• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Operation Princess Redux: Western Edition

Status
Not open for further replies.

TRIAR

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2016
Messages
11
So the big GWR relaunch is now upon us, we have wires to Didcot, new EMUs have been delivered and the GWR marketing machine is primed and ready to go. Trouble is, I can't see this relaunch having any significant impact on GWR's number one problem, which is lack of capacity.

I accept that most passengers will see additional services in the new timetable, however as we saw many years ago, you don't 'add capacity' if you achieve this by reducing seats on existing (busy) services.

Take the old 1P16 service as an example. For those of you unfamiliar with 1P16, it was operated by a 7/8 coach HST, one of only three trains each day that ran non-stop through RDG, and when it departed MAI the aisles were completely full and often left passengers on the platform.

GWR have chosen to replace this with 1P11, which is an 8 coach 387 that now stops at RDG. Not only is this a significant <b>reduction</b> in seating capacity, but by stopping at RDG it completely defeats the purpose of this service which was to keep hundreds of passengers from changing to a 'fast' train at RDG, so now services starting further west will now be <b>busier</b> than before during the morning peak.

Also, with a 4-car 387 having around 35% fewer seats than a 3-car 165, if we start seeing 4-car 387s diagrammed then someone might need to speak to GWR's marketing dept regarding their 'more seats' mantra (to be fair, they stopped using the 'faster trains' line a while back).

Does anyone else fear that the big GWR relaunch will fail to address their core problem of capacity?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Non Multi

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2017
Messages
1,117
Once Crossrail takes over the GW inner suburban services to Reading, the capacity issues should be dealt with. But that's 23 months away.
 

nickswift99

Member
Joined
7 Apr 2013
Messages
273
I disagree that capacity is the number one problem. I think reliability is. The service has been dreadful in the run up to Christmas. Once this is fixed, capacity is the next issue.

As someone who's been catching 1P16 for several years, here's my take.

There will be general confusion among commuters who see retimed and additional services. This will sort itself out over a few weeks. In the meantime, there will be unusual demand for services which run similar to the previous timetable. The confusion could be made worse by gateline staff at Paddington with the challenges around ticket validity and time of day (see many posts in the Fares forum). I'd like to see lots of customer service people at Paddington helping commuters make better choices. In the new timetable Maidenhead has fast services at 0701 (165/6), 0710 (HST/IET), 0718 (387), 0733 (387) and 0744 (387, starts at Maidenhead). How does this compare to the previous service?

A typical GWR 165+166 5 car set has 397 seats. An HST has 461 (standard) and an 8 car 387 has 536 so there will be significantly more seats available on the electric services.

Some commuters won't notice any difference. For example, 1P03 0550 Oxford-Pad service will be the same 5 car Turbo as before, as will 1D35 1718 Pad-Oxford. However, if they don't notice the slight retiming, they may miss the up service :lol: These trains are always full and standing between Maidenhead and Paddington so it will be really interesting to see what happens.

1P11 (was 1P16) won't ever be covered by an HST again. Could we have seen the end of HST calls at a number of minor stations between Reading and Oxford? Commuters from west of Reading typically don't change trains at Reading if the train they are on is a semi-fast service. As a frequent user, I wouldn't swap for the uncertainty of having to stand or the unreliability of an on-time departure of a fast up service and since the rebuild of Reading it's no longer as quick to change platforms.

There will be an expectation of a reliable service. Passengers have waited a very long time for new services and, combined with the fare rise, will be expecting to get what they pay for. There will be much less tolerance for short-formed sets.

Longer term, I'd expect the planners to get feedback from the passenger loadings to inform the 2019 timetable which will be the real transformational timetable for GWR. If there needs to be minor tweaks there should still be time to do something about it.

Finally, I don't think Crossrail has a direct impact on this because it's the semi-fast Twyford and Maidenhead services that are the crush loaded services. In the current timetable there's roughly 43 minutes allowed for a stopping service and 24 for a fast from Maidenhead. The time to walk from the main line to Crossrail at Paddington isn't going to be 20 minutes, so passengers will still want the fast services. Of course, Crossrail will free up rolling stock which would allow GWR to strengthen peak services subject to platform lengths and paths. It will also deliver more platform capacity at Paddington.
 

Non Multi

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2017
Messages
1,117
... Of course, Crossrail will free up rolling stock which would allow GWR to strengthen peak services subject to platform lengths and paths. It will also deliver more platform capacity at Paddington.
This is what I was trying to suggest. I expect there to be more 12 car trains but only after December '19.
 

47802

Established Member
Joined
8 Oct 2013
Messages
3,455
So the big GWR relaunch is now upon us, we have wires to Didcot, new EMUs have been delivered and the GWR marketing machine is primed and ready to go. Trouble is, I can't see this relaunch having any significant impact on GWR's number one problem, which is lack of capacity.

I accept that most passengers will see additional services in the new timetable, however as we saw many years ago, you don't 'add capacity' if you achieve this by reducing seats on existing (busy) services.

Take the old 1P16 service as an example. For those of you unfamiliar with 1P16, it was operated by a 7/8 coach HST, one of only three trains each day that ran non-stop through RDG, and when it departed MAI the aisles were completely full and often left passengers on the platform.

GWR have chosen to replace this with 1P11, which is an 8 coach 387 that now stops at RDG. Not only is this a significant <b>reduction</b> in seating capacity, but by stopping at RDG it completely defeats the purpose of this service which was to keep hundreds of passengers from changing to a 'fast' train at RDG, so now services starting further west will now be <b>busier</b> than before during the morning peak.

Also, with a 4-car 387 having around 35% fewer seats than a 3-car 165, if we start seeing 4-car 387s diagrammed then someone might need to speak to GWR's marketing dept regarding their 'more seats' mantra (to be fair, they stopped using the 'faster trains' line a while back).

Does anyone else fear that the big GWR relaunch will fail to address their core problem of capacity?

Yes but its not great re-launch is it, its a work in progress until Crossrail is introduced, Newbury is wired, and IET's are fully introduced with new Timetable.
 

387star

On Moderation
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
6,653
Regarding Banbury services will these continue to run through to Padd with turbos or will they be truncated at Didcot?

Wouldn't it make sense for these services to be handed to Chiltern?

Kings Sutton and of course Banbury are managed by Chiltern
 

TheAdelante

Member
Joined
14 Nov 2017
Messages
269
Regarding Banbury services will these continue to run through to Padd with turbos or will they be truncated at Didcot?

Wouldn't it make sense for these services to be handed to Chiltern?

Kings Sutton and of course Banbury are managed by Chiltern
They are being truncated at Didcot with a few continuing to Reading.

I agree totally about transferring Banbury services to Chiltern. As well as the management of the two stations you mentioned which Chiltern manage, Oxford is also a major stop for their services.
 

acned

Member
Joined
1 Mar 2015
Messages
26
Location
London
Sounds like another 'Operation Pumpkin', ooops, I meant to say 'Operation Princess', in the making! Those who recall Virgin Cross Country's big timetable change when the full fleet of Burger Vans started, will know what I mean! Standby for shambles!!!!!
 

nickswift99

Member
Joined
7 Apr 2013
Messages
273
It seems that GWR couldn't manage to turn out an 8 car set out for the 0641 Didcot Parkway to Paddington this morning. Not the best of starts for those travelling from Twyford and Maidenhead.
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,556
Yes but its not great re-launch is it, its a work in progress until Crossrail is introduced, Newbury is wired, and IET's are fully introduced with new Timetable.
How are GWR promoting it? As a work in progress?
 

47802

Established Member
Joined
8 Oct 2013
Messages
3,455
How are GWR promoting it? As a work in progress?

Well yes its a significant change and clearly GWR are going to highlight the new trains and service but it is a work in progress that is not yet finished. and I don't doubt for the next few weeks there may be some teething problems while things settle down with the 387's and all the staff are fully trained etc, but I imagine many will soon see it as a significant improvement over the turbo service, but there is still a lot of change to come.

I see there is a another thread commenting about the lack of moans about Thameslink now the bulk of new trains are in service with extra capacity and things are settling down.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,257
Electrification to Didcot isn't really a "relaunch" is it, it's just significant further progress in an overall electrification scheme.

Certainly has nothing much in common with "Princess".
 

TheAdelante

Member
Joined
14 Nov 2017
Messages
269
almost the opposite of “Princess” haha - during that long HSTs were substituted for short underfloor rumbling Voyagers. Here, short underfloor rumbling Turbos have been subbed for long electric EMUs! :)
 

TRIAR

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2016
Messages
11
almost the opposite of “Princess” haha - during that long HSTs were substituted for short underfloor rumbling Voyagers. Here, short underfloor rumbling Turbos have been subbed for long electric EMUs! :)

To coin a phrase: "it's not all about length, but what you do with it" (I'm talking about seats).

The longer 4-car EMU you refer to actually has fewer seats than the 3-car rumbling Turbo it is replacing.

GWR issue is they are running too many services as 4-car EMUs, rather than 8 or 12. Hence my point around Princess (reduction in seats).

A cursory look at GWR's twitter feed today will show you what the public feel about this 'upgrade'.
 

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
19,153
Location
West of Andover
Ah the deluxe 3+2 seating of a Turbo, where the middle seat often goes unused with passengers preferring to stand rather than taking up the middle seat.

Get ready for a further reduction of seating when the 345s take over when Crossrail arrives, some commuters of the likes of Taplow will be wishing for the 387s to return (featuring luxury items such as plug sockets, WiFi, tables/pull down tables, toilets) when they end up standing most of the way in and out of London. I noticed a poster at Twyford along those lines yesterday along those lines [although IIRC people of Twyford will have an half hourly semi-fast GWR service from Didcot]
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20180101_190432100.jpg
    IMG_20180101_190432100.jpg
    908.1 KB · Views: 97

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
GWR have chosen to replace this with 1P11, which is an 8 coach 387 that now stops at RDG. Not only is this a significant <b>reduction</b> in seating capacity
Where did you get the notion that an 8 car Electrostar has fewer seats than a 2+8 HST? Especially when you consider that the replacement service does not convey First Class or catering...
 

Agent_Squash

Established Member
Joined
22 Jul 2016
Messages
1,231
GWR issue is they are running too many services as 4-car EMUs, rather than 8 or 12. Hence my point around Princess (reduction in seats).

GWR marketing does state that the majority of the units will be operated as 8 cars.
 

Non Multi

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2017
Messages
1,117
Get ready for a further reduction of seating when the 345s take over when Crossrail arrives, some commuters of the likes of Taplow will be wishing for the 387s to return (featuring luxury items such as plug sockets, WiFi, tables/pull down tables, toilets) when they end up standing most of the way in and out of London. I noticed a poster at Twyford along those lines yesterday along those lines [although IIRC people of Twyford will have an half hourly semi-fast GWR service from Didcot]
I'm glad I'm not a London commuter (especially not today!). At least a 345 can't be short formed easily. 9 car 'cattle trucks' are in this respect better than a rammed 4 car train.
 

387star

On Moderation
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
6,653
when is Oxford wiring predicted for completion? I presume the new West-East link will be wired

Presumably the number of direct Padd-Oxford trains have not been cut as a result of these changes... haven't some turbos become 800s? They also require a guard for the entirety of their journeys? Do some HSS services terminate at Oxford?
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,640
when is Oxford wiring predicted for completion? I presume the new West-East link will be wired

Presumably the number of direct Padd-Oxford trains have not been cut as a result of these changes... haven't some turbos become 800s? They also require a guard for the entirety of their journeys? Do some HSS services terminate at Oxford?

Didcot to Oxford wiring was deferred and no new date has been set for when it may happen. Hopefully future announcements around CP6 funding might include restarting various bits of deferred electrification.
East-West Rail has also had its electrification deferred. The current plan is that it will be built without wires, but with all the relevant clearances etc. that electrification can be done simply at a later date.
I believe some of the stopping trains from Oxford to Paddington have gone, replaced by an Oxford-Didcot shuttle then Electrostar from Didcot to Paddington.
There have been other threads on guard operation with IET, my understanding was the agreement is for no extension to DOO, but trains to the Cotswold etc. would retain the form of DOO until Oxford and Guard afterwards. Someone more in the know should be able to comment.
 

ATW158Xpress

Member
Joined
6 Dec 2016
Messages
287
when is Oxford wiring predicted for completion? I presume the new West-East link will be wired

Presumably the number of direct Padd-Oxford trains have not been cut as a result of these changes... haven't some turbos become 800s? They also require a guard for the entirety of their journeys? Do some HSS services terminate at Oxford?
Fast Oxfords still go direct to London Paddington every half hour. Also some morning and afternoon peak services the Didcot-Oxford/Banbury Turbo shuttles extend to/from Reading.
 

TRIAR

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2016
Messages
11
Where did you get the notion that an 8 car Electrostar has fewer seats than a 2+8 HST? Especially when you consider that the replacement service does not convey First Class or catering...

Wow, you really have swallowed the GWR marketing spin.

Take a look at:

- GWR Website (HST Seating diagram): It doesn't list coach F for obvious reasons, but assuming this is equal to the smallest STD class coach I get (76+84+72+84+84+72+24+47) = 543 seats.
- 387 brochure on the Porterbrook website: Their 8-car 387s have (56+62+45+56+56+62+45+56) = 438 seats

Even allowing for variations across the HST fleet, the 8-car 387 represents a reduction of around 100 seats compared to an 8-car HST. Even the five STD coaches on the HST alone offered more seating capacity than the new 8 car 387.

Bottom line: GWR shouldn't be running any 4-car EMUs, and need to run more 12-car EMUs in the peaks if they want their passengers to feel the benefit of the increased seating capacity.
 

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,346
12 Coach trains aren’t going to work though while platforms are still primarily 7 coaches SDO. Nearly as much of the train will be off the platform as on it. Besides; 387s aren’t replacing HSTs, they’re replacing Turbos.
 

TEW

Established Member
Joined
16 May 2008
Messages
5,841
There have been other threads on guard operation with IET, my understanding was the agreement is for no extension to DOO, but trains to the Cotswold etc. would retain the form of DOO until Oxford and Guard afterwards. Someone more in the know should be able to comment.
Cotswold Line IET services require a guard throughout, not just past Oxford. London-Oxford only trains can remain DOO. From what I understand there are at the moment no GWR drivers with both a DOO agreement and 800 traction knowledge, so they are not running on Oxford services for now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top