GWR Class 800

[Goldfish62]

I'm not convinced the Class 800 interior is all that different from what a UK ICE4 would look like. Indeed, the use of greys and wood effect is very ICE indeed.

.

In as much as it's a tube with seats.

Seriously, it's hard to describe the ambience of an ICE if you've never been on one, but IMHO it is the benchmark for InterCity trains, nearly 30 years after it was first introduced.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Once the electrification committed to in the CP5 announcement is completed (i.e. Paddington to Bristol/ Swansea/ Oxford) then how much need is there going to be for an IEP to go from 0-125mph?

Most of the unelectrified lines are going to be limited to slower speeds where the train is going to be making relatively frequent stops because it's the only train on the line (i.e. not much scope to get up to anything remotely fast before you need to start breaking).

In short, worrying about IEPs getting up to 125mph on unelectrified lines is willy waving from a macho magazine contributor who is more bothered about Big Boys Toys than the practicalities of routes like Oxford - Hereford. How much west of Oxford is going to be 100mph+ plus?

I can agree that the bits of the routes that are not to be electrified are of lower importance so speed is not so important. If they are important or become important then it follows that electrification should happen - eventually. Its the argument I used in the past for it being adequate for a push-pull locomotive to be sat at the end of the wires ready to take the EMU(s) further. Just like used to happen with 33s at Bournemouth for onward travel to Weymouth (OK in that case the MUs that went beyond Bournemouth left the powerful EMU at Bournemouth !). Unfortunately the newer Pendolinos and 57s made that look unworkable merely because the coupling up was too slow - but it happened at the end of the arguably "important" bit of the route.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have two 5-car EMUs WITH end unit connections going from Paddington to Exeter/ Bristol/Wherever and then a diesel locomotive taking one of the two 5-car units on to Penzance. The result would be simpler units with no diesel engine and fuel being dragged around at the London end. Instead we have a largely Bi-Mode fleet but at least it is relatively immune to the tragic progress of electrification. I do hope one day, before the IEPs are life expired, that there will be another route in the process of being electrified where these IEPs can be of use. But it is more likely that we will have disbanded the electrification teams (and knowledge) before another route is electrified as history WILL repeat itself.

Long live the HSTs and 442s !.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seriously, it's hard to describe the ambience of an ICE if you've never been on one, but IMHO it is the benchmark for InterCity trains, nearly 30 years after it was first introduced.

I have on a number of occasions. It is very nice, though the newer ones a bit less so (and it's the ICx/ICE4 I'm comparing with the 800, not the ICE1).

 

[coppercapped]

Roger likes his "too much power is a good starting point" mantra, but when there are 3 car Class 185 units running with 2,250hp compared with the 1,350hp of their three car Class 158 predecessors, it's easy to get drunk on power, all that happens is you waste it all in heat, noise and worn out brake pads, at least going a bit mad with power in an electric train will get you a fair chunk of that back in regenerative braking.

Is that strictly true? As a first approximation the power required to maintain a train at given constant speed is constant. Obviously for a train with the same number of coaches and bogies the resistance to motion will vary slightly from type to type since there will differences in the rolling resistance (because of different bogie designs, drive and gearbox and brake layouts) and the aerodynamics will differ. But these differences are small compared to the total resistance.

This means that a train with more powerful engines will be developing the same power to hold a constant speed as one with less powerful engines, that is the more powerful engines will not be running at full power. In stopping from the same speed the brake wear on both trains will be the same.

The main difference is that the train with the more powerful engines can accelerate at a higher rate and reach its cruising speed - generally these days that is set by the track rather than by train horsepower - in less time.

One might expect the train with the more powerful engines to have a higher fuel consumption - but even here one has to be careful. The total energy 'consumed' (actually converted from one form to another) during a journey is given by the area under the power-time graph where instantaneous power is plotted for each equal time unit, for example at each second the instantaneous horsepower is measured. So even if the more powerful engine is consuming fuel at a higher rate during acceleration because the period of acceleration to the same top speed is shorter the fuel consumption for the journey is not necessarily that much higher - trains can coast for longer.

A classic example are the ET423 trains on the Munich S-Bahn. They have an installed power of 2,350kW (3,100hp), weigh (empty) about 105 tonnes and accelerate at 1 ms^2. After 15 seconds they have reached over 30 mph and in the inner areas power is then cut off. What's not to like - 15 secs of power every couple of minutes! Hardly extravagant!

 

[RAGNARØKR]

I was only referring to the start, I didn't say that an HST would never eventually catch up. :roll: Can you give us the complete displacement to time plot of an 800 and an HST starting from zero accelerating to 125mph on a rainy day to prove your point?

I can't but this was done in Informed Sources several years ago. If a train is making stops every five miles then the starting acceleration (and braking rate) will make a difference. If stops are widely space then it is cruising speed that counts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Some of the discussions above have referred to the Reading commuter problem. Surely, once Crossrail is running, many people will prefer a train that takes them direct to their destination rather than change at Paddington?

Isn't this going to relieve the pressure on the long-distance trains?

 

[JN114]

Some of the discussions above have referred to the Reading commuter problem. Surely, once Crossrail is running, many people will prefer a train that takes them direct to their destination rather than change at Paddington?

Isn't this going to relieve the pressure on the long-distance trains?

Unfortunately from the likes of Reading crossrail takes nearly an hour to get to Paddington alone, never mind Tottenham Court Road or Canary Wharf, and this completely negates any benefits gained from not having to interchange at Paddington.

 

[jimm]

Unfortunately from the likes of Reading crossrail takes nearly an hour to get to Paddington alone, never mind Tottenham Court Road or Canary Wharf, and this completely negates any benefits gained from not having to interchange at Paddington.

There will be faster Crossrail services in the peaks from the western end of the line, though they clearly won't be as quick into London as GW-operated IEPs and 387s on the fast lines. A lot of the 387 services will surely be targeted at and marketed at Reading commuters to open up capacity on longer-distance services for stations further out.

That said, given all the changes to timetables and rolling stock that there will be on the GWML between 2017 and 2019, it will surely be hard to know exactly what commuters are going to do until assumptions meet the real world. Assumptions Chiltern made about commuters' use of the two Bicester stations and some Buckinghamshire stations after the Oxford service began appear to have been off-beam, prompting a lot of tweaks to formations and stopping patterns this week.

 

[coppercapped]

There will be faster Crossrail services in the peaks from the western end of the line,...

That's a big assumption. The Crossrail web site currently states:

TIMETABLING
The detailed timetable for Crossrail will be determined nearer to when services are scheduled to begin. Currently planned peak services are expected to be:

Great Western Corridor:

2 trains per hour in each direction between Reading and central London;
2 additional trains per hour in each direction between Maidenhead and central London;
2 additional trains per hour in each direction between West Drayton and central London; and
4 trains per hour in each direction between Heathrow Airport and central London.

...though they clearly won't be as quick into London as GW-operated IEPs and 387s on the fast lines. A lot of the 387 services will surely be targeted at and marketed at Reading commuters to open up capacity on longer-distance services for stations further out.
That said, given all the changes to timetables and rolling stock that there will be on the GWML between 2017 and 2019, it will surely be hard to know exactly what commuters are going to do until assumptions meet the real world. Assumptions Chiltern made about commuters' use of the two Bicester stations and some Buckinghamshire stations after the Oxford service began appear to have been off-beam, prompting a lot of tweaks to formations and stopping patterns this week.

Here I agree with you in the difficulties in prediction. However in view of the difference in journey times between the Crossrail and non-stop services between Reading and London (approximately double) and the low Crossrail frequency (2 per hour) compared to that offered by the fast trains, I am confident in predicting that Crossrail will have little effect on Reading to London traffic.

Crossrail will, however, make a considerable difference for intermediate journeys made between Reading and London. The stopping services will be slightly quicker, there will be a tremendous increase in capacity and, the closer in to London the journey starts avoiding a change at Paddington for some destinations will be a boon.

One point about the 387-operated services. There are no more peak paths available between Stockley and Paddington in either direction, well OK, maybe one per hour, if reliability is not to suffer too badly. So the 387s cannot really operate as crowd-busters apart from their use on the Newbury and Oxford (and possibly a new Swindon/Didcot service). Off-peak things are slightly easier. Heathrow Airports Ltd. predicts that they will lose about 3% of air passengers from public transport if HEx is slowed or replaced by a stopping service so it will not give up its HEx paths without fight - otherwise it may well be in more trouble with air quality.

 

[JamesRowden]

I can't but this was done in Informed Sources several years ago. If a train is making stops every five miles then the starting acceleration (and braking rate) will make a difference. If stops are widely space then it is cruising speed that counts.

The only sections of unelectrified track that the 800s were planned to operate hourly along on the medium/long term were:

• Westbury-Newbury (Semi-fast)
• WestoneSuperMare-BristolTempleMeads
• Swindon-CheltenhamSpa
• Cotswolds-Oxford

Whilst if diesels were ordered instead of 800s you'd have diesels operating under the wires all day so that there are enough for diversions on Saturdays and during disruption.

How have you come to the conclusion that top speed off the wires is more important than off the line acceleration off the wires, and the performance and efficiency of the 800s under the wires, considering this data?

 

[swt_passenger]

I can't but this was done in Informed Sources several years ago.

Much of the Modern Railways damning analysis of 'several years ago' reflected trains of a type that was never ordered, namely the 9 car bi-mode with a single diesel power car at one end.

Even the latest Modern Railways article in the December 2015 mag spends the first half page describing the problems with 2008's totally underpowered but now superseded train, and only on the second page does it mention Hitachi having completely changed the design to underfloor gen sets and distributed traction.

 

[jimm]

That's a big assumption. The Crossrail web site currently states:

Here I agree with you in the difficulties in prediction. However in view of the difference in journey times between the Crossrail and non-stop services between Reading and London (approximately double) and the low Crossrail frequency (2 per hour) compared to that offered by the fast trains, I am confident in predicting that Crossrail will have little effect on Reading to London traffic.

Crossrail will, however, make a considerable difference for intermediate journeys made between Reading and London. The stopping services will be slightly quicker, there will be a tremendous increase in capacity and, the closer in to London the journey starts avoiding a change at Paddington for some destinations will be a boon.

One point about the 387-operated services. There are no more peak paths available between Stockley and Paddington in either direction, well OK, maybe one per hour, if reliability is not to suffer too badly. So the 387s cannot really operate as crowd-busters apart from their use on the Newbury and Oxford (and possibly a new Swindon/Didcot service). Off-peak things are slightly easier. Heathrow Airports Ltd. predicts that they will lose about 3% of air passengers from public transport if HEx is slowed or replaced by a stopping service so it will not give up its HEx paths without fight - otherwise it may well be in more trouble with air quality.

Well whatever the final timetable looks like, the journey time Crossrail gives for Reading-Paddington is 50 minutes, rather than the almost an hour suggested above, which wouldn't be any improvement on the Turbos.

I'm sure a majority of Reading passengers will stick with using GW fast trains of some description but at the moment we can't know what people will do when they are offered the option of staying in the same seat all the way from Berkshire to the City or Canary Wharf, especially if there is also a decent discount on a Crossrail-only season ticket or Oyster charge compared with a season valid on the fasts as well, like the current difference between GTR-only tickets on services in from Peterborough compared with the any permitted route Travelcard accepted on VTEC - the saving there is something like £1,400 a year. Some people will surely be willing to make that trade-off if the Crossrail service is punctual and reliable, avoids the aggravation of changing trains in London, however good the arrangements at Paddingon are, and they have a bit more money in their pocket each month - even if there is a modest travel-time penalty. And factoring in the aggro of getting from Paddington to other parts of London at the moment, due to its less-than-ideal Tube links, how much of a penalty will there actually be in many cases?

Of course the paths on the fast lines are limited but what I was suggesting above is that if the timetable is structured in such a way that you get 12-car 387 services out of Reading or Paddington - offering the Reading passengers a good chance of getting that seat they all claim is their heart's desire - just ahead of an IEP that you know will be busy with longer-distance passengers then it isn't really about how many paths you've got, more about making the best possible use of them.

A 12-car 387 offers about 90-100 seats more than a high-capacity HST, so a clear improvement there for every duty switched from one type of train to the other. Also the likes of the 17.18 and 17.36 semi-fasts to Oxford use some of those precious fast line paths to get to Maidenhead then cross to the reliefs. The 180 and HST on those trains now give about 860-870 seats in total but if you have two 12-car 387s working their 2019-20 equivalents then you have about 1,350, which should bust a few queues.

 

[HSTEd]

It seems to me that they should go to entirely 110/125mph stock on the fast lines, running all non-stop between Reading and Paddington.

They could then fill the slow lines with various combinations of Crossrail trains - using proper flightings they could rather good service densities to all stations served without unduly crippling journey times.

 

[jimm]

It seems to me that they should go to entirely 110/125mph stock on the fast lines, running all non-stop between Reading and Paddington.

They could then fill the slow lines with various combinations of Crossrail trains - using proper flightings they could rather good service densities to all stations served without unduly crippling journey times.

While the aim may be to go to 110/125mph stock - the 365s aren't likely to be allowed near the fasts in the normal course of events - I doubt it will ever be politically acceptable to deprive Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford of some level of fast services, albeit that they will most likely be 387s. Crossrail simply can't deliver a 15-minute run to Slough, or 20 to Maidenhead.

 

[JN114]

With some clever skip-stopping, paths for EMUs from Oxford/Swindon/Didcot/Reading could be created by running Non-stop through these stations, with a simultaneous/near simultaneous EMU departure from the skipped stops essentially running in the path created by the IEP running 2-3 mins early.

 

[HSTEd]

While the aim may be to go to 110/125mph stock - the 365s aren't likely to be allowed near the fasts in the normal course of events - I doubt it will ever be politically acceptable to deprive Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford of some level of fast services, albeit that they will most likely be 387s. Crossrail simply can't deliver a 15-minute run to Slough, or 20 to Maidenhead.

Crossrail stock is supposed to be capable of 90mph isn't it?

A train on the slow lines could, if 90mph running was introduced along the entire route, lead the train 'cycle' by running first stop Slough, followed by Maidenhead.
It is not out of the question that a similar journey time could be obtained.
The question is when it has to revert to all stations because it has caught up with the previous cycle's slowest Reading bound train (the last trains in the cycle would be sent to Heathrow to soak them up).

 

[coppercapped]

Well whatever the final timetable looks like, the journey time Crossrail gives for Reading-Paddington is 50 minutes, rather than the almost an hour suggested above, which wouldn't be any improvement on the Turbos.

Where did you get that idea from? I have been on an HST, in the earlier days with 7 coach rakes, which got from Reading to Paddington in 23 1/2 minutes. This equates to an average speed of 91mph. The track layout wasn't so good back then with a 25mph turnout from the Up Main Platform Loop to the Up Main and before the higher speed turnouts were installed in the Paddington approaches in the early 90s. I assume the new, improved Class 800 and 801 trains on the new and improved infrastructure will be able to keep to the new accelerated schedules of around 25 minutes.

Double that makes 50 minutes - which is what Crossrail is claiming and which is a 10 minute improvement on the present Turbo times.

I'm sure a majority of Reading passengers will stick with using GW fast trains of some description but at the moment we can't know what people will do when they are offered the option of staying in the same seat all the way from Berkshire to the City or Canary Wharf,...

Which is exactly the point I was making in terms of passengers making intermediate journeys between Reading and London and those starting or finishing their journeys closer to London who will find that for some starting points and destinations not having to change will be advantageous.

...especially if there is also a decent discount on a Crossrail-only season ticket or Oyster charge compared with a season valid on the fasts as well, like the current difference between GTR-only tickets on services in from Peterborough compared with the any permitted route Travelcard accepted on VTEC - the saving there is something like £1,400 a year. Some people will surely be willing to make that trade-off if the Crossrail service is punctual and reliable, avoids the aggravation of changing trains in London, however good the arrangements at Paddingon are, and they have a bit more money in their pocket each month - even if there is a modest travel-time penalty. And factoring in the aggro of getting from Paddington to other parts of London at the moment, due to its less-than-ideal Tube links, how much of a penalty will there actually be in many cases?

That is pure speculation - there has been no published information on fare structures at all. And as far as I know the route you mention is the only one with such a fares structure - which implies that there are local reasons why it is offered there and nowhere else.

Of course the paths on the fast lines are limited but what I was suggesting above is that if the timetable is structured in such a way that you get 12-car 387 services out of Reading or Paddington - offering the Reading passengers a good chance of getting that seat they all claim is their heart's desire - just ahead of an IEP that you know will be busy with longer-distance passengers then it isn't really about how many paths you've got, more about making the best possible use of them.

How do you know that

offering Reading passengers a good chance of getting that seat they all claim is their heart's desire

is actually the case? Hyperbole doesn't an argument make! Many Up trains arriving at Reading in the morning are also full and standing; trains heading west leave Reading in the evening peak also still have standing passengers. The capacity problem goes much further west than Reading.

Your pathing suggestion won't work. Scheduling a 110mph train 3 minutes (the nominal signalling headway) ahead of a 125 mph Class 80X train from Paddington will mean that in the Down direction the latter catches the first one by Hayes and will then trail along after it at 110mph. In the Up direction the 125 mph train will start seeing double yellows just past Maidenhead. The only possible slot which could be used by a 110mph train would be the path immediately before a HEx which leave the Mains at Stockley Bridge Junction. This would leave a breathing space before the 125mph train leaving 3 minutes after the HEx caught the 110mph service up somewhere near Maidenhead.

A 12-car 387 offers about 90-100 seats more than a high-capacity HST, so a clear improvement there for every duty switched from one type of train to the other. Also the likes of the 17.18 and 17.36 semi-fasts to Oxford use some of those precious fast line paths to get to Maidenhead then cross to the reliefs. The 180 and HST on those trains now give about 860-870 seats in total but if you have two 12-car 387s working their 2019-20 equivalents then you have about 1,350, which should bust a few queues.

By 2019 we will be seeing Class 80Xs rather than HSTs and Class 180s. Apparently in the 10 coach variety they will have more seats - this should be the comparison, not the current rolling stock. The reason the trains you mention cross to the Reliefs is that stopping on the Mains in the peak is not a good idea - this does not mean that in any future timetable they will continue to switch tracks or even that they will continue to run.

In addition, traffic is likely to continue to grow. Assuming a continuing 4.5% annual increase in the number of passengers, the 870 in the HST and Class 180 will have grown to 1084 in five years time. The problem of how to bust the queues in the peak will not go away.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Crossrail stock is supposed to be capable of 90mph isn't it?

A train on the slow lines could, if 90mph running was introduced along the entire route, lead the train 'cycle' by running first stop Slough, followed by Maidenhead.
It is not out of the question that a similar journey time could be obtained.
The question is when it has to revert to all stations because it has caught up with the previous cycle's slowest Reading bound train (the last trains in the cycle would be sent to Heathrow to soak them up).

Do you understand the issues on the GW? Firstly the Relief lines are cleared for 85/90mph running already. I have quoted the notional peak period Crossrail timetable in post No. 1748. There will be 10 trains per hour on the Reliefs leaving the Crossrail tunnels at Paddington. Are you suggesting that your fast train to Slough is one of these trains or an additional one?

I suggest that you consider how one could also continue to serve the other stations on the route with a frequency and journey times which are at least equivalent to that which they now enjoy if either an extra non-stop is introduced or stops are removed from one of the 10. If the latter then you will have to explain to the people using the trains from, among others, Ealing Broadway, Hanwell, Hayes, Langley and Iver that in spite of the Government having spent billions on Crossrail their train service has been reduced.

Oh, and off-peak there are several stone trains running to Acton Yard, some of which weigh up to 4,000 tonnes and the corresponding westbound empties, some of which run in the shoulder peak. The Freight Operating Companies also have track access contracts. And there are some automotive trains from Purfleet to Cowley which also have to be fitted onto the Reliefs.

 

[jimm]

Where did you get that idea from? I have been on an HST, in the earlier days with 7 coach rakes, which got from Reading to Paddington in 23 1/2 minutes. This equates to an average speed of 91mph. The track layout wasn't so good back then with a 25mph turnout from the Up Main Platform Loop to the Up Main and before the higher speed turnouts were installed in the Paddington approaches in the early 90s. I assume the new, improved Class 800 and 801 trains on the new and improved infrastructure will be able to keep to the new accelerated schedules of around 25 minutes.

Double that makes 50 minutes - which is what Crossrail is claiming and which is a 10 minute improvement on the present Turbo times.

What are you on about? I've no idea. Yes the expresses will take 25 minutes or so, Crossrail 50 minutes or so.

Which is exactly the point I was making in terms of passengers making intermediate journeys between Reading and London and those starting or finishing their journeys closer to London who will find that for some starting points and destinations not having to change will be advantageous.

And some Reading passengers may also opt to go all the way as well. Allowing say 10 minutes for a transfer at Paddington - not everyone will negotiate it at Usain Bolt speed - then Crossrail+GWR is only going to be 15 minutes quicker from the likes of Liverpool Street than staying on Crossrail the whole way. Deliver on punctuality and reliability and the through journey may prove attractive to some, even without a financial incentive.

That is pure speculation - there has been no published information on fare structures at all. And as far as I know the route you mention is the only one with such a fares structure - which implies that there are local reasons why it is offered there and nowhere else.

But given the well-worn arguments about trying to keep Reading commuters off GWR long-distance services, then a differential fares structure like that could help to achieve a move in that direction. Perfectly reasonably to speculate about it. And Peterborough is not the only place there are assorted seasons on offer, Cambridge is another case where a GTR season to certain Thameslink core stations carries a hefty discount, compared with tickets valid on both routes into London.

How do you know that is actually the case? Hyperbole doesn't an argument make! Many Up trains arriving at Reading in the morning are also full and standing; trains heading west leave Reading in the evening peak also still have standing passengers. The capacity problem goes much further west than Reading.

Well Reading commuters seem to spend an awful lot of time on GWR's Twitter feed and Facebook and in TV tales about overcrowded trains demanding a seat, so I think it's a fair assumption that getting one would stop much of the moaning in pretty short order. And I know all the rest and have often pointed it out to other posters, who seem to think that stops by expresses at Reading can just be ditched to foil the pesky commuters going to and from London, never mind the impact that would have on lots of other people going nowhere near London. That the current GWR train fleet is struggling to cope with demand all round is hardly news.

Your pathing suggestion won't work. Scheduling a 110mph train 3 minutes (the nominal signalling headway) ahead of a 125 mph Class 80X train from Paddington will mean that in the Down direction the latter catches the first one by Hayes and will then trail along after it at 110mph. In the Up direction the 125 mph train will start seeing double yellows just past Maidenhead. The only possible slot which could be used by a 110mph train would be the path immediately before a HEx which leave the Mains at Stockley Bridge Junction. This would leave a breathing space before the 125mph train leaving 3 minutes after the HEx caught the 110mph service up somewhere near Maidenhead.

Did you miss the bit back up the thread about how slow many of the services on the fast lines apparently are? I'm afraid that at some points in the sequence an IEP will have to follow a 387 formation, rather like HSTs following Turbos right now but the speed and acceleration improvements the 387s will bring should make things a bit easier to manage. I expect GWR and Network Rail are working out what they can do to achieve the best possible balance all round.

By 2019 we will be seeing Class 80Xs rather than HSTs and Class 180s. Apparently in the 10 coach variety they will have more seats - this should be the comparison, not the current rolling stock. The reason the trains you mention cross to the Reliefs is that stopping on the Mains in the peak is not a good idea - this does not mean that in any future timetable they will continue to switch tracks or even that they will continue to run.

What on earth is wrong with comparing it to the current rolling stock? I wasn't talking about the sort of services that will convert to IEPs. HSTs and 180s being used on outer-suburban jobs like the 17.18 and 17.36 will clearly be replaced by 387s in the future. The 17.50 to Worcester stops on the fast line at Maidenhead right now and has done for several years. And yes, it's a fair bet the 2019 timetable will look a bit different but there will still be equivalent services doing similar jobs at similar times of the day - unless commuting patterns suddenly change.

In addition, traffic is likely to continue to grow. Assuming a continuing 4.5% annual increase in the number of passengers, the 870 in the HST and Class 180 will have grown to 1084 in five years time. The problem of how to bust the queues in the peak will not go away.

It probably will but no one has a crystal ball telling them exactly what is going to happen - some GWR stations in the latest ORR figures have traffic growth around 10 per cent or even more, others are in low single figures. There are no guarantees either way. And those 1,084 will still fit into 1,350 seats on 387 formations, so whatever actual growth turns out to be and whatever the future timetable looks like, it is still going to be an improvement on the current situation, especially on the full-to-bursting 17.18.

 

[The Ham]

I don't know if this is quite the link you were expecting, but it is my evaluation of the published figures.

On 9th July 2014 the National Audit Office published a report (Procuring new trains, HC 531 Session 2014-15 9 July 2014) which was openly critical of the way the DfT has procured the trains for the IEP and Thameslink.

The financial figures included in the NAO’s report for the IEP were analysed by Roger Ford in the August 2014 edition of Modern Railways on pages 30 to 31. He concluded that the annual charge on the train operator for the Western’s tranche of trains will be some £300 million (my rounding).

The Office of Rail and Road publishes a range of statistics on railway use, costs and revenues. In its document entitled “GB rail industry financial information for the year ending 31 March 2013” are included the annual rolling stock charges for the Train Operating Companies (TOCs). Those for first Great Western (fGW) (as was) amount to £68 million.

To this amount must be added the cost of daily maintenance and cleaning to bring the numbers to about the same basis as the IEP charges. In the ORR table is a heading ‘Other operating expenditure’ which amounted to £177 million for fGW which includes these, and many other, expenses. If it is assumed that some £20 million of this sum is for train cleaning and maintenance (including consumables), it would be reasonable to assume a total charge of some £90 million for the current fleet. Note that this is the cost to the train operator for the total fleet: all the High Speed Trains and all the trains required for the Thames Valley and Bristol suburban services, the Cotswold lines and the West Country.

I used the ORR figures for 2013 - I don't think the 2014 figures are wildly different.

On this basis the annual cost of the IEP fleet alone will be some three times what fGW currently pays for all of its trains. Even if all the £177 million were connected with train operation, this would still make the IEP by itself 18% to 20% more expensive than the entire existing fleet.

The point is that by (a) only paying for operated diagrams when the trains have entered service and (b) by not making any progress payments during development and construction of the trains, the DfT has put all the funding responsibility on Hitachi. As a result Hitachi has had to fund the 8 years of the entire programme from the time it was named as preferred supplier to the time the first train enters service. This is covered largely by borrowing - although the Foster report assumed that some of the capital would be raised as equity I do not know whether Hitachi issued any shares to help finance this programme. In any event the interest on the money borrowed over 8 years must be considerable - and largely explains why the Train Service Provision payments are so high.

The advantage for the DfT is that this is an 'off balance sheet' transaction which is not reflected in its budgeting. For the DfT the trains are free - all it has done is guarantee the Train Service Provision payments being made by the TOC. And none of these fall due for another year or more.

According to the NAO report the total cost for ALL IEP trains to the TOC's over tge 27.5 years is £7.65bn. Divide one by the other and you get £278 million for all the trains.

Given that GWML will see 369 coaches vs ECML's 497 the cost for the GW portion would be £118 million which is still fairly high but not as bad as the £300million.

There are other things to consider when comparing the HST's with the 80x's like the number of seats the ability to run shorter trains on the edges to provide more trains where they are needed. The need for less spare trains, potentially lower running (power and track access charges - bearing in mind an 11 coach Voyager is cheaper than a 2+8 HST in track access charges) costs.

Likewise First could be doing themselves a good lease deal on their HST's which would be keeping their current costs (as it mostly just profit for them anyway)

Basically in short I'm not convinced that the 3 times figure is a) true and b) is based on a fair calculation.

 

[LexyBoy]

I do wonder how the proposed increases in IC frequency, plus fast 387 services, will be accommodated between Reading and Paddington. I suppose at the moment there are a handful of Turbo services using the mains which will be removed.

Off-peak things are slightly easier. Heathrow Airports Ltd. predicts that they will lose about 3% of air passengers from public transport if HEx is slowed or replaced by a stopping service so it will not give up its HEx paths without fight - otherwise it may well be in more trouble with air quality.

That sounds very much like Heathrow making stuff up to keep their precious Express. Back of the envelope sums gives us 8% of Heathrow passengers using HeX - do we really believe that more than one in three of them would either not fly or use an alternative airport (with a longer journey even on an "express")?

As far as I'm concerned, they're welcome to an express - they just need to build their own line from Stockley Jn onwards (best of all, direct to the City where it can deliver the "creme de la creme of audiences" to where they no doubt are going).

 

[D365]

As far as I'm concerned, they're welcome to an express - they just need to build their own line from Stockley Jn onwards (best of all, direct to the City where it can deliver the "creme de la creme of audiences" to where they no doubt are going).

Isn't that, in essence, a service that Crossrail is providing?

As far as I can see, it's just HAL making an issue of their premium fares.

 

[LexyBoy]

HeX occupies 4 paths per hour on the mains which are needed for long-distance and fast commuter services - as far as I know they will continue on the fasts post-Crossrail.

I am of the opinion that Crossrail will make a big dent in HeX patronage - not on cost grounds as the fares are loose change for its passengers, but on convenience.

 

[hwl]

HeX occupies 4 paths per hour on the mains which are needed for long-distance and fast commuter services - as far as I know they will continue on the fasts post-Crossrail.

I am of the opinion that Crossrail will make a big dent in HeX patronage - not on cost grounds as the fares are loose change for its passengers, but on convenience.

Then after a while when it has proved to be reliable and a number of employes use it any way and as lots of HEx usage appears to be on expenses, firms will direct employees to use Crossrail potentially saving hundred of pounds expenses per employee per year...

 

[The Ham]

Then after a while when it has proved to be reliable and a number of employes use it any way and as lots of HEx usage appears to be on expenses, firms will direct employees to use Crossrail potentially saving hundred of pounds expenses per employee per year...

The cost saving may not be that much if booked in advance, however I would tend to agree that people on the route of Crossrail are not going to pay extra to get to Heathrow if they have to change trains for the privilege.

 

[Mikey C]

HeX occupies 4 paths per hour on the mains which are needed for long-distance and fast commuter services - as far as I know they will continue on the fasts post-Crossrail.

I am of the opinion that Crossrail will make a big dent in HeX patronage - not on cost grounds as the fares are loose change for its passengers, but on convenience.

Very few people are just going from Heathrow to and from Paddington, it all boils down to where you're going.

For someone staying in a 5* Knightsbridge or Piccadilly hotel would still need to change, even if they used Crossrail, and might feel that it's easier to get a taxi at Paddington, rather than trying to find one outside Bond Street station, or gulp use the tube or a bus!

 

[jimm]

HeX occupies 4 paths per hour on the mains which are needed for long-distance and fast commuter services - as far as I know they will continue on the fasts post-Crossrail.

I am of the opinion that Crossrail will make a big dent in HeX patronage - not on cost grounds as the fares are loose change for its passengers, but on convenience.

They will presumably continue until 2023, when Heathrow Express's track access agreement ends, but that is surely going to be to be the end of the line for that service in its present form, especially if the western rail link is nearing completion by then, which will presumably prompt a re-cast of all heavy rail services at Heathrow.

For example, I seem to recall hearing somewhere that, after London, Oxford is now the most popular initial UK destination for visitors flying into Heathrow, so could you send a additional fast Reading and Oxford service that way plus a limited-stop Bristol or Cardiff Class 80x service? And I'm sure TfL would love to get their hands on a couple more paths into the airport and beyond for Crossrail, rather than turning round so many trains just past Paddington, as is currently planned.

 

[HSTEd]

Do you understand the issues on the GW? Firstly the Relief lines are cleared for 85/90mph running already. I have quoted the notional peak period Crossrail timetable in post No. 1748. There will be 10 trains per hour on the Reliefs leaving the Crossrail tunnels at Paddington. Are you suggesting that your fast train to Slough is one of these trains or an additional one?

I am suggesting the GW relief timetable be torn up and a new one written from scratch to account for the epochal changes brought about by Crossrails introduction.

Ideally the relief lines would be pure ETCS and fitted with ATO for maximum efficiency, and no other trains would use them outside of disruption.
Crossrail is sold as being a super-tube-line, it needs to act like one in service density terms.

I suggest that you consider how one could also continue to serve the other stations on the route with a frequency and journey times which are at least equivalent to that which they now enjoy if either an extra non-stop is introduced or stops are removed from one of the 10. If the latter then you will have to explain to the people using the trains from, among others, Ealing Broadway, Hanwell, Hayes, Langley and Iver that in spite of the Government having spent billions on Crossrail their train service has been reduced.

How about this:

If we go to the Bombardier HS2 ETCS capacity study [the most easily available headway calculation document I have at the moment], we see a rather interesting curve on page 6 indicating headway against train speed.
At ~90mph/145kph the technical headway time of 75 seconds at ~800m section lengths, well within the capabilities of existing technology. That is still only ~25 blocks between Hayes and Harlington and Paddington so its hardly bank breaking. Moving to 400m sections would shorten the headway to something like 60 seconds apparently, which would provide more margin but be more expensive.

We should only load the line up to 3/4 its theoretical capacity, so our timetable headway is 100 seconds. Or 36 notional paths an hour if all trains were flighted non-stop and there were no platforming issues.

My best guess estimate is that the Heathrow Express can complete a run non-stop to Hayes and Harlington is roughly 15 minutes based on its ~21 minute total travel time.
The Heathrow Connect takes roughly 20 minutes from departing Paddington to Departing Hayes and Harlington for the run to the airport, and would take ~21 minutes once the new stop at Acton Main Line is included.

21 minutes translates as a 6 minute timetable deficit.
This is important as it defines the size of our 'flighting envelope'.

I propose a flighting scheme of:
1. Non stop to Reading [grab Reading commuter traffic]
2. First stop Slough train
3. Non-stop train to Heathrow (although this being first would reduce the number of points movements, doing it this way would slightly spread the load by allowing the previous slow train more time to reach Heathrow before being run down by the express)
4. First stop Hayes and Harlington towards Maidenhead
5. The all stops train to Heathrow.

6 minutes plus 500 seconds is ~14 minutes. So you could run the entire thing on a 4 flight-per-hour cycle.
If you shorten headway to 60 seconds with the extra signal blocks (which could be put in at minimal cost during the current resignalling works) then you end up with 6 minutes plus 360 seconds, which is 12 minutes. And then thanks to your 75% capacity pad you could run at a 5fph cycle.

But you might just want the extra capacity to improve the resilience of the 4fph cycle.

4fph translates as 20 trains per hour.
So in order to make this practical you would have to bring forward the 30+tph Crossrail proposal, as you would otherwise have to hold up trains to build up the flights. At 30tph there is very little of that, you just notch out the flights by turning back some of the trains.

Either way, it turns the line into some sort of crazy high capacity Metropolitan line. And every station receives at least 4 trains per hour. And many of the outer stations could have more if you wanted.

Oh, and off-peak there are several stone trains running to Acton Yard, some of which weigh up to 4,000 tonnes and the corresponding westbound empties, some of which run in the shoulder peak. The Freight Operating Companies also have track access contracts. And there are some automotive trains from Purfleet to Cowley which also have to be fitted onto the Reliefs.

Run them on the fasts.
Running everything on them fast to Reading turns into into HS2, giving you more paths than you really need by a significant margin. (Do you really need 18 125mph paths from Pad to Reading?)
If you attach a suitable electric locomotive to the freight trains at Reading you can haul them at high speed and simply notch out a path every hour in each direction by withdrawing two or three of the high speed paths.

Or you could just give them a bung to run at night. Your choice.

 

[Dent]

For someone staying in a 5* Knightsbridge or Piccadilly hotel would still need to change, even if they used Crossrail, and might feel that it's easier to get a taxi at Paddington, rather than trying to find one outside Bond Street station, or gulp use the tube or a bus!

Surely if someone is going from Heathrow to Knightsbridge or Piccadilly the sensible option is the Piccadilly Line, which would not only be cheaper but would not require any changes.

 

[higthomas]

Surely if someone is going from Heathrow to Knightsbridge or Piccadilly the sensible option is the Piccadilly Line, which would not only be cheaper but would not require any changes.

I don't think you quite get that for the sorts of people being talked about, the tube really isn't an option. For many of them, first class on Heathrow express will be all the public transport they'd be prepared to uses in a week long stay.

 

[coppercapped]

I don't think you quite get that for the sorts of people being talked about, the tube really isn't an option. For many of them, first class on Heathrow express will be all the public transport they'd be prepared to uses in a week long stay.

It's not only that. Imagine that you've arrived at Heathrow after a six or eight hour flight. You're tired, out of kilter with the time and have no idea whether Knightsbridge is before or after Hammersmith and it's certainly the first time you've read the word 'Cockfosters'.

And then you stand in front of this ticket machine and try to work out what you have to do - what sort of ticket does one need from the variety on offer and how does one pay?

Is this the right train?

Then you arrive at Knightsbridge - or wherever -, it's raining, you have two cases and you haven't a clue which way you turn coming out of the station because all you have is an inadequate map sent by the hotel to show where it is. Then you discover there are two exits,...Oh, and the traffic is coming at you from the wrong direction... You are tired and your problem solving faculties are degraded.

As you have spent, or your employer has spent, several hundred, if not thousands <insertcurrencyname> to get you to London, and even if the hotel is not so expensive - it is so much easier, and often quicker, to take a taxi rather than faff around trying to find a cheaper public transport alternative.

It's always the right taxi...by definition.

It's all very well to say that one should plan one's trip in detail before one starts. But the reality is that its very difficult to do so, because of time pressures, all the other things which have to be done before departure or difficulty in knowing the right questions to ask.

Not everybody is a high powered executive staying in five star hotels - travel in foreign countries can be stressful - hence the continued existence of package holidays although in theory one can arrange everything these days oneself using the world wide web. Taxis and a simple product like HEx address these problems.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's always the right taxi...by definition.

In London it is. In other cities...to me a taxi is a last resort, because I near enough expect them to come up with some kind of disreputable rip-off such as refusing to use the meter.

In London, black cab drivers behave, by and large. This is not a typical situation at all. In most countries, and in some British cities as well, the trade is rather disreputable.

It's all very well to say that one should plan one's trip in detail before one starts.

Easy enough to do it with a smartphone these days.