And if there are too many cycles for the train then, as now, they cannot board

Plus do intercity sets have to have through gangways? Or are you suggesting having two buffet cars one on each 5 car? Plus how can the guard get through for tickets etc??

 

[jimm]

I used to be based at RAF Brize Norton so I know the Cotswold lines well! Plus my partner used to live in Stow. The mistake was made with the voyagers making them too short. Looks like its gonna happen again with IEP. Plus like I said in a previous thread the bi-mode idea is jus ludicrous! Even the press think its stupid.

So your answer for serving routes that will be part-electrified and part-unwired is what?

And if you know the area as you claim to do, then where, using some of this local knowledge, are all your fantasy extra passengers are going to come from all of a sudden to fill a 600-seat train off-peak?

The story of the Cotswold Line for the past 30-odd years has been one of slow, steady growth. The one time there was a big spike was 20 years ago immediately after the Turbo service launched, bringing back through London services across the day, not just in the peaks. You are not suddenly going to go from running well-loaded 280-seat trains off-peak to running well-loaded 600-seat trains.

Cut the cost of peak travel for through travellers to the same price as those who split their journey at Diddyland?

We're not talking about filling peak trains on either route - that is never going to be a problem - we're talking about the fantasy that you can fill a 600-seat train outside the peaks beyond Oxford and Swindon. And next to none of the Cotswold Line trains call at Didcot anyway.

Heathrow Express seem to do this all day every day and make a profit for BAA

With fares more expensive per mile than Concorde used to charge, it's not hard.

The problem seems to be this:

There is demand for 5+ trains between Worcester and Oxford. (The 180 services during the day from Great Malvern are normally full up & one of the main aims of the CLPG is an hourly service between Great Malvern and Paddington.)

There is probably not the demand for 10 car beyond Worcester/Great Malvern.

The problem is that multiple is problematic where you have short platforms between Worcester and Oxford - Hanborough is the obvious example which is limited to 2 HST cars.

You've got passenger demand that means that trains have to stop at Hanborough, but you don't have trains at 5 coaches that are long enough to accommodate all the passengers for journey beyond Oxford, and you don't have the infrastructure (longer platforms) to accommodate trains running in multiple.

Something has to be fudged - the 'best' solution from the point of view of the passenger would be 8/9 car IEP, or double tracking, or lengthening the platforms.

The lack of traffic between Great Malvern and Hereford is perhaps in part due to the fact that the service is so poor at the moment, and are the costs of running an 8 or 9 car bi-mode between Hereford and Great Malvern so significantly higher than running a 5 car bi-mode between those same places?

The most likely outcome is going to be 5 car and over-crowding.

As a more abstract suggestion, since I have noticed other discussions about class 222s going to GW in the future, how about using some 222s on the Cotswold Line, perhaps reformed into 7 car formations. I don't know about the logistics but with a suitable interior set-up (perhaps DMS-MS-MS-MS-MS-MC(with mini-buffet)-DMF?), they could offer a capacity improvement on a Class 180/5-car IEP whilst not being completely empty like some off-peak HSTs.

Are 222s fitted (or can be fitted) with SDO?

If that worked then you could even make the 222s bi-mode...

I can only see 5-car IEPs to Worcester and Great Malvern as a disaster waiting to happen, however 10 cars would be overkill (and also not fit at any stations on the Cotswold Line).

The actual problem seems to be this - neither of you has taken in what was said by cjp and THe Ham at the botom of page 1 of this thread. I have since looked up the technical specifications for IEP, released earlier this year by DfT.

The section on the selective door system says that the system will allow - either guided by GPS, ETCS signalling (if available) or by crew control - any combination of doors in any position on the train, or trains, to be opened. From this it is seems fair to assume that the way 2x5 formations will work is stop with the middle of the formation on short platforms, like those on the Cotswold Line and down the Stroud Valley, so that doors on parts of both sets can be opened. The formation will not draw up neatly with the nose or back next to the ends of the platform, they will stick out at both ends.

I remain of the view that a modest number of eight or nine-car bi-modes would be useful on GW services but having the entire fleet like this would make no sense at all. The situation between 2009 and last year, when the only stock FGW had available to work the Cotswold Line was an HST or a Turbo, with nothing available offering an intermediate level of seating capacity combined with inter-city comfort, instead of cramped 3+2 Turbo seats, was plain stupid.

The specification document is here https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/82840/tts-redacted.pdf and the stuff about the SDO system is on pages 45-47.

The 180 services are not all full up west of Oxford - some are near-full, some aren't. The ones that are busy are the ones that are giving FGW cause for concern in terms of the effects of future growth in traffic if most IEPs are five-car - hence all the stuff I keep having to repeat about what the GW franchise invitation to tender said about how an operator could go about requesting other formations.

How on earth you can say that the service between Great Malvern and Hereford is poor baffles me, when it is pretty much the best it has ever been, with an hourly LM service to and from Birmingham - many connecting with FGW at Malvern or Worcester - plus FGW running six through trains to London and five from London on weekdays, plus a Sunday morning service on the line for the first time in years. And Hereford passengers also have the option of going via Newport if they don't mind the change of trains.

Forget 22xs of any sort. They cannot carry enough passengers - a seven-car has fewer standard class seats than a five-car 180. Even if you converted some of the first class seats, you would just about break even with a 180 - in a train that is 56m longer and is not going to be turned into a bi-mode.

 

[Monkey Magic]

You are referred to The Ham's earlier post which you have either overlooked or decided to ignore
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1478028&postcount=15
whereby one carriage from each 5 carriage set could be in station giving access to both five carriage sets.
And if there are too many cycles for the train then, as now, they cannot board

:roll: Ho hum. Yes I read it but the debate has moved on since then and you haven't kept up. So spare me the lecture about how I should read the thread.

Do we know if 2 IEP cars will fit in all the short platforms ie Shipton? Also, consider that at the moment you have loading through 3 doors on an HST at Hanborough, you could end up with loading from the far doors of each carriage which is far from ideal 2 down from 3, it gives you a longer dwell time etc, and we have to assume that bike storage will be located in the front driving trailers.

 

[jimm]

Plus do intercity sets have to have through gangways? Or are you suggesting having two buffet cars one on each 5 car? Plus how can the guard get through for tickets etc??

Amazingly enough, the guard could do what staff do now on coupled trains here and in countries all over the world that lack through gangways - move between sets at a station... never mind all those barriers at stations in the Thames Valley nowadays.

You might well double crew buffets in the peak - there are already extra staff on the HSTs to offer a trolley service to first anyway - and I've pointed out previously that when a Cotswold train is formed of coupled Turbos between Oxford and London, the catering trolley goes in the set that is making the journey to/from the Cotswolds. FGW don't even bother opening the buffet on HSTs that are only doing London-Oxford runs, as they found it simply wasn't worth it on a journey that is already under an hour - and will be quicker with IEP.

 

[The Ham]

Plus do intercity sets have to have through gangways? Or are you suggesting having two buffet cars one on each 5 car? Plus how can the guard get through for tickets etc??

Why not, if you have a train with 600 seats on it even if there is only one buffet there is likely to be more than one member of staff to be able to serve enough people. If that is the case anyway why not have them in two seperate locations so it is easier for people to get to the buffet and so therefore create extra income for the TOC.

Tickets and the like are not a problem, as there are serveral classes of trains where there are no route from one portion to the next where there are less than five coaches and they work fine. In fact a 9 coach set could be busy enough to justify having two people checking tickets anyway if the stopping patten is such that there is a lot of change over of passengers in a fairly short time.

 

[jimm]

:roll: Ho hum. Yes I read it but the debate has moved on since then and you haven't kept up. So spare me the lecture about how I should read the thread.

Do we know if 2 IEP cars will fit in all the short platforms ie Shipton? Also, consider that at the moment you have loading through 3 doors on an HST at Hanborough, you could end up with loading from the far doors of each carriage which is far from ideal 2 down from 3, it gives you a longer dwell time etc, and we have to assume that bike storage will be located in the front driving trailers.

No, you haven't read the thread and haven't kept up. That point about the SDO system was there near the start. The rest of us have been posting since then on the basis that this is the way 2x5 operations will work. And no-one has said anything to the contrary since page 1.

In the unlikely event a 2x5 serves Shipton, then there is room to spare at either end of a 56m two-car Turbo calling on the short platform there, so yes, I think it is highly likely you could get a car each from two sets on, given the IEP door positions set in from the coach ends. FGW are working towards getting a five-car platform at Hanborough anyway and no, bike storage will not be in the end coaches - see these diagrams https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3469/iep-train-layouts.pdf

 

[tbtc]

Plus do intercity sets have to have through gangways? Or are you suggesting having two buffet cars one on each 5 car? Plus how can the guard get through for tickets etc??

Just to get things right, Dave, in your alternative are you talking about only one guard for a 260m long train, and expecting passengers to walk along a 260m long train to get to the one buffet on board?

 

[Dave1987]

Just to get things right, Dave, in your alternative are you talking about only one guard for a 260m long train, and expecting passengers to walk along a 260m long train to get to the one buffet on board?

Er yes I am. Intercity TOCs are obliged to provide buffet facilities and I doubt they would want to have to stock and staff two on the same service. As for the guard I don't know of a single other intercity service where the guard cannot access the whole train while on the move. What if a passenger needs non urgent assistance? Sorry sir/madam the next stop isn't for 30 mins I can't help you until then. You clearly haven't thought it through, stopping services usually have a stop within 10-15 mins so the guard can get into the next portion in a reasonable amount of time.

 

[jimm]

Er yes I am. Intercity TOCs are obliged to provide buffet facilities and I doubt they would want to have to stock and staff two on the same service. As for the guard I don't know of a single other intercity service where the guard cannot access the whole train while on the move. What if a passenger needs non urgent assistance? Sorry sir/madam the next stop isn't for 30 mins I can't help you until then. You clearly haven't thought it through, stopping services usually have a stop within 10-15 mins so the guard can get into the next portion in a reasonable amount of time.

Let's try the pairs of Voyagers that XC operates then, shall we.

Buffet staff are trained to help passengers - that's why you are told to contact members of traincrew. I'm afraid none of this or catering are the deal-breakers that you and others keep trying to make out that they are.

You still haven't explained how you are going to get enough passengers on an enormous train off-peak beyond Oxford and Swindon to make its use worthwhile.

 

[The Ham]

Er yes I am. Intercity TOCs are obliged to provide buffet facilities and I doubt they would want to have to stock and staff two on the same service. As for the guard I don't know of a single other intercity service where the guard cannot access the whole train while on the move. What if a passenger needs non urgent assistance? Sorry sir/madam the next stop isn't for 30 mins I can't help you until then. You clearly haven't thought it through, stopping services usually have a stop within 10-15 mins so the guard can get into the next portion in a reasonable amount of time.

Also what is the difference between the whole of an IC train not be accessable to a guard and other trains not being accessable to the guard, yes the distances between stops are more, but then the time at each stop is a less which makes the possibility of changes portions harder.

Also did you realise that most stops along the Cotswold line after Oxford are 7-12 minutes apart so acroding to your timings above isn't a problem anyway.

 

[SkinnyDave]

Any XC service I have been on with coupled voyagers has had two train managers on it?

 

[tbtc]

Er yes I am. Intercity TOCs are obliged to provide buffet facilities and I doubt they would want to have to stock and staff two on the same service. As for the guard I don't know of a single other intercity service where the guard cannot access the whole train while on the move. What if a passenger needs non urgent assistance? Sorry sir/madam the next stop isn't for 30 mins I can't help you until then. You clearly haven't thought it through, stopping services usually have a stop within 10-15 mins so the guard can get into the next portion in a reasonable amount of time.

One person to "man" a 260m train? How often are they going to check tickets, with stops every ten minutes or so?

Much better to have two members of staff able to concentrate on each section of the train, surely?

 

[Dave1987]

In my opinion if they go for 5 cars it will simply be another voyager. I hope they ditch the bi-mode idea and go for 8/9/10 cars. End of as I can't be bothered to argue any more. In my opinion all trains should have end gangways unless they are fixed formation.

 

[Monkey Magic]

No, you haven't read the thread and haven't kept up. That point about the SDO system was there near the start. The rest of us have been posting since then on the basis that this is the way 2x5 operations will work. And no-one has said anything to the contrary since page 1.

In the unlikely event a 2x5 serves Shipton, then there is room to spare at either end of a 56m two-car Turbo calling on the short platform there, so yes, I think it is highly likely you could get a car each from two sets on, given the IEP door positions set in from the coach ends. FGW are working towards getting a five-car platform at Hanborough anyway and no, bike storage will not be in the end coaches - see these diagrams https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3469/iep-train-layouts.pdf

Grrr, I am Jimm, I am internet hardman, hear me roar.

The point about SDO was acknowledged right at the beginning and the discussion moved on. You are too busy trying to be an internet hardman telling everyone their wrong and not spending enough time absorbing the debate and accepting that other people have views different to yours.

You're busy acting like the worst kind of knuckledragging RPI. You don't have a monopoly on knowledge - and guess what it's a discussion forum and people discuss things. You haven't quite grasped that yet. Manners cost nothing and there is absolutely no need for you to take the tone and manner you have in this thread. It does nothing to dispel the negative impression that most people have of the social skills of railway enthusiasts.

I've seen nothing about longer platforms at Hanborough, considering that they haven't even got very far with the car park yet I won't hold my breath.

Shipton has a limited service precisely because of the short platforms there.

While running in multiple is a possibility the next question is whether it is practical/feasible/desirable. That is where we are at.

If you have short platforms and no bike storage then that obviously poses a problem at somewhere like Hanborough - I can't really imagine people wheeling their bikes through the train (and bike space is already limited there).

 

[swt_passenger]

Maybe the 'many millions of pounds' (that are regularly complained about by at least one contributor) to be spent on IEP infrastructure changes on the GW include platform lengthening on the route?

The relevant section of the CP4 enhancements plan for GW IEP does include the term 'platform extensions', it isn't just gauge clearance they are planning for...

"a review of station operations at all stations where IEP trains are due to stop; this may result in the following changes
> platform extensions
> selective door opening
> revisions to permissive working etc
> alterations to signal controls [...] to deal with changes to train operations

 

[The Ham]

In my opinion if they go for 5 cars it will simply be another voyager. I hope they ditch the bi-mode idea and go for 8/9/10 cars. End of as I can't be bothered to argue any more. In my opinion all trains should have end gangways unless they are fixed formation.

Train drivers would disagree with that, as they get more space and can be dryer on some trains if they don't have end gangways.

Also if you do away with bi-modal trains you then have to have DMU's running a long way under the wires and there is no certainty that they'd be longer than 5 coaches anyway, meaning it could then make the Cotswold's Line a good place to run Voyagers and give XC the new trains.

Also, to get what you'd like they would be slower, which could use up more paths. Potentially resulting in a worse service for the more minor branches than at present as the key routes demand more capacity as they keep on growing.

 

[Dave1987]

Train drivers would disagree with that, as they get more space and can be dryer on some trains if they don't have end gangways.

Also if you do away with bi-modal trains you then have to have DMU's running a long way under the wires and there is no certainty that they'd be longer than 5 coaches anyway, meaning it could then make the Cotswold's Line a good place to run Voyagers and give XC the new trains.

Also, to get what you'd like they would be slower, which could use up more paths. Potentially resulting in a worse service for the more minor branches than at present as the key routes demand more capacity as they keep on growing.

Having driven trains with a gangway end and without a gangway end (I sign 321 & 360) and have driven a 317 with a gangway end during my training. I can tell you that it makes little difference. The cab size of a 379 is only slightly smaller than a 360.