Should there be a follow on order for GWR to extend their 80x's?

[The Ham]

You must get out of this habit of using 5 car trains as an excuse for having trains fail so that you can avoid cancelling a whole service. Lots of TOCs manage to run at very high levels of reliability without divisible trains.

I have used SWT a lot in the past, they only have 4/5 coach units. It was fairly rare for them to have to shorten trains, whilst cancelling whole trains was even rarer.

Using your logic maybe SWR should look to have a fleet of 7 & 10 coach units, what do you think?

Based on my experience 5 coach units aren't a problem when the fleet is of a suitable size and there's a good mix of 5/10 coach trains running the right sorts of services. The GWR 80x fleet isn't like this because it hasn't been fully delivered.

I get the impression that the current issues with GWR but having enough units has caused you problems and so you are looking for a solution to a problem that will be fixed anyway once the whole fleet had been delivered.

I can see why you think that 7 coach units could be useful as I've been on 5 coach services which would have significantly benefited from 2 more coaches, however more often than not when things were very bad (try getting on a SWR service with 5 coaches where the preceding 12 coach train has been cancelled) it would have made not a lot of difference have those extra 2 coaches.

Other than Virgin (where a significant proportion of their fleet are 5 or 9 coach units) what other TOC's have trains which are 10 coaches in length?

Having provided that list now list those TOC's which use short units (up to 5 coach units) to create longer units. I'll start you off with:
- SWR
- Southern
- Southeastern
- GWR (excluding the 80x's)
- Chiltern
In fact most of the VERY busy commuter services into/out of London.

Most of those that use fixed length units are loco hauled and/or the long distance services where changing the length of trains is difficult (loco hauled) and/or where there's significant leisure travelers where you can fill empty seats with advanced tickets.

 

[jayah]

I have used SWT a lot in the past, they only have 4/5 coach units. It was fairly rare for them to have to shorten trains, whilst cancelling whole trains was even rarer.

Using your logic maybe SWR should look to have a fleet of 7 & 10 coach units, what do you think?

Based on my experience 5 coach units aren't a problem when the fleet is of a suitable size and there's a good mix of 5/10 coach trains running the right sorts of services. The GWR 80x fleet isn't like this because it hasn't been fully delivered.

I get the impression that the current issues with GWR but having enough units has caused you problems and so you are looking for a solution to a problem that will be fixed anyway once the whole fleet had been delivered.

I can see why you think that 7 coach units could be useful as I've been on 5 coach services which would have significantly benefited from 2 more coaches, however more often than not when things were very bad (try getting on a SWR service with 5 coaches where the preceding 12 coach train has been cancelled) it would have made not a lot of difference have those extra 2 coaches.

Other than Virgin (where a significant proportion of their fleet are 5 or 9 coach units) what other TOC's have trains which are 10 coaches in length?

Having provided that list now list those TOC's which use short units (up to 5 coach units) to create longer units. I'll start you off with:
- SWR
- Southern
- Southeastern
- GWR (excluding the 80x's)
- Chiltern
In fact most of the VERY busy commuter services into/out of London.

Most of those that use fixed length units are loco hauled and/or the long distance services where changing the length of trains is difficult (loco hauled) and/or where there's significant leisure travelers where you can fill empty seats with advanced tickets.

What does not apply to those TOCs you have listed is that don't lose a full carriage worth of capacity by using coupled sets, nor do they have to provide multiple sets of crew to provide a catering / at seat service.

For indivisible trains, you can add East Coast and Eurostar, more relevant as the are a better comparison to Class 800 operated services than some metro / commuter operation.

 

[The Ham]

What does not apply to those TOCs you have listed is that don't lose a full carriage worth of capacity by using coupled sets, nor do they have to provide multiple sets of crew to provide a catering / at seat service.

For indivisible trains, you can add East Coast and Eurostar, more relevant as the are a better comparison to Class 800 operated services than some metro / commuter operation.

As an example the 444's lose about 1/2 a coach of seating by having 2 mini buffets and two guard offices as well as the loss of usable space due to the extra cabs.

As such they too could be better used if they were longer units.

I like your suggestion of fixing the problem of the loss of 1 coach's worth of seating by removing 2 coaches worth of seating, that's a great idea that I'm not surprised that no one had thought of it before.

 

[jimm]

You seem to be saying you want a half-hourly frequency of 5 car units north of Oxford? I would argue for an hourly frequency of 10 car units, which would actually deliver more capacity. Because many of the IETs do and will stay coupled all day long, and 9 cars work all sorts of very quiet trains, I am arguing that many off peak formations are in fact too long.

No, I was not saying anything of the sort. What I was saying is that in the late afternoon and early evening period, there is sufficient traffic from London and Oxford on to the Cotswold Line to justify a roughly 30-minute frequency out of Oxford between about 4pm and 7pm - which is what GWR near enough provides already. Outside that period, and the morning peak flow in the opposite direction, an hourly service, operated by a five-car 800, will do just fine - which is what GWR is going to provide from next year.

There is no need whatever for 700-seat off-peak trains on the Cotswold Line in the future, same as there is no need for HSTs with 550+ seats now.

Nine-cars work all sorts of very quiet trains? If you mean their appearances in the past couple of weeks off-peak on the Cotswold Line, the explanation of why that was happening was provided in the thread about IET diagrams. Until the full IET fleet is available, then nine-cars will do things like run off-peak to Cheltenham.

The 1738 runs non-stop to Oxford because if it did anything useful like stopping at Charlbury it wouldn't maintain the 30 min frequency from Oxford and has already been bent into the timetable as to break the standard pattern of both the fast and slow trains. Recent Trains times shows a cancellation rate of 18/57 for the past 16 weeks which also highlights that any late running causes it to be canned north of Oxford to protect this. The 0710 from Moreton in Marsh is 5/57 and the 0950 is 3/58 - all rather worse than the 99.7% reliability target and 99.2% trigger for Passengers Charter. Sadly yet another case of the railway planning for the infrastructure that it would rather exists, instead of what actually does.

I am not sure how you can say the hourly frequency was not delivering the required capacity without making a point on the length of the trains? A HST is about 450 Standard seats and a 9/10 car IET about 580 and a proper 10 car IET could deliver about 670. An hourly service works with the current infrastructure and could deliver all the required capacity and more. If you had perfect infrastructure, an hourly peak Class 165 between either Oxford and Charlbury or Moreton-in-Marsh would be a much more efficient way of improving the frequency for the Oxford commuting market, with 12 car 387s between Oxford and London.

Your speculation was that the non-stop run was to avoid single-line conflict between Moreton-in-Marsh and Oxford. I noted that the conflicts occur with the journey out of Oxford, not the other way - some of the cancellations (in many cases actually terminations at Oxford) were due to that, others were due to crew issues and others to there not being an HST available at Paddington in the first place. Similar considerations apply with the 05.12 from Paddington/07.10 from Moreton-in-Marsh. And the bulk of these issues occurred much earlier in the year, not recently. If services run to time, there is no problem whatever operating the published timetable. Far too often, GWR is let down in that respect by infrastructure issues such as signalling problems, whether digital or mechanical.

Once again you demonstrate you have precious little idea of what goes on elsewhere when it comes to people's travel habits. The number of people wanting to travel towards Oxford or London from Charlbury at that time day is tiny - as most locals are heading the other way then - and the 17.38 passes though non-stop after a sequence of three departures between 16.12 and 17.10, with another at 18.35.

If an hourly service 'worked' as you put it, then why would GWR do anything else? Perhaps because it wouldn't 'work', as you would know if you ever travelled on the Cotswold Line in the peaks. The increased frequency in the direction of the main peak flows morning and evening is not because it is nice to have, it is because it is essential to shift the number of passengers travelling, into Oxford or beyond to Reading and London, and pick up more passengers from Oxford and the centre of the universe, aka Reading, which is another of the jobs Cotswold Line trains do.

I do love the way that you are happy to wish Turbos and 387s on everyone else, including Oxford to London passengers making a journey twice as long as that from Reading, while Reading passengers simply must be able to luxuriate in IET travel for a 20-odd minute hop to Paddington or back - and enjoy a walk-on service frequency, while other places will just have to get by with an hourly train and be suitably grateful for that - but then those routes are just 'dead wood' anyway...

 

[gallafent]

You seem to be saying you want a half-hourly frequency of 5 car units north of Oxford? I would argue for an hourly frequency of 10 car units, which would actually deliver more capacity.

It would also make for a far less useful service. 1tph is far less usable than 2tph. And if by 10 car you mean 5+5 (which exist) then the averaged capacity would be identical … whereas if you mean single 10 car units, ……… they don't exist!

 

[The Ham]

It would also make for a far less useful service. 1tph is far less usable than 2tph. And if by 10 car you mean 5+5 (which exist) then the averaged capacity would be identical … whereas if you mean single 10 car units, ……… they don't exist!

Although this thread is about the possibility of extra coaches which could include lengthening to 10 coach units.

However I would agree that a half hour frequency is better than an hourly service, even if there was more capacity. As that extra capacity just wouldn't be used.

 

[tomuk]

I think enough five car sets should be extended to 9 car so there are no 5+5 diagrams on GWR or LNER. The spare five car sets should also be extended and passed to EMT and LNER so all 91s and HSTs can be withdrawn. All 222s to Cross country.

 

[jayah]

As an example the 444's lose about 1/2 a coach of seating by having 2 mini buffets and two guard offices as well as the loss of usable space due to the extra cabs.

As such they too could be better used if they were longer units.

I like your suggestion of fixing the problem of the loss of 1 coach's worth of seating by removing 2 coaches worth of seating, that's a great idea that I'm not surprised that no one had thought of it before.

You seem to have missed the point that a 7 car formation is for diagrams where the extra 2 cars are not actually needed. You would have far more seats from the same number of vehicles.

I very much doubt the Class 444 loses as much as half a coach of seats from being coupled. Do you have the seating per carriage? Thameslink and Crossrail have both gone for approach of very long non-divisible metro trains.

 

[jayah]

No, I was not saying anything of the sort. What I was saying is that in the late afternoon and early evening period, there is sufficient traffic from London and Oxford on to the Cotswold Line to justify a roughly 30-minute frequency out of Oxford between about 4pm and 7pm - which is what GWR near enough provides already. Outside that period, and the morning peak flow in the opposite direction, an hourly service, operated by a five-car 800, will do just fine - which is what GWR is going to provide from next year.

You have just provided evidence that the 1720 or thereabouts from Oxford which is almost certainly the busiest train north of Oxford is fine as a 5 car train, you argue for a 30 min frequency, you argue against Turbos, but aren't in favour of a half hourly 5 car IET?
How are you justifying a 30min frequency of 9 car IETs / HSTs? The current service is half hourly from 1820 to 1920 which looks very over provided, but no service at 1750.

There is no need whatever for 700-seat off-peak trains on the Cotswold Line in the future, same as there is no need for HSTs with 550+ seats now.

I am actually advocating a 500 seat off peak train.

Nine-cars work all sorts of very quiet trains? If you mean their appearances in the past couple of weeks off-peak on the Cotswold Line, the explanation of why that was happening was provided in the thread about IET diagrams. Until the full IET fleet is available, then nine-cars will do things like run off-peak to Cheltenham.

On the basis that what goes up must come down, I am sure that like the coupled 5 car trains, they will both do lots of quite off peak trains.

Your speculation was that the non-stop run was to avoid single-line conflict between Moreton-in-Marsh and Oxford. I noted that the conflicts occur with the journey out of Oxford, not the other way - some of the cancellations (in many cases actually terminations at Oxford) were due to that, others were due to crew issues and others to there not being an HST available at Paddington in the first place. Similar considerations apply with the 05.12 from Paddington/07.10 from Moreton-in-Marsh. And the bulk of these issues occurred much earlier in the year, not recently. If services run to time, there is no problem whatever operating the published timetable. Far too often, GWR is let down in that respect by infrastructure issues such as signalling problems, whether digital or mechanical.

Where the conflict occurs isn't the point. The timetable is so fragile that a small delay to either train will cause the Moreton in Marsh legs to be cancelled, and they often are. The infrastructure cannot reliably support a half hourly service in both directions. This leaves you with some choices to make in the peak:

1) Split a 10 car IET at Oxford which will compound the conflicts and delays already happening there.
2) Run a 9 car IET every 30mins in the peak through to Worcester.
3) Run a 5 car IET from London and waste a precious path to Reading.
4) Run a long train, doesn't really matter to me if it is 12car 387 or IET but terminate at Oxford once an hour.
5) Supplement the above with a low capacity Turbo Oxford - Worcester to improve the frequency.

If you had the infrastructure, which you don't, given how much of the traffic is Oxford - Hanborough and Charlbury a Turbo shuttling up and down to Moreton in Marsh or Charlbury is not unreasonable at all.

Once again you demonstrate you have precious little idea of what goes on elsewhere when it comes to people's travel habits. The number of people wanting to travel towards Oxford or London from Charlbury at that time day is tiny - as most locals are heading the other way then - and the 17.38 passes though non-stop after a sequence of three departures between 16.12 and 17.10, with another at 18.35.

The non-stop run, into an off pattern slot at Oxford is simply proof the timetable doesn't really work, even on paper. The extra train is forced through and anything with a 10% cancellation rate, needs to be removed not compounded by trying to do each hour for the peak.

If an hourly service 'worked' as you put it, then why would GWR do anything else? Perhaps because it wouldn't 'work', as you would know if you ever travelled on the Cotswold Line in the peaks. The increased frequency in the direction of the main peak flows morning and evening is not because it is nice to have, it is because it is essential to shift the number of passengers travelling, into Oxford or beyond to Reading and London, and pick up more passengers from Oxford and the centre of the universe, aka Reading, which is another of the jobs Cotswold Line trains do.

You seem to oscillate between saying the route doesn't need 550 seats trains, to it must have a 30min service to move the numbers. If a 5 car train can lift the numbers at 1720 from Oxford, a 10 car IET running hourly, without two kitchens easily could, and Hanborough is about 10mins down the line.

I do love the way that you are happy to wish Turbos and 387s on everyone else, including Oxford to London passengers making a journey twice as long as that from Reading, while Reading passengers simply must be able to luxuriate in IET travel for a 20-odd minute hop to Paddington or back - and enjoy a walk-on service frequency, while other places will just have to get by with an hourly train and be suitably grateful for that - but then those routes are just 'dead wood' anyway...

An IET with <100 people on, running every 30min between Charlbury and Worcester is in need of pruning. As are off peak Hereford, Paignton, Carmarthen services, the peak West of England services beyond Newbury and anywhere else of the same ilk.

If I am wishing these dreadful 387s with 2+2 seating good enough for Heathrow Express on Newbury and Oxford, which was the original intention for them, then I am also wishing them on Reading. What is not sensible is an IET every 30mins from Oxford to Worcester service a 10-20min commuting flow to Charlbury.

 

[jayah]

if you mean single 10 car units, ……… they don't exist!

Unfortunately.

You could deliver an extra carriage worth of seats inside the 260m train if they did, because the number of seats on the 9 and the paired 5s are the same. No follow on order needed.

 

[The Ham]

You seem to have missed the point that a 7 car formation is for diagrams where the extra 2 cars are not actually needed. You would have far more seats from the same number of vehicles.


I very much doubt the Class 444 loses as much as half a coach of seats from being coupled. Do you have the seating per carriage? Thameslink and Crossrail have both gone for approach of very long non-divisible metro trains.

Let me get this right, there's not enough 9 coach trains so we're going to shorten some of them by 2 coaches (which are transferred to a 5 coach unit to lengthen it) so that we have 7 coach units which aren't needed because a 5 coach unit would cope.

If the 444's were formed up as a 10 coach unit then there wouldn't be the need for one of the gaurd offices (+4 seats) nor either of the united buffet areas (+12 to 16 seats each), by my maths that's a minimum of 28 seats which is getting on for half a coach (circa 70 seats), but possibly up to 36 seats, hence why I said about half a coach.

The loss of a pair of cabs may or may not gain you any extra seats, however it would enable the provision of some much missed luggage racks. Reducing the problem of large cases filling seats, so indirectly increasing seat availability.

However the problem is that for much of the day these 10 coach units would be mostly carrying around fresh air and so the flexibility of having 5 coach units offsets the capacity advantages of the longer units.

Thameslink is a oversized tube train and so carrys a lot of people within London, so there's no noticeable off peak when shorter units would be that useful.

Should GWR extend some units to bring 10 coaches long to provide extra capacity (the main point of this thread), my view is yes (as part of the next franchise).

Should they also look at extending some 5 coach units to bring 9 coach units (also key to this thread), in my view yes (as part of the next franchise).

Should they faff about with making some 9 coach units shorter and some 5 coach units longer (needing to also swap first class seats from one 1/2 coach with standard class seats from another 1/2 coach so that each 7 coach unit has 1 full coach and an end cost of first class seats) to create a 7 coach unit, then I'm sorry but no.

Even if you use the 2 extra coaches to lengthen 2*9 coach units to 10 coach units then there's going to be problems with which coaches to you use to lengthen the 9 coach sets. Ideally for the 7 coach train you want to lose the composite coach, but that would mean one of your 10 coach units having 2 composite coaches. Otherwise your 7 coach unit would have the equivalent of 2 full coaches of first class seats, which would be a higher percentage than any of the other units.

Especially given that if a 7 coach unit even has to substitute for a 9 or 10 coach unit in the peaks it would cause problems (yes a single 5 coach unit would be worse, however once the full fleet is delivered and staff training is finished then most of the time a pair of 5 coach units should be able to be used. Much as most commuter services manage to do most of the time).

Personally I think that changing 6 to 12 of the 5 coach units to 10 coach units (or any mix which results in the same result, i.e. lengthening 6 of the 9 coach units to 10 coaches and 6 of the 5 coach units to 9 coaches) would probably give a noticeable uplift in capacity for the cost of 30 to 60 coaches.

It would result in a fleet of:
- 6 to 12 * 10 coach units
- 35 * 9 coach units
- 46 to 52 * 5 coach units

Which at the higher end of the suggested extra order would result in a near 50:50 split in the number of long (9 or 10 coaches)/short number of units.

 

[The Ham]

Unfortunately.

You could deliver an extra carriage worth of seats inside the 260m train if they did, because the number of seats on the 9 and the paired 5s are the same. No follow on order needed.

By mixing up the existing number of coaches (and seats within coaches, Bedwyn of the problem with the composite coaches) you would fix the capacity of GWR until the end of the next franchise, just so you didn't need to increase the number of coaches ordered. Just to gain 6, maybe as many as 12, units with 10 coaches. However then give the planners a head ache to ensure that the corresponding number of 7 coach units are not used on services which need 9 coaches.

In fact with enough of a follow on order you could then look to replace other units with 5 coach units, Cardiff to Portsmouth anyone? (No more crazy a suggestion than messing around with unit lengths to create a fish/foul 7 coach unit).

 

[whhistle]

There's also an advantage in having 5s. It is better to run a short-form than cancel. Lots of short-forms at the moment, unfortunately.

Ah ha, but is this an incentive not to hurry and fix the broken trains?
If they had to cancel services, they'd be hotter on fixing problems I bet.

I'd extend the 5 coaches to 7 perhaps.
Yes, some will moan "but you can't double up!" <-- stock should not be ordered on the pretense of running them doubled up most of the time; there's no point in ordering two half length trains - you may as well order a longer set to begin with.

Then, before they get rid of the jigs (so after ECML trains are in, and any that MML may want to order - 3/4/5 years?), have a quick think whether you want to extend them further.

Yes, it may create a headache with planners but having 5 coaches on a service that should be 9, or 5+5 isn't really acceptable. You may end up with a 7 vice 9 coach train but at least it's more than 5 coaches.

 

[JamesT]

Ah ha, but is this an incentive not to hurry and fix the broken trains?
If they had to cancel services, they'd be hotter on fixing problems I bet.

I'd extend the 5 coaches to 7 perhaps.
Yes, some will moan "but you can't double up!" <-- stock should not be ordered on the pretense of running them doubled up most of the time; there's no point in ordering two half length trains - you may as well order a longer set to begin with.

Then, before they get rid of the jigs (so after ECML trains are in, and any that MML may want to order - 3/4/5 years?), have a quick think whether you want to extend them further.

Yes, it may create a headache with planners but having 5 coaches on a service that should be 9, or 5+5 isn't really acceptable. You may end up with a 7 vice 9 coach train but at least it's more than 5 coaches.

Two different organisations.
It's Agility who need to be fixing the trains to get the correct number out into service for GWR to use. They're already incentivised to get them fixed as they won't be getting paid for the ones sitting in the workshop.
It's then GWR's problem as to what to do with the stock they do have. At least they have the flexibility with 5s they wouldn't have with 7s. As I've said previously, I think it's far too early to tell if they've got the mix right. We need to see how things run when GWR have their full complement of IETs available, both 5s and 9s.

 

[tbtc]

You seem to have missed the point that a 7 car formation is for diagrams where the extra 2 cars are not actually needed. You would have far more seats from the same number of vehicles

If the seven coach trains are a desirable option then presumably you'd need to have a certain threshold of units that length to make it worthwhile?

Let's say a dozen trains, since GWR are going to have around a hundred 80xs (ninety three?), to make it worthwhile having this microfleet. You're not going to complicate things for just the sake of a couple of seven coach trains.

So that means there are ten daily diagrams where a seven coach train is sufficient. Not just ten services a day (e.g. the ones leaving London in the early morning), but ten all-day diagrams (an early morning departure from London may have an annoying habit of also being a departure from London in the evening peak).

Can you evidence ten such diagrams? If not, the "seven coach" argument seems to be more about "a length that would be Nice To Have on a handful of services each day but neither nowt nor summat over the duration of daily diagrams", proposed by people sounding contrary about the solution that the DfT have opted for but unable to evidence practical day-long use.

 

[Thunderer]

1) Requiring them to be all electric means a very large and very sudden program of electrification, which is a recipe for massive overruns in cost and time (à la GWEP)
2) Given Wabtecs glacial pace for their MK3 program, I'd strongly disagree that upgrading mk3s would be easier (and it is worth noting that mk3s aren't that good a ride compared to more modern stock)

For me a sensible solution for the GWML would have been the following:-
1) Don't bother with GWML electrification as its a half arsed job anyway now (saving billions of pounds with less disruption).
2) Scrap IEP project (Too expensive and too Complicated) - more millions saved there.
3) As the HST power cars have been refurbed to MTU, just build a fleet of new, compatible coaches that are 21st century compliant (electric doors, retention tanks etc) increasing the rakes to 9 coaches with a small buffet/cafe counter in one coach.. 1 and 3/4 First, (small buffet in 2nd first class coach and) 7 standard class coaches.
This way passengers are getting a train that they are used to, with a layout they are used to,with the minimum of disruption. they can walk through the whole train, first class passengers have just two options (either end) not like a 2x5 IEP where you are left guessing where First Class is going to be, passengers on longer journeys are not squeezed into a 5 coach train when the operator can't provide the other half of the train (for countless reasons). GWR then has 1 standard fleet of 9 coach trains avoiding the complication of 5 car sets, 9 car sets, 10 car sets, 800's then 802's which have to primarily be kept for Devon and Cornwall trains...its just created more operational headaches for the operator than what they had before, leaving the poor passenger with a sub-standard, uncomfortable train (or half a train if you are unlucky). This whole idea of smaller trains on inter-city routes is short sighted and for me can not be justified in any way (Thats why XC hikes its prices to stifle demand). How on earth can you run a peak London-Swansea as a 5 car train with just over 3.5 coaches of standard accomodation? Its absurd..like running a 4 coach Vomiter from Dundee to Plymouth with 3 standard coaches, again ludicrous. The main point of my suggestions though is look at the money it would have saved, that could have been welcome investment in other areas. Food for thought?

 

[jayah]

If the seven coach trains are a desirable option then presumably you'd need to have a certain threshold of units that length to make it worthwhile?

Let's say a dozen trains, since GWR are going to have around a hundred 80xs (ninety three?), to make it worthwhile having this microfleet. You're not going to complicate things for just the sake of a couple of seven coach trains.

So that means there are ten daily diagrams where a seven coach train is sufficient. Not just ten services a day (e.g. the ones leaving London in the early morning), but ten all-day diagrams (an early morning departure from London may have an annoying habit of also being a departure from London in the evening peak).

Can you evidence ten such diagrams? If not, the "seven coach" argument seems to be more about "a length that would be Nice To Have on a handful of services each day but neither nowt nor summat over the duration of daily diagrams", proposed by people sounding contrary about the solution that the DfT have opted for but unable to evidence practical day-long use.

If you add up all of the services into London and out of London in the peak period even if there was no overlap I reckon you would have about 14x 7 car diagrams although that assumes Newbury and Oxford services are served by Class 387s, which was original intended. Don't forget a 7 car would seat the same as a HST today.

 

[jayah]

Two different organisations.
It's Agility who need to be fixing the trains to get the correct number out into service for GWR to use. They're already incentivised to get them fixed as they won't be getting paid for the ones sitting in the workshop.
It's then GWR's problem as to what to do with the stock they do have. At least they have the flexibility with 5s they wouldn't have with 7s. As I've said previously, I think it's far too early to tell if they've got the mix right. We need to see how things run when GWR have their full complement of IETs available, both 5s and 9s.

This really is the thin end of the wedge arguing 5 cars are a good thing because you can stop 60% of the fleet and run 100% of the service. They need to run the advertised service with the booked capacity.

 

[jayah]

By mixing up the existing number of coaches (and seats within coaches, Bedwyn of the problem with the composite coaches) you would fix the capacity of GWR until the end of the next franchise, just so you didn't need to increase the number of coaches ordered. Just to gain 6, maybe as many as 12, units with 10 coaches. However then give the planners a head ache to ensure that the corresponding number of 7 coach units are not used on services which need 9 coaches.

In fact with enough of a follow on order you could then look to replace other units with 5 coach units, Cardiff to Portsmouth anyone? (No more crazy a suggestion than messing around with unit lengths to create a fish/foul 7 coach unit).

That is an odd way to describe a train with near identical capacity to a HST.

 

[The Ham]

That is an odd way to describe a train with near identical capacity to a HST.

A 7 coach unit with 1 full coach and an end coach would have 474 seats (630 less 88 for a standard class coach and 68 seats for the composite coach).

I don't recall how many seats a HST has, but I think that it's about 535 seats, so that's about 60 seats less, or over 10% less.

 

[jayah]

A 7 coach unit with 1 full coach and an end coach would have 474 seats (630 less 88 for a standard class coach and 68 seats for the composite coach).

I don't recall how many seats a HST has, but I think that it's about 535 seats, so that's about 60 seats less, or over 10% less.

A 5 car has 290 Standard seats. 7 would be about 460. A HST with a buffet coach not a composite is almost identical. The minority that had the micro buffet had more.

 

[The Ham]

A 5 car has 290 Standard seats. 7 would be about 460. A HST with a buffet coach not a composite is almost identical. The minority that had the micro buffet had more.

460 seats in a HST means that a 9 coach unit has 37% more seats, whilst a 5 coach unit is about 70% of the capacity of a HST.

That means to match existing capacity there's only a need for half the services to be run by 5 coach trains and half to be 9 or 5+5 (although that would still add 15 seats for each pair of trains run).

That means that there's not much point in changing then to 7 coach units as there's going to be lots of capacity because there's going to be lots of 9 or 5+5 services and the few services which are short formed aren't a problem.

It also means that this thread (and Definitely no need for 10 coach units) is pointless as there's already lots and lots of extra capacity with these new trains.

 

[jayah]

460 seats in a HST means that a 9 coach unit has 37% more seats, whilst a 5 coach unit is about 70% of the capacity of a HST.

That means to match existing capacity there's only a need for half the services to be run by 5 coach trains and half to be 9 or 5+5 (although that would still add 15 seats for each pair of trains run).

That means that there's not much point in changing then to 7 coach units as there's going to be lots of capacity because there's going to be lots of 9 or 5+5 services and the few services which are short formed aren't a problem.

It also means that this thread (and Definitely no need for 10 coach units) is pointless as there's already lots and lots of extra capacity with these new trains.

The new trains are already full before Crossrail is open and trying to invent more paths into Paddington in the peaks to create additional capacity is a fiction that will only lead to even more delays. More seats per train is the only way to increase capacity once you have run out of paths.

 

[The Ham]

The new trains are already full before Crossrail is open and trying to invent more paths into Paddington in the peaks to create additional capacity is a fiction that will only lead to even more delays. More seats per train is the only way to increase capacity once you have run out of paths.

Exactly, which is why 7 coach trains are a bad idea. Glad we've sorted that out.

 

[jimm]

You have just provided evidence that the 1720 or thereabouts from Oxford which is almost certainly the busiest train north of Oxford is fine as a 5 car train, you argue for a 30 min frequency, you argue against Turbos, but aren't in favour of a half hourly 5 car IET?
How are you justifying a 30min frequency of 9 car IETs / HSTs? The current service is half hourly from 1820 to 1920 which looks very over provided, but no service at 1750.

I really do think it is time you stopped poking your stick into operations in areas of the GWR network you clearly know/care nothing about - which appears to be just about anywhere west of Reading.

No, I haven't provided evidence of anything of the sort. The 17.22 from Paddington/18.16 from Oxford is an HST that is near enough full, or over-full most days of the week leaving Oxford - ie rather more people than can fit on a five-car Class 800 - which is why the future equivalent service will be operated by a nine-car or 2x5 formation.

Of course I argue for a 30-minute frequency for the main peak flows, because that is what is needed to handle the number of passengers - a frequency that requires a mix of five-car and nine/2x5 as the various trains have varied loadings for various reasons, such as the numbers of people heading home from London between 5pm and 6.30pm.

The 'peak' period out of Oxford starts after 4pm, not everyone works 9 to 5, schools finish at 4pm, blah, blah... and the current service has departures at 16.25, 16.50, 17.25, 18.17, 18.50 and 19.23. And it is safe to assume that things won't look that different from next year. Nor the varied sizes of the trains provided within that sequence.

I am actually advocating a 500 seat off peak train.

Which is way too big for the traffic on offer between Oxford, Worcester and Hereford outside the peaks, which may just have had something to do with the decision to go for five-coach IETs...

On the basis that what goes up must come down, I am sure that like the coupled 5 car trains, they will both do lots of quite off peak trains.

As would your oversize 10-car single unit formations.

Where the conflict occurs isn't the point. The timetable is so fragile that a small delay to either train will cause the Moreton in Marsh legs to be cancelled, and they often are. The infrastructure cannot reliably support a half hourly service in both directions. This leaves you with some choices to make in the peak:

1) Split a 10 car IET at Oxford which will compound the conflicts and delays already happening there.
2) Run a 9 car IET every 30mins in the peak through to Worcester.
3) Run a 5 car IET from London and waste a precious path to Reading.
4) Run a long train, doesn't really matter to me if it is 12car 387 or IET but terminate at Oxford once an hour.
5) Supplement the above with a low capacity Turbo Oxford - Worcester to improve the frequency.

If you had the infrastructure, which you don't, given how much of the traffic is Oxford - Hanborough and Charlbury a Turbo shuttling up and down to Moreton in Marsh or Charlbury is not unreasonable at all.

Your 'logic', or lack of it is quite astounding at times. The local infrastructure can handle the frequency - but if trains are delayed due to things going bang in the Thames Valley, or the mechanical signalling museum at Worcester plays up, then there are issues. Same as the number of occasions earlier this year when they struggled to find drivers or train managers for this service - since when has that got anything to do with infrastructure?

You wish to deny people the service they already have, ie a half-hourly HST equivalent out of Paddington from 17.22 to 18.22 (also providing seats for the entitled Reading commuters), as the infrastructure can't cope, then on the other hand want there to be a shuttle service running in between an hourly jumbo-IET on the same 'inadequate' infrastructure. Slight contradiction there...

The non-stop run, into an off pattern slot at Oxford is simply proof the timetable doesn't really work, even on paper. The extra train is forced through and anything with a 10% cancellation rate, needs to be removed not compounded by trying to do each hour for the peak.

Since when has the operation of one particular train - in order to get the seats back to Oxford where there is high demand - got anything to do with the overall service pattern? As I already explained, the cancellations are related to things happening before that service ever gets on to the Cotswold Line on the outward working in the first place - so long as it has got to Moreton-in-Marsh, its return run to Oxford presents no great problem.

You seem to oscillate between saying the route doesn't need 550 seats trains, to it must have a 30min service to move the numbers. If a 5 car train can lift the numbers at 1720 from Oxford, a 10 car IET running hourly, without two kitchens easily could, and Hanborough is about 10mins down the line.

I'm not oscillatiing between anything. I am saying that the current timetable is the result of many years' operating experience by GWR and its predecessors. Which will be reflected in the new timetable as well, with a few tweaks here and there. And take into account things like the evidence that making people change trains at Oxford is not a great idea. Passenger numbers and revenue both went up by about 30% in six months in 1993 after the launch of an all-day through service between the Cotswold Line and London using 166s in between the peak HSTs - and both have gone up a whole lot more since then...

An IET with <100 people on, running every 30min between Charlbury and Worcester is in need of pruning. As are off peak Hereford, Paignton, Carmarthen services, the peak West of England services beyond Newbury and anywhere else of the same ilk.

Ah yes, stuff everyone else - Reading-London is all that matters...

If I am wishing these dreadful 387s with 2+2 seating good enough for Heathrow Express on Newbury and Oxford, which was the original intention for them, then I am also wishing them on Reading. What is not sensible is an IET every 30mins from Oxford to Worcester service a 10-20min commuting flow to Charlbury.

I'm afraid you will just have to get over it - and again, your lack of local knowledge shines through - even on a seriously busy day, perhaps 150 people in total get off the HST services at Hanborough and Charlbury, which still leaves rather a lot on board.

Maybe just stick to Reading-London, though even there you refuse to wait and see what the effect of the full new GWR and Crossrail timetables is and just demand jumbo this that and the other right now - informing us that

The new trains are already full

when we haven't even seen seen the new GWR timetable and the full IET fleet has not been delivered, never mind a Crossrail train turning a wheel in passenger service west of Hayes & Harlington.

I expect GWR/future franchisee, TfL and the DfT will all want to take a considered look at how all that lot pans out before they even consider spending a penny piece on extra/longer trains.

The GWR franchise now looks likely to run on until 2022 (or even 2024), unless talks with the DfT break down, by which point there will be plenty of evidence of real world operations available, and potential franchise bidders in 2021 or some later date will no doubt be invited by the DFT to take account of that real world evidence in their proposals.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I cannot agree with this many lessons have been learned since privatisation, when I used to travel between Cheshire and Birmingham under BR it was a 7\8 coach train hauled by a Class 86. Now it is normally a 4 car diesel unit despite the route having the wires up. I hope we do not return to the awful days of BR I enjoy standing on the Class 220.

and that 8 coach train ran how many services a Day ? and the current operation ?

 

[jayah]

Exactly, which is why 7 coach trains are a bad idea. Glad we've sorted that out.

That is why they are used away from the London peak, as I have explained more than once.

 

[jayah]

I really do think it is time you stopped poking your stick into operations in areas of the GWR network you clearly know/care nothing about - which appears to be just about anywhere west of Reading.

I think you are too personally invested in Oxford - Charlbury and have lost any objectivity as well as manners.

No, I haven't provided evidence of anything of the sort. The 17.22 from Paddington/18.16 from Oxford is an HST that is near enough full, or over-full most days of the week leaving Oxford - ie rather more people than can fit on a five-car Class 800 - which is why the future equivalent service will be operated by a nine-car or 2x5 formation.

Perhaps you could explain what nearly full actually means with some equally insightful numbers? Having seen your figures for the 1720 from Oxford, many people will have a hard time believing that 2 times as many people are leaving Oxford at 1820? Given the capacity change from a HST to a proper 10 car IET would be not far short of the total number using the 1720 from Oxford, I am going to need some convincing that the extra train at 1850 is needed just to move the numbers. Wanting frequency is fine, but there is not the infrastructure for trains at 30minute intervals in both directions as I have explained, so you are advocating using a 9 car IET from London to serve a 10min commuter flow to Hanborough. I would argue this is not sensible and you will need to sell at lot of £36pw season tickets to Charlbury to pay for infrastructure to get anything back from halfway down the line.

Of course I argue for a 30-minute frequency for the main peak flows, because that is what is needed to handle the number of passengers - a frequency that requires a mix of five-car and nine/2x5 as the various trains have varied loadings for various reasons, such as the numbers of people heading home from London between 5pm and 6.30pm.

The 'peak' period out of Oxford starts after 4pm, not everyone works 9 to 5, schools finish at 4pm, blah, blah... and the current service has departures at 16.25, 16.50, 17.25, 18.17, 18.50 and 19.23. And it is safe to assume that things won't look that different from next year. Nor the varied sizes of the trains provided within that sequence.

Your 'logic', or lack of it is quite astounding at times. The local infrastructure can handle the frequency - but if trains are delayed due to things going bang in the Thames Valley, or the mechanical signalling museum at Worcester plays up, then there are issues. Same as the number of occasions earlier this year when they struggled to find drivers or train managers for this service - since when has that got anything to do with infrastructure?

You wish to deny people the service they already have, ie a half-hourly HST equivalent out of Paddington from 17.22 to 18.22 (also providing seats for the entitled Reading commuters), as the infrastructure can't cope, then on the other hand want there to be a shuttle service running in between an hourly jumbo-IET on the same 'inadequate' infrastructure. Slight contradiction there...

There is no contradiction. I have suggested a workable solution involving an Oxford - Worcester Turbo to give you frequency but you object on the grounds it would be beneath a relative short commuter flow. The line can probably manage 2tph in one direction but not both. But as I have explained, if this is all served from London they must be 9-10 cars or dividing at Oxford, one of which is over providing for a 10min commute, while dividing trains will exacerbate the already saturated station at Oxford.

The infrastructure at the London end of the line cannot handle the current number of trains. Looking at Bristol TM - London both the 0700 and 0730 have managed 29% and 47% 0-5min arrival in the past 12 weeks. This isn't occasional failures and breakdowns, this is late running most days. Throttling even more trains into this situation is madness.

Since when has the operation of one particular train - in order to get the seats back to Oxford where there is high demand - got anything to do with the overall service pattern? As I already explained, the cancellations are related to things happening before that service ever gets on to the Cotswold Line on the outward working in the first place - so long as it has got to Moreton-in-Marsh, its return run to Oxford presents no great problem.

You miss the point. The timetable is not robust enough to hold together during even minor difficulties. Those delays will keep coming and you will need to cancel even more trains to recover.

I'm not oscillatiing between anything. I am saying that the current timetable is the result of many years' operating experience by GWR and its predecessors. Which will be reflected in the new timetable as well, with a few tweaks here and there. And take into account things like the evidence that making people change trains at Oxford is not a great idea. Passenger numbers and revenue both went up by about 30% in six months in 1993 after the launch of an all-day through service between the Cotswold Line and London using 166s in between the peak HSTs - and both have gone up a whole lot more since then...

If an off-peak service west of Malvern is carrying <50 people it needs the shears taking to it. I am sure if you ran hourly to Hereford off-peak numbers would rise by an impressive % but 30% of 50 is not a good enough reason to run more trains.

The railway one day will need to face up to the reality there is a large public debt and its subsidy has ballooned as fast as its train miles. No efficient business would be run like this - ramping up off peak service frequencies when the trains are already lightly used. A great many places far larger than Moreton in Marsh do not boast a half hourly peak service to London. Railways make money from running big trains with lots of passengers, this one is failing because it is trying to do exactly the opposite.

I'm afraid you will just have to get over it - and again, your lack of local knowledge shines through - even on a seriously busy day, perhaps 150 people in total get off the HST services at Hanborough and Charlbury, which still leaves rather a lot on board.

So 150 is about half the number on the 1720 leaving Oxford, this only goes to prove you are advocating a 9 car IET to serve a 10min commuting flow. How many exactly is 'rather a lot' that remain for the remainder?

Maybe just stick to Reading-London, though even there you refuse to wait and see what the effect of the full new GWR and Crossrail timetables is and just demand jumbo this that and the other right now - informing us that when we haven't even seen seen the new GWR timetable and the full IET fleet has not been delivered, never mind a Crossrail train turning a wheel in passenger service west of Hayes & Harlington.

This is old ground. Reading to London commuters (£136pw) will not use Class 345s to get to London unless you are going to build turnstiles and barriers to stop them. Wait and see is reality, because what is ordered is ordered, but it will take 3 years to fix the perfectly forseeable problem that will exist from Day 1.

I expect GWR/future franchisee, TfL and the DfT will all want to take a considered look at how all that lot pans out before they even consider spending a penny piece on extra/longer trains.

The GWR franchise now looks likely to run on until 2022 (or even 2024), unless talks with the DfT break down, by which point there will be plenty of evidence of real world operations available, and potential franchise bidders in 2021 or some later date will no doubt be invited by the DFT to take account of that real world evidence in their proposals.

During which time performance on the Reading to London corridor will probably be even worse if the extra trains make it through to London and we will have another 3 years of passengers packed like sardines into tin. All of which could have been improved by ordering a 1x10 IET to maximise seats per peak path like any other railway e.g. West Coast, Eurostar, Crossrail, Thameslink would have done.

 

[The Ham]

That is why they are used away from the London peak, as I have explained more than once.

Yet you haven't said which diagrams this would work for.

In the past when looking at whether using 185's could be used on quieter diagrams on the WofE line I traced a diagram back and forth and gave departure times. Could you do the same to show that there's at least 10 diagrams, ideally 15, which could use 7 coach services which would avoid the peaks. Just for your information on the WofE line there were only 2 possibly 3 that would have been sensible when running out to Exeter, I didn't bother looking at the Salisbury/Yeovil services as they probably wouldn't be away from London long enough.

Also you haven't started which services (i.e. London to xxxxxx) that they would be useful on. As given the above requirement you would probably need more than one route to achieve this.

 

[The Ham]

I think you are too personally invested in Oxford - Charlbury and have lost any objectivity as well as manners.

I am not invested in Oxford - Charlbury and I would suggest that if the two of you I would trust someone who is regularly using the service over someone who is suggesting that 7 coach units could be useful off peak, but doesn't provide any supporting evidence.

Perhaps you could explain what nearly full actually means with some equally insightful numbers? Having seen your figures for the 1720 from Oxford, many people will have a hard time believing that 2 times as many people are leaving Oxford at 1820? Given the capacity change from a HST to a proper 10 car IET would be not far short of the total number using the 1720 from Oxford, I am going to need some convincing that the extra train at 1850 is needed just to move the numbers. Wanting frequency is fine, but there is not the infrastructure for trains at 30minute intervals in both directions as I have explained, so you are advocating using a 9 car IET from London to serve a 10min commuter flow to Hanborough. I would argue this is not sensible and you will need to sell at lot of £36pw season tickets to Charlbury to pay for infrastructure to get anything back from halfway down the line.

Knowing how trains work I wouldn't have a hard time thinking that a train at 17:20 had half the passengers of one at 18:00. 17:20 allows those people who leave work up to about 17:10 to catch it, of the a service at 17:50 that would be very busy with the 16:20 being quieter but could well be significantly busier than the 17:20. However if there's no 17:50 service then the 18:20 will likely have triple the passengers. Note that as I've got no experience of the services here I'm taking from my experience of trains in general.

There is no contradiction. I have suggested a workable solution involving an Oxford - Worcester Turbo to give you frequency but you object on the grounds it would be beneath a relative short commuter flow. The line can probably manage 2tph in one direction but not both. But as I have explained, if this is all served from London they must be 9-10 cars or dividing at Oxford, one of which is over providing for a 10min commute, while dividing trains will exacerbate the already saturated station at Oxford.

The infrastructure at the London end of the line cannot handle the current number of trains. Looking at Bristol TM - London both the 0700 and 0730 have managed 29% and 47% 0-5min arrival in the past 12 weeks. This isn't occasional failures and breakdowns, this is late running most days.

Was there a request for 30 minute frequenties in both directions? The railways are very good at increasing flows in one direction to cater for demand, yet leaving the opposite direction with the same frequency as during the off peak (in some cases even reducing it, bit that this is being suggested here).

Running a shuttle service wouldn't gain you much and going forward, bearing in mind the order for 769's to allow more Turbos to head West (maybe all?), as such although it could be viable now it may not be a suitable long term plan.

You miss the point. The timetable is not robust enough to hold together during even minor difficulties. Those delays will keep coming and you will need to cancel even more trains to recover.

If there's problems then yes trains will be cancelled to allow the timetable to recover, however often it's better just to keep running a near normal timetable frequentcy once the problem has gone than try to get the trains to run on time. With the whole new just being fixed once trains have finished running for the day.

Yes that may mean that every train is, say, 15 minutes late. However that is better than having to cancel significant numbers of services over a few hours to get things back to timetable.

If an off-peak service west of Malvern is carrying <50 people it needs the shears taking to it. I am sure if you ran hourly to Hereford off-peak numbers would rise by an impressive % but 30% of 50 is not a good enough reason to run more trains.

The railway one day will need to face up to the reality there is a large public debt and its subsidy has ballooned as fast as its train miles. No efficient business would be run like this - ramping up off peak service frequencies when the trains are already lightly used. A great many places far larger than Moreton in Marsh do not boast a half hourly peak service to London. Railways make money from running big trains with lots of passengers, this one is failing because it is trying to do exactly the opposite

Yes 30% of 50 isn't a lot, about 17, however since the 90's most passenger numbers have doubled. Which could be 100, it could even be 132 if it's doubled since the 30% growth. There's also the possibility that is even higher than that.

So 150 is about half the number on the 1720 leaving Oxford, this only goes to prove you are advocating a 9 car IET to serve a 10min commuting flow. How many exactly is 'rather a lot' that remain for the remainder?

Two things 150 is the number that get off, there could be some who get on, which reduces the net reduction.

If it's currently a HST then there's already been a decision to run it as a full length service as there's demand, so I would suggest that there's likely to be demand for it going forward. Yes there could be a point where shortening it to a 5 coach unit could be sensible, however if this at a point where it's not viable then it could be better to just leave it as it is.

This is old ground. Reading to London commuters (£136pw) will not use Class 345s to get to London unless you are going to build turnstiles and barriers to stop them. Wait and see is reality, because what is ordered is ordered, but it will take 3 years to fix the perfectly forseeable problem that will exist from Day 1.

The class 80x's are providing 18% increase Vs the high capacity HST's, you've said yourself that these make up a small amount of the HST fleet. Therefore the capacity uplift is going to be higher than this for many services.

As such adding a further 88 seats now to some services, which will also need to run in the off peaks, wouldn't increase capacity over the peaks much more than you are already getting. However it could well be worth doing in about 5 years time when everything has settled down and it can clearly be seen how everything is working.

There's going to be some people for whom using the Crossrail trains is going to be an advantage. Yes it's unlikely to be those doing Reading - London, however it could remove some of those that do get on some of the current HST services at Reading.

During which time performance on the Reading to London corridor will probably be even worse if the extra trains make it through to London and we will have another 3 years of passengers packed like sardines into tin. All of which could have been improved by ordering a 1x10 IET to maximise seats per peak path like any other railway e.g. West Coast, Eurostar, Crossrail, Thameslink would have done.

Woking - London also needs more train capacity, yet there's little likelihood of that changing much in the next 10 years.

In fact I would argue that, based on the above, it would have been better to have built Crossrail 2 first given that the GWML has had until fairly recently 3 and 6 coach services running during the peaks. As such the level of passenger capacity increase had been very significant. Whilst Woking has had at least one of the top 10 busiest trains in the county where they and the services either side of it are running as 12 coach trains.

Yes Reading could do with more capacity, but it's already had a sufficient uplift, is going to gain more when the new fleets are fully delivered and had scope to see more in a fairly short timeframe.