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

[Aictos]

Wrong. I travel into London every day from Watford Junction. Been doing it for 40 years and although it has to be pretty bad for me to ever to go on “the DC”, as we old timers call it, some people do it as first choice as it allows them to “tune out” and do what they want. We had similar on the WR days on the 117 sets.

Most punters will, of course, opt for the fast services but not everyone travels for speed. It surprised me to see this at first hand as I was a speed merchant in my youth and used to be first out the door of my AM10 at Euston, frequently before the train the train stopped. I thought everyone was like me. The increase of peak seats that the 80x & 387 will provide should help the Reading situation before the punters have to consider going 345 but the fact that the 345 sets with their huge capacity will now start from Reading will make the DfT very wary about increasing seats further.

On the 10 car issue, their operation on the North and South Cots is problematic as they are too long for key locations. They lock up track circuits or are too long for some bits of key infrastructure. That is why those services will be 9 car, with few exceptions. The problem is that “the Great Cartographer” thought he needed only 5 cars from Swindon/Oxford but when I looked at the actual passenger figures they told a different story and the late Roger Watkins and I got to work. Morale of the story - don’t use the industry MOIRA revenue prediction system for predicting passenger load by train. Go to actuals and then look at MOIRA.

I have kept out of the 7 car debate as I kind of thought it was fairly pointless as the DfT will want to see the overcrowding figures by location before they contemplate any more cars on their budget. That would take several years. There is also the not inconsiderable problem of all the Agility depots which have been configured for 5, 9 and 10 car trains. 7 cars really wastes current depot capacity.

There has been quite a lot of mention of individual services being profitable or not. That’s not how the railway system is currently costed. The network and services on it are a political construction where political considerations, such as service frequency or seats from particular locations, are required to be provided and if they are not too expensive, they get baked into the franchise, concession or DA.

In BR days it was very different with growth periodically turned off (frequently on government orders) by fares increases, so as to avoid capital expenditure and then there were service and other cuts when things got really tough. I don’t think there are many people left on the railway who remember the regional rationalisation gangs or the periodic “the Treasury says we’ve run right out of money” counting the paper clip exercises (ever had to use a pencil extender or take your empty BIC back to the stores to get another?). I’ve actually had to send out orders for perfectly good stock to be removed from sets at end of day to be sent to works for stripping for spares. At times, it got that desperate.

NR at the moment are finding out the hard way about the old ways but most TOCs and their DfT minders would have not a clue about how to keep things going but saving the required wonga. But that’s not how we currently decide services - the DfT specifies, the TOC provides (even if it thinks it’s daft) and the DfT have to pay for it, frequently though the nose because we TOCs have much better lawyers than they do when it comes to the franchise agreement.

But that’s a bit off topic for this thread. More 9 cars from extending GWR 5 cars? Yes, please. The GWR fleet will be that much better to operate (and maintain through the dreaded TARA) and the surplus end cars could, with more centre cars form the basis for a MML or XC fleet, all on the Agility deal of course, making it a win win all round.

Thank you, this backs up what I've been trying to say about 10 car IETs and about Crossrail.

Least it comes from someone with common sense!

 

[jayah]

Thank you, this backs up what I've been trying to say about 10 car IETs and about Crossrail.

Least it comes from someone with common sense!

If 10 cars trains aren't allowed to either Cheltenham, Worcester and other places? it sounds like the great myth of the 5 cars giving flexibility is busted. In reality the deployment of the 9s is going to be driven by the position of track circuits and when the HSTs are gone the folk of Cheltenham and Worcester should expect lots of 5 car trains turned out when a 9 can't be found.

I am not going to alter my position and enjoy this 'wait and see' approach which will sadly waste at least another three years after about 12 years of minor schemes and initiatives each promising to improve the situation at Reading, all of which have simply allowed capacity to increase at about the same pace as demand.

If most of the network will take 10 the trains to Bristol / Swansea etc.. should be of maximum length and within that length should maximise the capacity delivered per path.

 

[Aictos]

If 10 cars trains aren't allowed to either Cheltenham, Worcester and other places? it sounds like the great myth of the 5 cars giving flexibility is busted. In reality the deployment of the 9s is going to be driven by the position of track circuits and when the HSTs are gone the folk of Cheltenham and Worcester should expect lots of 5 car trains turned out when a 9 can't be found.

I am not going to alter my position and enjoy this 'wait and see' approach which will sadly waste at least another three years after about 12 years of minor schemes and initiatives each promising to improve the situation at Reading, all of which have simply allowed capacity to increase at about the same pace as demand.

If most of the network will take 10 the trains to Bristol / Swansea etc.. should be of maximum length and within that length should maximise the capacity delivered per path.

Point 1. There is no such thing as the myth of 5 car operations giving flexibility as that is fact not fiction, as to the good folk of Cheltenham and Worcester, I'm sure they be happy with a 5 car train should a diagrammed 9 car train not be available because otherwise they would face a cancellation and a train is better then no train!

Point 2. You state that the deployment of the 9s is going to be driven by the position of track circuits? I disagree, the deployment of the fleet both 5 and 9 cars will depend on where they are best needed. The fleet planners and train planning guys at GWR have a far better idea of what resources they have and what services they need to cover using their said resources.

Point 3. As to running 10 cars trains to maximise use of train paths, don't you think that the train planning team/fleet planning team are aware of that and know what they're doing so if they believe a train can be operate using a 9 car or a 5 car then it's their decision.

 

[jayah]

Point 1. There is no such thing as the myth of 5 car operations giving flexibility as that is fact not fiction, as to the good folk of Cheltenham and Worcester, I'm sure they be happy with a 5 car train should a diagrammed 9 car train not be available because otherwise they would face a cancellation and a train is better then no train!

Point 2. You state that the deployment of the 9s is going to be driven by the position of track circuits? I disagree, the deployment of the fleet both 5 and 9 cars will depend on where they are best needed. The fleet planners and train planning guys at GWR have a far better idea of what resources they have and what services they need to cover using their said resources.

Point 3. As to running 10 cars trains to maximise use of train paths, don't you think that the train planning team/fleet planning team are aware of that and know what they're doing so if they believe a train can be operate using a 9 car or a 5 car then it's their decision.

So a 9 will be diagrammed where it is needed but actually the punters will still be happy if only half the number of seats is actually delivered?

That really doesn't stack up for me. It sounds like a recipe for lots of 5 car peak running, set swaps and delays, 5 car peak running being something I keep being told will be eradicated when the fleet was delivered and bedded in. I also do wonder where this leaves the fantastically tight Paddington platforming situation needed to make the new compacted headways from Reading work?

We are now back at the old hoare of aren't divisible trains great for the operator because they can deliver 50% of the seats, pay nothing to customers and pocket substantial contract payments from Hitachi.

Its all fine because customers should be jolly well grateful to be getting anything!

There is no train that will deliver the maximum seats from a 10 car length because the coupled sets have an entire carriage of capacity of cabs and kitchens and deliver the same capacity as the 9.

It may not be their fault but the wrong trains were bought.

 

[Aictos]

I'm not saying there will be a lot of 5 car Class 800s running around as it's cheaper for GWR to cram everyone into it then run a 9 car Class 800, what I am saying and what you deliberately choose to ignore is the fact that faced with a cancellation and a short form, the majority of passengers will be happy with the short form even if it's less then ideal.

What I have tried to explain and I will explain yet again for your ignorance is that GWR will know how best to use the resources available to them as they know how to best match trains with the demand from passengers.

 

[jayah]

I'm not saying there will be a lot of 5 car Class 800s running around as it's cheaper for GWR to cram everyone into it then run a 9 car Class 800, what I am saying and what you deliberately choose to ignore is the fact that faced with a cancellation and a short form, the majority of passengers will be happy with the short form even if it's less then ideal.

What I have tried to explain and I will explain yet again for your ignorance is that GWR will know how best to use the resources available to them as they know how to best match trains with the demand from passengers.

I didn't say it would be done deliberately because it is cheaper, but when it does happen passengers won't be compensated and if it is a failure, the operator will be refunded.

I resent the argument throughout this debate about divisible units that half a train is a good thing just because the alternative is even worse.

I strongly suspect there will be plenty of 5 car peak operation as even minor disruption will make it impossible to keep the 9s where they need to go.

People are clearly not happy about the short formations and that is not likely to change.

 

[w1bbl3]

Point 2. You state that the deployment of the 9s is going to be driven by the position of track circuits? I disagree, the deployment of the fleet both 5 and 9 cars will depend on where they are best needed. The fleet planners and train planning guys at GWR have a far better idea of what resources they have and what services they need to cover using their said resources.

In terms of the golden valley and Cotswolds route the problems with electrification of the mainline resulting all in GWR IET now being bimode has saved the DfT from a somewhat awkward problem of ordering the wrong fleet mix in the first place. However this will still constrain the train planners at GWR to only having a choice of 5 car or 9 car for those diagrams as 2x 5 car isn't an option due to short platforms where the second set couldn't have any doors opened or key infrastructure being fouled. Even though this is a problem of DfT's making it will be for GWR to work around and take the inevitable criticism when a 5 car turns up on a 9 car service.

 

[The Ham]

I am not going to alter my position and enjoy this 'wait and see' approach which will sadly waste at least another three years after about 12 years of minor schemes and initiatives eac

The problem is with your proposal of 10 and 7 coach units is that you matched the number of units assuming that ALL diagrams were 9 coach or 5+5 coaches.

The problem with that is that they would be less units available than with the 5's being able to run as single units. Although there may not be many services in the peaks that would be suitable as 5 coach services for each 2 that are you have one more 5+5 service that can be run.

On that basis, assuming that your 14 x 7 coach units were in use somewhere in the peaks than would mean an extra 7 full length services running. Requiring extra units (either 80x's or 387's, or Turbo's in the case of the Bedwyn services) to cover, which has a cost associated with it.

As such having your 7 coach units would be more costly than what is currently being delivered.

Also, with regards to your quote above, nothings likely to change anytime soon (there's certainly no scope now to change the order mix of mid/end coaches) so the next possibility would be as part of the next franchise.

With limitations on the network there could be scope for some (say 12-20) 10 coach units to run services to locations where that could work. Which could result in projects to remove some of the easy to fix problem areas along routes where there's only a few to provide extra flexibility.

Pair this with extra mid coaches to lengthen a few more of the 5 coach units to 9 coaches and you would gain a few more sets with 10 coaches in the peaks and more reliability in being able to send out 9 coach units for the services which can only be run as 5 or 9 coach units.

If we assume an add on order of 40 coaches to lengthen 16 to be 10 coach units and 6 to be 9 coach units that would give the fleet quite a bit of extra capacity and flexibility.

Compare this with what you could do to increase the fleet size if there was your mix of 7 and 10 coach units. You would either need to get more 7 coach units which would be harder to find suitable services to run then on, lengthen the 7 coach units to 10 coaches or get more 10 coach units.

Now taking the above 40 coach add on order and you'd gain 4 new 10 coach trains or 6 (which would require 2 extra coaches) new 7 coach trains or a mix of somewhere in between. This would bring some extra capacity but only in the form of a few extra units.

I think that the current fleet with the option for a follow on order is about the best compromise that we are likely to get, 7 coach units aren't likely to result in a compromise that would work as well the current proposal and would be complicated to increase the fleet size.

 

[Mintona]

As a Reading FC fan, I post on their fan’s forum quite a lot too. Unsurprisingly, the bulk of the posters there live in and around Reading. And a good number of those commute to London regularly if not daily.

Without exception they are all looking forward to Crossrail, and the direct services it will provide to the areas where they actually work. Who wants to spend time changing from two tube trains and a mainline train when it’ll be 5 minutes slower on Crossrail but with a nice air conditioned train and more chance of grabbing a seat from earlier on in the journey.

Obviously a decent number will use the high speed services but more than you might think will use Crossrail all the way from Reading IMO.

 

[Aictos]

I didn't say it would be done deliberately because it is cheaper, but when it does happen passengers won't be compensated and if it is a failure, the operator will be refunded.

Actually you're wrong there because as of the 1st October 2016, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 was extended to also apply to the rail, aviation and maritime industries.

Which means basically that passengers CAN be compensated if a service is short formed especially if it means they couldn't get a seat on the train.

This also applies to other services provided by the industry and is not just restricted to delays.

As a Reading FC fan, I post on their fan’s forum quite a lot too. Unsurprisingly, the bulk of the posters there live in and around Reading. And a good number of those commute to London regularly if not daily.

Without exception they are all looking forward to Crossrail, and the direct services it will provide to the areas where they actually work. Who wants to spend time changing from two tube trains and a mainline train when it’ll be 5 minutes slower on Crossrail but with a nice air conditioned train and more chance of grabbing a seat from earlier on in the journey.

Obviously a decent number will use the high speed services but more than you might think will use Crossrail all the way from Reading IMO.

My view exactly, thank you for stating the obvious!

 

[jayah]

Actually you're wrong there because as of the 1st October 2016, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 was extended to also apply to the rail, aviation and maritime industries.

Which means basically that passengers CAN be compensated if a service is short formed especially if it means they couldn't get a seat on the train.

This also applies to other services provided by the industry and is not just restricted to delays.



My view exactly, thank you for stating the obvious!

Judging by their Twitter accounts, neither GWR nor any other TOC is on the same page. The idea of getting compensation if a train was short formed and you got a seat sounds even more unlikely.

 

[jayah]

The problem is with your proposal of 10 and 7 coach units is that you matched the number of units assuming that ALL diagrams were 9 coach or 5+5 coaches.
The problem with that is that they would be less units available than with the 5's being able to run as single units. Although there may not be many services in the peaks that would be suitable as 5 coach services for each 2 that are you have one more 5+5 service that can be run.

No, I looked at the services and put either 7 or 10 against them. I am not aware of the diagrams for the next timetable.

On that basis, assuming that your 14 x 7 coach units were in use somewhere in the peaks than would mean an extra 7 full length services running. Requiring extra units (either 80x's or 387's, or Turbo's in the case of the Bedwyn services) to cover, which has a cost associated with it.

Interestingly the current diagrams have a number of units that don't run at all in one peak, which did't happen with the HSTs. 387s were bought precisely for Oxford and Newbury and the costs of crewing these coupled sets in the peaks and where they run coupled off peak also need consideration.

Also, with regards to your quote above, nothings likely to change anytime soon (there's certainly no scope now to change the order mix of mid/end coaches) so the next possibility would be as part of the next franchise.

I know.

With limitations on the network there could be scope for some (say 12-20) 10 coach units to run services to locations where that could work. Which could result in projects to remove some of the easy to fix problem areas along routes where there's only a few to provide extra flexibility.

This should have been done long before introducing a fleet where almost half the vehicles are in 5 car sets.

Pair this with extra mid coaches to lengthen a few more of the 5 coach units to 9 coaches and you would gain a few more sets with 10 coaches in the peaks and more reliability in being able to send out 9 coach units for the services which can only be run as 5 or 9 coach units.

Extending 5s to 9s won't actually add any seats assuming they were going to run as 2x5 in the peak. Anything to reduce the number of kitchens and double crewed sets would be a step in the right direction.

If we assume an add on order of 40 coaches to lengthen 16 to be 10 coach units and 6 to be 9 coach units that would give the fleet quite a bit of extra capacity and flexibility.

Compare this with what you could do to increase the fleet size if there was your mix of 7 and 10 coach units. You would either need to get more 7 coach units which would be harder to find suitable services to run then on, lengthen the 7 coach units to 10 coaches or get more 10 coach units.

My figures had no net increase in Class 800 vehicles. There isn't a need for a complete fleet of 10s when around a quarter of the pre 2017 HSTs didn't touch London in either peak and the new non-stop services are also very unlikely to need this amount of capacity.

There are suggestions here the non-stop services in the peaks are committed to be 9/10 cars. It will be interesting how busy they actually are. If 7s were the right capacity for these it would be a significant saving. I certainly don't accept a c. £100m additional cost is needed for what is essentially a scheme to turn a 2x5 unit into a 1x10 unit with 15% more seats and fewer onboard crew.

I think that the current fleet with the option for a follow on order is about the best compromise that we are likely to get, 7 coach units aren't likely to result in a compromise that would work as well the current proposal and would be complicated to increase the fleet size.

The current fleet is all we are getting for a good few years.

 

[jayah]

In terms of the golden valley and Cotswolds route the problems with electrification of the mainline resulting all in GWR IET now being bimode has saved the DfT from a somewhat awkward problem of ordering the wrong fleet mix in the first place. However this will still constrain the train planners at GWR to only having a choice of 5 car or 9 car for those diagrams as 2x 5 car isn't an option due to short platforms where the second set couldn't have any doors opened or key infrastructure being fouled. Even though this is a problem of DfT's making it will be for GWR to work around and take the inevitable criticism when a 5 car turns up on a 9 car service.

Making a plan stand up on paper will be the easy bit. With all these constraints on the 2x5 the problems start when one 9 car comes off the depot as 2x5 wth only 1 set of onboard crew, or shortformed as 1x5 and then all the permutations where a train is delayed en route needing a set swap at London or the weekly episodes of major disruption due to signals, axle counters, heat, cold, wind, broken down trains etc... etc....

It sounds like never ending opportunity for delays, no onboard service and short formations at the same time as the headways and platforming at Paddington are being tightened up to the practical limit and beyond.

I accept the DfT contracted these trains, although the TOC does seem to have exerted at least some influence on their configuration.

 

[coppercapped]

So a 9 will be diagrammed where it is needed but actually the punters will still be happy if only half the number of seats is actually delivered?

That really doesn't stack up for me. It sounds like a recipe for lots of 5 car peak running, set swaps and delays, 5 car peak running being something I keep being told will be eradicated when the fleet was delivered and bedded in. I also do wonder where this leaves the fantastically tight Paddington platforming situation needed to make the new compacted headways from Reading work?

We are now back at the old hoare of aren't divisible trains great for the operator because they can deliver 50% of the seats, pay nothing to customers and pocket substantial contract payments from Hitachi.

Its all fine because customers should be jolly well grateful to be getting anything!

There is no train that will deliver the maximum seats from a 10 car length because the coupled sets have an entire carriage of capacity of cabs and kitchens and deliver the same capacity as the 9.

It may not be their fault but the wrong trains were bought.

Although I disagree with many (most?) of your arguments, your final sentence is very close to the truth.

The number of trains, and split between long and short trains, procured through the Intercity Express Programme was calculated by Hitachi and its subsidiary, Agility Trains, to fulfil a notional timetable prepared by the DfT at the start of the procurement process, over 10 years ago. (If anyone is interested in the early history of, and the changes made to, the IEP there was a report published in June 2010 by Sir Andrew Foster which may be found here). The whole sorry story - and the fact that the IEP would not, on its own, make a significant increase in the capacity into London in the peak hour - got me off my backside to write to my then MP in October 2011. I quote the conclusion of my letter:

The DfT, even now after a change of Government, is not able to stop micro-managing the railway. It was clear in the presentation made by two senior civil servants[1] to the Institute of Mechanical Engineers on 27th June 2011, which I attended, that the DfT has decided that additional non-stop trains are required between London and Bristol. So it would appear that the next franchisee will get issued with (a) a set of trains for which they have to pay a pre-determined leasing charge and (b) a timetable to operate - Agility Trains showed a simulation of the train rosters designed to ensure that the trains could be returned to a suitable maintenance depot at the end of the day. This does not leave much freedom of action for the franchisee to match his business to passenger demand - which was one of the original purposes of privatisation.
By acquiring the trains using an alternative to the PFI mechanism, it is estimated that some £80 million per year could be saved. This money could be used to much greater effect in increasing the capacity of the railway; over a decade some £800 million would be available. This could certainly buy some additional track and signals for the western route to Heathrow.

(My emphasis).

I received an answer which stated that I was wrong about the PFI - in a PFI deal the Government buys the assets for a nominal amount at the end of the contract period. In the case of the IEP at the end of the 27 1/2 years Agility keeps the trains - so it's not a PFI deal. There was no comment or answer to the main points I raised. Following such an insulting answer I am very glad to say that the then MP lost his seat in the last General Election.

[1] One of these was Stuart Baker - he of the railway maps, Mr Yard's "Great Cartographer".

 

[The Ham]

Extending 5s to 9s won't actually add any seats assuming they were going to run as 2x5 in the peak. Anything to reduce the number of kitchens and double crewed sets would be a step in the right direction.

On the individual units you are correct the wood be no additional seats, however across the fleet there would be. It would also mean that the likelihood would be that there would be fewer chances of a 5 coach unit being sent out on its own, so there would be more seats in service over the year.

 

[The Ham]

I know

Given that we've laid to bed that 7 coach units aren't going to happen (short if GWR extending their fleet to do so) as the units are being delivered can we move on from discussing them unless in the context of extending 5 coach units to bring 7 coach units?

 

[coppercapped]

How do you know people won't use the 345s? If TfL didn't think that people wouldn't use the 345s then they wouldn't have invested a LOT of money to extend it to Reading when they could have just terminated at Maidenhead as originally proposed!

As it is, TfL believe there IS a business case for the 345s to serve Reading even if you like to think otherwise and I think that once people find out the variety of connections available from one direct train into London, it will be very popular much like how Thameslink became a overnight success story I think the same will happen with the Elizabeth line.

Reading is a net importer of labour - the inflow of people into the town each day exceeds the number leaving it to work elsewhere.

Part of the Crossrail business case is to benefit from this flow - it is looking to earn money shifting people into Reading in the morning from towns and dormitory areas along the Thames Valley and out again in the evenings.

The business case is definitely not based only on the morning Reading to London flow and the reverse in the evenings.

One other thing. Apart from an extra trainset or two, TfL has spent no money on extending Crossrail to Reading. The additional platforms and other alterations at Reading were all funded from Network Rail's CP4 settlement and considerable expenditure was avoided by NOT building a bay at Slough to accommodate a Reading -Slough shuttle that would have been needed if Crossrail had not replaced the two stopping trains per hour which terminate at Reading.

 

[Aictos]

Judging by their Twitter accounts, neither GWR nor any other TOC is on the same page. The idea of getting compensation if a train was short formed and you got a seat sounds even more unlikely.

I suggest you read what the industry is meant to legally oblige to honor > http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/CRA_Customer_FAQs_2018.pdf

Just because you haven't heard of it being used does not mean it doesn't exist, it does and it exists as a law.

 

[gingertom]

Given that we've laid to bed that 7 coach units aren't going to happen (short if GWR extending their fleet to do so) as the units are being delivered can we move on from discussing them unless in the context of extending 5 coach units to bring 7 coach units?

I can't see the DfT spending taxpayer's money lengthening any of their IETs on GWR. Once all batches of 80x and 345 stock are delivered, in service and bedded in GWR might decide to strengthen some of their 802s in light of operational experience. That's a long way off.

 

[The Ham]

I can't see the DfT spending taxpayer's money lengthening any of their IETs on GWR. Once all batches of 80x and 345 stock are delivered, in service and bedded in GWR might decide to strengthen some of their 802s in light of operational experience. That's a long way off.

Define a "long way off".

Are we talking, next franchise, the one after that, 50 years time?

Clearly nothing will happen this side of the start of the next franchise (unless there's more than a few more extensions).

 

[jimm]

I thought I had been clear.

Hourly to the Cotswolds, hourly to Oxford with 387s. Newbury to London 387s, 769s Bedwyn to Reading and 2 semi fast services for Hungerford / Pewsey etc... in the evening.

Result is a net reduction in IETs on both Oxford and Newbury routes in the peak and no 5 car peak London to Bedwyn service.

I am not convinced by a Turbo to serve Charlbury at 2tph in the peak, Kemble doesn't have this, but is no different to how Banbury will still need to be served, perhaps from Didcot or one of the bay platforms at Oxford. Still better than splitting IETs in the through platforms.

So once again you demonstrate you have no intention of listening to anything anyone else says, as you have convinced yourself you are right, despite pretty obviously knowing naff all about how Cotswold Line services - and other routes nearby - are actually used by people.

You even have the nerve to try to make out that there is some common ground between the Cotswold Line and the GWR service to Banbury - a town that has a much faster, frequent direct service from London on another route - hence the GWR service between Oxford and Banbury serves an entirely different local purpose, and also shares the tracks with XC's non-stop services every half-hour.

In the case of Kemble, commuting to and from Swindon (if we take it as the local equivalent to Oxford) is limited, as there is a dual carriageway between Cirencester and Swindon and a frequent bus service. By the time someone has driven to Kemble station, they would be halfway to Swindon on the A419 - so guess what most locals do.

In the other direction, road bottlenecks make the train a competitive option from Kemble/aka Cirencester Parkway to Gloucester, hence GWR's plan to run morning peak extras from Swindon to Gloucester and back the other way in late afternoon once the new timetable starts.

 

[gingertom]

Define a "long way off".

Are we talking, next franchise, the one after that, 50 years time?

Clearly nothing will happen this side of the start of the next franchise (unless there's more than a few more extensions).

I agree it won't be this franchise. If First Group win the next one any expansion of the 802 fleet will be based on passenger growth predictions for the routes these trains operate, whether there's money to be made.
Perhaps for a new thread, but what happens to First Group's 802s if they don't get the GWR franchise?

 

[Clarence Yard]

They stay with the GWR franchise, as per all the other ROSCO leased assets.

 

[gingertom]

They stay with the GWR franchise, as per all the other ROSCO leased assets.

I should do my research before posting. That belated search reveals GWR has an option with Hitachi for more 150 additional vehicles formed into 5-car sets.

 

[Clarence Yard]

That option ran out some time back. Any procurement of extra cars would have to be a new one.

 

[jayah]

So once again you demonstrate you have no intention of listening to anything anyone else says, as you have convinced yourself you are right, despite pretty obviously knowing naff all about how Cotswold Line services - and other routes nearby - are actually used by people.

You even have the nerve to try to make out that there is some common ground between the Cotswold Line and the GWR service to Banbury - a town that has a much faster, frequent direct service from London on another route - hence the GWR service between Oxford and Banbury serves an entirely different local purpose, and also shares the tracks with XC's non-stop services every half-hour.

In the case of Kemble, commuting to and from Swindon (if we take it as the local equivalent to Oxford) is limited, as there is a dual carriageway between Cirencester and Swindon and a frequent bus service. By the time someone has driven to Kemble station, they would be halfway to Swindon on the A419 - so guess what most locals do.

In the other direction, road bottlenecks make the train a competitive option from Kemble/aka Cirencester Parkway to Gloucester, hence GWR's plan to run morning peak extras from Swindon to Gloucester and back the other way in late afternoon once the new timetable starts.

The operation of a Turbo from Oxford to Banbury and Oxford to Worcester is equivalent. I have not suggested Banbury and Worcester are equivalent.

I have yet to see evidence that this 30min frequency is needed to move the numbers. There is some equivalence with Kemble, Gloucester and Cheltenham who scrape by with 1tph in the peaks from London.

 

[jayah]

I suggest you read what the industry is meant to legally oblige to honor > http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/CRA_Customer_FAQs_2018.pdf

Just because you haven't heard of it being used does not mean it doesn't exist, it does and it exists as a law.

This document doesn't add anything we don't already know. Claims may be considered if you reserved a seat and had to stand. If you didn't, then what? What about delays where the train was too full to board? Delayed by less than an hour forget it.

 

[jayah]

Given that we've laid to bed that 7 coach units aren't going to happen (short if GWR extending their fleet to do so) as the units are being delivered can we move on from discussing them unless in the context of extending 5 coach units to bring 7 coach units?

I think we established 7 car sets weren't going to happen when the contract was signed. They would still be a very good way of saving vehicles on off peak diagrams that don't touch the London peaks without lots of kitchens, cabs, double crewing and short formations, which is what it looks like is coming.

 

[43096]

I think we established 7 car sets weren't going to happen when the contract was signed. They would still be a very good way of saving vehicles on off peak diagrams that don't touch the London peaks without lots of kitchens, cabs, double crewing and short formations, which is what it looks like is coming.

7 car sets are categorically not a good idea. How many diagrams are there that don’t go through a London in either peak? Very few I would bet. It would lead to yet another micro-fleet that needed special diagramming and you can guarantee that they would end up on peak workings the first time the service fell over (which is regularly). Better to stick to 5 and 9 car sets.

 

[jimm]

The operation of a Turbo from Oxford to Banbury and Oxford to Worcester is equivalent. I have not suggested Banbury and Worcester are equivalent.

I have yet to see evidence that this 30min frequency is needed to move the numbers. There is some equivalence with Kemble, Gloucester and Cheltenham who scrape by with 1tph in the peaks from London.

I love the way that you continue to pontificate about what services should run in places where you have no idea about how the trains are used, persist in ignoring or disputing anything I or anyone else posts here in an attempt to inform you, and yet keep demanding 'evidence'.

What does that mean? Official GWR passenger counts for each and every service?

Even then you would probably refuse to accept them as proof of anything - such as why different routes have different levels of services or why different sizes of train or different service frequencies are appropriate in those places at different times of the day.