GWR West Fleet IEP Cascade Update

[Philip Phlopp]

If all you want is to keep the IC125s full-length, there is no need for GWR to take on Voyagers. Just do what I've been 'yelled at' for suggesting and use the 5-car 800s/802s on Cardiff-Penzance instead of the proposed short IC125s and keep the IC125s, full-length, on PAD-PLY/PNZ. No need to change what new trains have been ordered, just where they are used.

You're still not understanding the way the IEP stock will be used.

There will only be 9 and 10 car services arriving into Paddington in the morning peak, and there will only be 9 and 10 car services leaving Paddington in the evening peak. That's what Agility Trains West are contracted to provide and that's what they will provide.

The way IEP will work, as we've explained at considerable length and detail already, is that where the capacity is required, they provide more capacity than an HST and where the capacity is not required, they can split en route to enable doubling of service frequencies.

The 5 car formations leaving North Pole and Stoke Gifford will be staggered, going to a variety of destinations, giving a more frequent service out of London and between intermediate destinations early morning, so 1 x 5 car unit will run all the way to, say, Oxford but another 1 x 5 car will, 10 or 15 minutes later, run out to Didcot. The Oxford to London set will couple to the Didcot to London set, providing a 10 car set to run into Paddington for the morning peak.

The 2 x 5 car formations leaving London during the peak will have the option to split en route, allowing one portion to extend the service further west, be it Bristol, Oxford, Hereford, Worcester etc. The second portion can return back to London, so the intermediate destinations don't see a drop in service frequency back into London after the evening peak.

The use of 2 x 5 car sets (which provide more capacity than 1 x 9 car set) provide flexibility and increases in frequency when capacity isn't important, but they also provide capacity during the peaks, when capacity is vital.

It really has been well thought out by DfT and extremely well implemented by Hitachi.

Oh, and expect a near blanket ban on diesel stock running into London termini by the end of CP6 or CP7, ruling out the use of HST sets in and out of Paddington.

 

[JamesT]

Isn't there also an issue with using full-length IC125s out of Paddington that they accelerate slower than IEP or 387s? So it would mess up any attempts to recast the timetable to take advantage?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Isn't there also an issue with using full-length IC125s out of Paddington that they accelerate slower than IEP or 387s? So it would mess up any attempts to recast the timetable to take advantage?

Yes. And much worse if used in 2+9 formation.

 

[Harbornite]

Oh, and expect a near blanket ban on diesel stock running into London termini by the end of CP6 or CP7, ruling out the use of HST sets in and out of Paddington.

Interesting, this means that you'll finally electrify Moor Street to Marylebone? Would you include the lines north of Moor Street as well?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Interesting, this means that you'll finally electrify Moor Street to Marylebone? Would you include the lines north of Moor Street as well?

Sorry, should have said, for those termini that are electrified. There will need to be good reason to continue using diesel stock when electric or bi-mode stock is available.

The sort of things you'll see is the sleeper out of Paddington, the handful of Chiltern services and maybe some remaining Turbo services out of Paddington, a handful of Grand Central services out of Kings Cross, the Turbostar services out of London Bridge and the last of the diesel stock out of Waterloo.

Marylebone is less of an issue right now - they've got sufficient stock and none of that stock is approaching end of life any time soon. There's going to be some movement on the route being electrified during CP6 - Banbury to Leamington Spa is Electric Spine. The rest is likely to follow from CP7 or CP8 onwards.

 

[Rhydgaled]

There will only be 9 and 10 car services arriving into Paddington in the morning peak, and there will only be 9 and 10 car services leaving Paddington in the evening peak. That's what Agility Trains West are contracted to provide and that's what they will provide.

My understanding of IEP was that Agility are only contracted to provide units for a certain number of diagrams, where they run is the TOC's responsiblity I thought. If there is a contract saying there will only be long trains into and out of PAD at peak times (and there probably is), I expect it is the franchise agreement with First, not the train-supply agreement with Agility. I could be wrong, but that's the way I understand it.

It may well be the case that only 9-car and 10-car services run in and out of London in the 'peak', but exactly how wide the definition of 'peak' is I don't know. Plus, if all the available 10-car formations are providing peak capacity into London, services carrying commuter flows into, for example, Bristol or Cardiff, could be formed of just a single 5-car unit.

By way of example, the draft diagrams published by DfT (which are not operationally viable apparently, but which I believe DfT used to decide how many units to order) have quite a number of potentially-peak services diagramed for single 5-car units, such as:

• 17:52 off Bristol Temple Meads (to Weston Super Mare)
• 17:27 off Cardiff Central (to Swansea)
• 08:14 into Cardiff Central (06:23 from Carmarthen, 07:19 from Swansea)
• 17:02 off Swansea (to Paddington), also 17:57 off Cardiff Central
• 08:08 into Gloucester, and 08:20 into Cheltenham Spa (06:28 off Paddington, 07:25 off Swindon)
• 17:48 off Cheltenham Spa (to Paddington), also 18:01 off Gloucester
• 08:28 into Oxford (06:26 from Hereford)
• 17:39 off Oxford (to Worcester)

Of course the amount of commuting into these places is going to be less than into London, but might it load a train to more than 310 passengers?

The way IEP will work, as we've explained at considerable length and detail already, is that where the capacity is required, they provide more capacity than an HST and where the capacity is not required, they can split en route to enable doubling of service frequencies.

The 5 car formations leaving North Pole and Stoke Gifford will be staggered, going to a variety of destinations, giving a more frequent service out of London and between intermediate destinations early morning, so 1 x 5 car unit will run all the way to, say, Oxford but another 1 x 5 car will, 10 or 15 minutes later, run out to Didcot. The Oxford to London set will couple to the Didcot to London set, providing a 10 car set to run into Paddington for the morning peak.

I understand the theory, and have explained why I don't like it. I will add though that the DfT diagrams I mentioned don't show anything attaching to or detaching from Oxford services at Didcot. In fact, on that route all the Cotswolds services are 5-car throughout except two morning peak workings into PAD (one Worcester and one Hereford) which are 10-car throughout and two evening peak workings from PAD to Hereford (one 10-car throughout, the other 10-car to Worcester and 5-car onwards).

So, I understand the theory, but don't like the idea of the splits and am concerned about the reduction to around 315 seats on what appears to be the vast majority of services on some routes.

2 x 5 car sets (which provide more capacity than 1 x 9 car set)

That's a bit mis-leading, since the difference in capacity between 2x5-car and a 9-car set is neglibile (about 3 seats).

Oh, and expect a near blanket ban on diesel stock running into London termini by the end of CP6 or CP7, ruling out the use of HST sets in and out of Paddington.

Referring to that DfT diagrams spreadsheet again, I can tell you DfT didn't seem worried about that when they were planning IEP, because the Plymouth and Penzance services are all marked as HSTs.

 

[tbtc]

It may well be the case that only 9-car and 10-car services run in and out of London in the 'peak'

Yes - it is the case.

Is there anything more to say?

if all the available 10-car formations are providing peak capacity into London, services carrying commuter flows into, for example, Bristol or Cardiff, could be formed of just a single 5-car unit.

By way of example, the draft diagrams published by DfT (which are not operationally viable apparently, but which I believe DfT used to decide how many units to order) have quite a number of potentially-peak services diagramed for single 5-car units, such as:

• 17:52 off Bristol Temple Meads (to Weston Super Mare)
• 17:27 off Cardiff Central (to Swansea)
• 08:14 into Cardiff Central (06:23 from Carmarthen, 07:19 from Swansea)
• 17:02 off Swansea (to Paddington), also 17:57 off Cardiff Central
• 08:08 into Gloucester, and 08:20 into Cheltenham Spa (06:28 off Paddington, 07:25 off Swindon)
• 17:48 off Cheltenham Spa (to Paddington), also 18:01 off Gloucester
• 08:28 into Oxford (06:26 from Hereford)
• 17:39 off Oxford (to Worcester)

Of course the amount of commuting into these places is going to be less than into London, but might it load a train to more than 310 passengers?

What's your alternative? Running nine coach trains with six hundred seats to cope with the commuter demand from Gloucester to Cheltenham? Does Bristol to Weston require six hundred seats? Or are you just scrabbling around looking for something to complain about?

I understand the theory, and have explained why I don't like it

I understand the theory, but don't like the idea of the splits and am concerned about the reduction to around 315 seats

What's the alternative though?

Easy to complain, but is the alternative to only have nine coach trains? In which case there'd be no option to portion work (meaning some places would lose through trains) - and you'd have to spend daft money on extending platforms at rural stations to 250m, since there'd only be nine coach trains running all the way to Hereford etc?

I appreciate I'm not going to change your mind on this (:roll, but a "one size fits all" approach isn't going to work.

 

[cjmillsnun]

How many routes that MK3s are cleared for would MK4s be banned from?

Right now pretty much everywhere except east coast routes. Potentially nowhere.

 

[Rhydgaled]

What's the alternative though?

For Cheltenham etc. it's too late now, but instead of 36x 5-car and 21x 9-car it possibly would have been better to have gone for around 10-15x 5-car sets (primarily as class 180 replacements), 30-35x 9-car sets and 15-25x 7-or-8-car sets. The exact proportions of how many of each would be needed is hard to say, but I feel that, with clever diagramming (which is needed for the portion working anyway), fixed-formations of three lengths (or even just 7-cars and 9-cars instead of nines and fives) would be better than portion working.

there'd be no option to portion work (meaning some places would lose through trains)

A very small number of places will lose through trains anyway, and they didn't lose them when all the 2+7 IC125s were extended to 2+8 so why would they lose them going from 2+8 IC125s to 9-car AT300s anyway?

you'd have to spend daft money on extending platforms at rural stations to 250m, since there'd only be nine coach trains running all the way to Hereford etc?

2+8 IC125s are already able to serve stations with platforms longer than the train, just use Selective Door Openning. If anything, the 10-car IEP formations going to Hereford would be more of a problem, as platforming just the front two coaches (for example) would leave passengers in the rear unit unable to alight. So either platforms would need to be 6-cars at least in length or the front four coaches would need to be off the platform at a 2-car station, so that one coach from both units would be platform.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How many routes that MK3s are cleared for would MK4s be banned from?

I'm pretty sure Mrk4s have 'C3' on them, just as 156s, Mrk3s and 175s do.

 

[Rich McLean]

For Cheltenham etc. it's too late now, but instead of 36x 5-car and 21x 9-car it possibly would have been better to have gone for around 10-15x 5-car sets (primarily as class 180 replacements), 30-35x 9-car sets and 15-25x 7-or-8-car sets. The exact proportions of how many of each would be needed is hard to say, but I feel that, with clever diagramming (which is needed for the portion working anyway), fixed-formations of three lengths (or even just 7-cars and 9-cars instead of nines and fives) would be better than portion working.

A very small number of places will lose through trains anyway, and they didn't lose them when all the 2+7 IC125s were extended to 2+8 so why would they lose them going from 2+8 IC125s to 9-car AT300s anyway?

2+8 IC125s are already able to serve stations with platforms longer than the train, just use Selective Door Openning. If anything, the 10-car IEP formations going to Hereford would be more of a problem, as platforming just the front two coaches (for example) would leave passengers in the rear unit unable to alight. So either platforms would need to be 6-cars at least in length or the front four coaches would need to be off the platform at a 2-car station, so that one coach from both units would be platform.

That's a mute point now anyway, as that issue has been solved by the 9-Car sets also being Bi-Mode, so these sets can be deployed on the busiest Cotswold services using SDO, while the 5 Car sets are swapped and used to strengthen other 5 car sets to 10-Cars on other diagrams during the peak

Agility are providing x amounts of units per day for x amount of diagrams. How those units are used and which diagrams they are placed on is entirely down to GWR

 

[Philip Phlopp]

My understanding of IEP was that Agility are only contracted to provide units for a certain number of diagrams, where they run is the TOC's responsiblity I thought. If there is a contract saying there will only be long trains into and out of PAD at peak times (and there probably is), I expect it is the franchise agreement with First, not the train-supply agreement with Agility. I could be wrong, but that's the way I understand it.

It may well be the case that only 9-car and 10-car services run in and out of London in the 'peak', but exactly how wide the definition of 'peak' is I don't know. Plus, if all the available 10-car formations are providing peak capacity into London, services carrying commuter flows into, for example, Bristol or Cardiff, could be formed of just a single 5-car unit.

By way of example, the draft diagrams published by DfT (which are not operationally viable apparently, but which I believe DfT used to decide how many units to order) have quite a number of potentially-peak services diagramed for single 5-car units, such as:

• 17:52 off Bristol Temple Meads (to Weston Super Mare)
• 17:27 off Cardiff Central (to Swansea)
• 08:14 into Cardiff Central (06:23 from Carmarthen, 07:19 from Swansea)
• 17:02 off Swansea (to Paddington), also 17:57 off Cardiff Central
• 08:08 into Gloucester, and 08:20 into Cheltenham Spa (06:28 off Paddington, 07:25 off Swindon)
• 17:48 off Cheltenham Spa (to Paddington), also 18:01 off Gloucester
• 08:28 into Oxford (06:26 from Hereford)
• 17:39 off Oxford (to Worcester)

Of course the amount of commuting into these places is going to be less than into London, but might it load a train to more than 310 passengers?

I understand the theory, and have explained why I don't like it. I will add though that the DfT diagrams I mentioned don't show anything attaching to or detaching from Oxford services at Didcot. In fact, on that route all the Cotswolds services are 5-car throughout except two morning peak workings into PAD (one Worcester and one Hereford) which are 10-car throughout and two evening peak workings from PAD to Hereford (one 10-car throughout, the other 10-car to Worcester and 5-car onwards).

So, I understand the theory, but don't like the idea of the splits and am concerned about the reduction to around 315 seats on what appears to be the vast majority of services on some routes.

That's a bit mis-leading, since the difference in capacity between 2x5-car and a 9-car set is neglibile (about 3 seats).

Referring to that DfT diagrams spreadsheet again, I can tell you DfT didn't seem worried about that when they were planning IEP, because the Plymouth and Penzance services are all marked as HSTs.

Agility are contracted to provide diagrams with specific capacity requirements per diagram (ultimately, they're contracted to provide seats). It is up to Agility on how they meet those requirements, using either 1 x 9 car, 2 x 5 car or in extreme circumstances, to hire in additional AT300 stock from GWR (or rather, to compensate GWR for having to use an AT300 set on an IEP diagram).

It may be the case that during holiday periods etc, diagrams are changed to suit different requirements, with some 5 car services into and out of Paddington during the peaks, with 9 car and 2 x 5 car sets deployed elsewhere or at alternative times, such as Glastonbury week.

If the peak trains you list load to more than the capacity of a 5 car set, there are several options - diagrams can be changed to release additional 9 car sets or additional 5 car sets to enable 2 x 5 car formations, there are train lengthening options with 4 intermediate vehicles capable of being added to provide further 9 car sets, additional stock can be ordered, as we are dealing with stock which is only just entering production and which should have a production life of somewhere around 15 or 20 years.

Further electrification will enable additional commuter services, operated by EMU stock, to pick up the slack from IEP, as we're already seeing with the Class 387s coming into the franchise.

There has been a significant movement on emissions and air quality since the initial work was done on IEP all those years ago. PM and NOx emissions are a significant concern to DfT for both bus and rail operations, which is why there will be significant work undertaken in the next few successive Control Periods to keep diesel stock away from large urban areas - London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow etc.

 

[Harbornite]

Sorry, should have said, for those termini that are electrified. There will need to be good reason to continue using diesel stock when electric or bi-mode stock is available.

Marylebone is less of an issue right now - they've got sufficient stock and none of that stock is approaching end of life any time soon. There's going to be some movement on the route being electrified during CP6 - Banbury to Leamington Spa is Electric Spine. The rest is likely to follow from CP7 or CP8 onwards.

I know this is a bit off topic, but I'll be watching this with interest. Ideally the limit of electrification would be Abbotswood Junction at Worcester, connecting with the hopefully-electrified Bristol- Bham line. This would free up many DMU's (providing the North Warks was also wired) and would offer an alternative electrified route to Birmingham, but would require major re signalling works.

 

[The Ham]

How many routes that MK3s are cleared for would MK4s be banned from?

Right now pretty much everywhere except east coast routes. Potentially nowhere.

In theory the Mark 4's are only cleared for the ECML services, however that is very different from where they are unable to be used.

For instance given that the 80x's are bigger than Mark 4's (given there has been much made by some about how much route clearances have cost for them) then (if understand it correctly) it should be little more than a paper exercise to clear Mark 4's for any route that the 80x's are cleared for.

Given that will be most major lines (and a fair few diversion routes) in the GWR, EC and (to a lesser extent the) TPE franchise areas that would provide a reasonable number of lines which the Mark 4's could be used on.

I wouldn't be surprised if it were possible to further extend the places that the Mark 4's could run, with little or no physical work, to those places where unmodified 16x run (such as Chiltern and GWR franchise areas) or those places where the 390's (with their 25m long driving cabs) run (such as the ICWC franchise area).

That would cover quite a large amount of the (former) intercity network, which is likely to be the sort of services that Mark 4's could be useful to be run.

 

[jimm]

That's a mute point now anyway, as that issue has been solved by the 9-Car sets also being Bi-Mode, so these sets can be deployed on the busiest Cotswold services using SDO, while the 5 Car sets are swapped and used to strengthen other 5 car sets to 10-Cars on other diagrams during the peak

By way of an update, I have posted here http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=132257&page=2 that GWR and Network Rail are actively looking at platform extensions along the Cotswold Line, which would enable 2x5 operation here as well at some point in the future.

It may well be the case that only 9-car and 10-car services run in and out of London in the 'peak', but exactly how wide the definition of 'peak' is I don't know. Plus, if all the available 10-car formations are providing peak capacity into London, services carrying commuter flows into, for example, Bristol or Cardiff, could be formed of just a single 5-car unit.

By way of example, the draft diagrams published by DfT (which are not operationally viable apparently, but which I believe DfT used to decide how many units to order) have quite a number of potentially-peak services diagramed for single 5-car units, such as:

• 17:52 off Bristol Temple Meads (to Weston Super Mare)
• 17:27 off Cardiff Central (to Swansea)
• 08:14 into Cardiff Central (06:23 from Carmarthen, 07:19 from Swansea)
• 17:02 off Swansea (to Paddington), also 17:57 off Cardiff Central
• 08:08 into Gloucester, and 08:20 into Cheltenham Spa (06:28 off Paddington, 07:25 off Swindon)
• 17:48 off Cheltenham Spa (to Paddington), also 18:01 off Gloucester
• 08:28 into Oxford (06:26 from Hereford)
• 17:39 off Oxford (to Worcester)

Of course the amount of commuting into these places is going to be less than into London, but might it load a train to more than 310 passengers?

I understand the theory, and have explained why I don't like it. I will add though that the DfT diagrams I mentioned don't show anything attaching to or detaching from Oxford services at Didcot. In fact, on that route all the Cotswolds services are 5-car throughout except two morning peak workings into PAD (one Worcester and one Hereford) which are 10-car throughout and two evening peak workings from PAD to Hereford (one 10-car throughout, the other 10-car to Worcester and 5-car onwards).

So, I understand the theory, but don't like the idea of the splits and am concerned about the reduction to around 315 seats on what appears to be the vast majority of services on some routes.

Referring to that DfT diagrams spreadsheet again, I can tell you DfT didn't seem worried about that when they were planning IEP, because the Plymouth and Penzance services are all marked as HSTs.

Please stop trying to cite those DfT spreadsheets as some sort of guide to what is going to happen as the timetable changes over the next couple of years - and pretending that no one at GWR has a clue about when passenger numbers are high, or how to diagram rolling stock to maximise capacity where it is needed at key points in the day.

Much of what is on the spreadsheets was utter nonsense at the time they were created, such as trains apparently passing each other in the middle of single-line sections of the Cotswold Line, or the all-day two-hourly service to Hereford. When the spreadsheets were created, there was no plan to replace HSTs to the West Country - there is now...

As for trying to cite the 'timetable' on those spreadsheets as some sort of guidance to the reality on the ground now, never mind what GWR plans to do at the December 2017 and 2018 timetable changes, what are you on?

The current 17.55 from Bristol to Weston is a GWR dmu formation... I wonder how many people it seats?

Someone at GWR might just work out that trains between Swansea and Cardiff in the peaks (that then turn into the first off-peak tickets train to Paddington, as is the case with the current 08.25 departure) might just possibly be a bit on the busy side and lay on a nine-car or 2x5 formation.

How many people do you think commute by rail into Gloucester and Cheltenham? Never mind that Cheltenham Spa station is not at all central, so not that attractive to a lot of people who work in Cheltenham. It's quicker to drive from Stroud, due to the train reversing at Gloucester. Both the current 07.49 and 09.05 arrivals from the Stroud direction at Cheltenham are dmus.

Any morning peak train coming off the Cotswold Line into Oxford - except the halts stopper - will likely be a long 800 or 802 formation, same as all the HSTs now. Though the first two trans of the day might be candidates for 5-car sets for the first legs of their journey, coupling to another 5-car at Oxford.

As part of what is already a near half-hourly frequency in the other direction out of Oxford in late afternoon and early evening - likely to be fully half-hourly from December 2018, the current 17.25 departure does quite alright thank you with a Class 180. As would the 16.46 to Moreton-in-Marsh, but it's an HST in order to get a big train back to Oxford for the 18.01 departure to London.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Agility are providing x amounts of units per day for x amount of diagrams. How those units are used and which diagrams they are placed on is entirely down to GWR

Not quite. Schedule 2 of the TARA is quite onerous as to the obligations on the TOC and the deployment is carefully controlled, as is the maintenance, which is mind boggling to diagram compliantly, especially when you are using the existing service pattern to transition into. Schedule 2 affords far less freedom to operate the units as, say, the HST sets they replace.

The actual formations deployed were agreed with the DfT as part of the crowding model that was supplied with the DA bid. You have to satisfy their peak seats requirement and show you are not overcrowding each train run (both peak and off peak) on a regular basis for that timetable you have supplied. It isn't laid down in detail in the FA but the DfT expect you to follow your bid assumptions and the diagrams supplied to back up those pass numbers by individual train.

Please everyone forget the DfT timetable. It's a well meaning yardstick to base a contract on but it's now pants. Life and loadings have moved on since it was done. How so? Well, as the person who had to go through the daily loadings of every existing train for the DA, they under resourced quite a few key trains, hence some of the 29 unit AT300 order being ordered especially to fill those gaps.

In the DA Dec 18 timetable we only had one train leaving Padd between 1600 and 1900 as a single 5 car unit and that was the 1648 to the Cotswolds, a light loader today. How this all now works in the world of the possible 7 additional 9 car sets is something we are working through at the moment with the DfT.

Initially, at least, long formations on the North and South Cots services are likely to be 9 car. Getting the work done to enable 10 car operation on these routes is now likely to be a protracted affair.

 

[Tom m]

I am aware that he loco hauled and HST MK3 coaches are not compatible. Can the MK4 coaches be used with the HST engines without the need for modifications?

 

[tbtc]

For Cheltenham etc. it's too late now, but instead of 36x 5-car and 21x 9-car it possibly would have been better to have gone for around 10-15x 5-car sets (primarily as class 180 replacements), 30-35x 9-car sets and 15-25x 7-or-8-car sets. The exact proportions of how many of each would be needed is hard to say, but I feel that, with clever diagramming (which is needed for the portion working anyway), fixed-formations of three lengths (or even just 7-cars and 9-cars instead of nines and fives) would be better than portion working

You'd rather we had five/ seven/ nine coach trains instead?

Which would mean, presumably (since fourteen coach trains aren't going to happen... and you don't like portion working) that you'd be okay with some peak time Paddington services being five/seven catches long (just as long as the peak service from Stroud to Cheltenham and from Bristol to Weston super Mare were seven coaches long)?

Tail wagging the dog?

The priority needs to be the Reading - Paddington corridor at peak times - if you want to run shorter trains on this bit to ensure Hereford/ Gloucester etc don't have five coach trains at some times then you are looking at the problem the wrong way round.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I am aware that he loco hauled and HST MK3 coaches are not compatible. Can the MK4 coaches be used with the HST engines without the need for modifications?

No. The Mark 4 stock are loco hauled only.

 

[WelshBluebird]

What exactly is the problem with 9 car trains going between Bristol and Weston Super Mare considering they will likely need that capacity between London and Bristol? I don't see anyone complaining about HST's running to Weston at the moment? Have we really got into another Voyager like situation where some of the brand new shiny trains we have ordered will be too short?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Have we really got into another Voyager like situation where some of the brand new shiny trains we have ordered will be too short?

No. There are enough 9 car and 5 car units being procured under the IEP contract and the separate AT300 contract to ensure all trains that need to be 9 or 10 cars can be formed from either 1 x 9 car unit or 2 x 5 car units.

The point being made (repeatedly) is that for parts of each journey where capacity is not in demand, but frequency is, 5 of the 10 coaches can continue to, say, Weston-Super-Mare whilst the other 5 coaches go elsewhere, and on the return leg back to Paddington, 5 cars can come from Weston and 5 cars can come from elsewhere, forming a single 10 car service from Bristol (or wherever else the units can couple) to London Paddington.

 

[jimm]

In the DA Dec 18 timetable we only had one train leaving Padd between 1600 and 1900 as a single 5 car unit and that was the 1648 to the Cotswolds, a light loader today. How this all now works in the world of the possible 7 additional 9 car sets is something we are working through at the moment with the DfT.

Initially, at least, long formations on the North and South Cots services are likely to be 9 car. Getting the work done to enable 10 car operation on these routes is now likely to be a protracted affair.

Though of course the current 1649 from Paddington doesn't go past Oxford and has no onward connection for the Cotswold Line, so quite how it will load in future when venturing west of Oxford involves a degree of guesswork.

It will plug the last gap in what will then be a sequence of departures every 30 minutes from London to the Cotswold Line from 1520 to at least 1820, so that's a lot of extra seats and journey options compared with the situation as recently as before the December timetable change last year, which saw a reshuffle of the afternoon peak shoulder trains, with a new 1522 departure and the extension of the 1622 to run through, providing the halts service from Oxford.

I certainly wasn't expecting the platform extensions study I mentioned above to lead to anything concrete all that soon, though I believe the initial impetus was a request from the DfT, so that may improve the odds of progress. But having more nine-car sets in the GW fleet would clearly make it less of a priority to see through, albeit that Hanborough in particular could do with a longer platform anyway.

 

[Dave1987]

No. There are enough 9 car and 5 car units being procured under the IEP contract and the separate AT300 contract to ensure all trains that need to be 9 or 10 cars can be formed from either 1 x 9 car unit or 2 x 5 car units.

The point being made (repeatedly) is that for parts of each journey where capacity is not in demand, but frequency is, 5 of the 10 coaches can continue to, say, Weston-Super-Mare whilst the other 5 coaches go elsewhere, and on the return leg back to Paddington, 5 cars can come from Weston and 5 cars can come from elsewhere, forming a single 10 car service from Bristol (or wherever else the units can couple) to London Paddington.

So what happens if one bit is say 5 mins late? Do you continue into London with just a 5 car to protect PPM or wait for the other bit to ensure there isn't mass overcrowding? Knowing the way the real railway works I'm pretty sure I know which one it will be!

 

[The Ham]

So what happens if one bit is say 5 mins late? Do you continue into London with just a 5 car to protect PPM or wait for the other bit to ensure there isn't mass overcrowding? Knowing the way the real railway works I'm pretty sure I know which one it will be!

If one portion is 5 minutes late the departure will be the full length, but about 2 minutes late (if that), as there would be an allowance in the timetable for joining the train of a few minutes longer than a normal station stop.

One of the ways it will be used will be to have one half stop at a station and wait to do the return leg, often that is for 10-15 minutes.

If trains are late enough to mean the departure is 5 minutes, then chances are it will run late. However the later it is the greater the risk that it will run as a short train.

However, often there is an underlying cause if trains are more than 5 minutes late, such as signaling problems, track problems, fatalities, fires, etc. Therefore, depending on where that is on the network it could mean that lots of services are disrupted.

The problem with stopping a service short rather than run it late is that you then have to get those passengers to their destinations, as such that's two trains which are overloaded, rather than one train that is late.

Anyway, on the rare occasion that it happens passengers cope. How I wish that if one of the services was a reduction from 10 coaches to 5 or 10 coaches loading onto 10 coaches if there are delays. As one commuter service I catch is scheduled as 12 coaches with the following being 5, if the 12 is cancelled the 5 coaches get a bit busy. Yes there are complaints, but people cope and yet the situation you fear is much better than that.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

So what happens if one bit is say 5 mins late? Do you continue into London with just a 5 car to protect PPM or wait for the other bit to ensure there isn't mass overcrowding? Knowing the way the real railway works I'm pretty sure I know which one it will be!

It's a known issue, as The Ham points out, but it's essentially the opposite of what happens today, where delayed train A can delay train B, C and D and prevent any service at all from running.

Five minutes isn't a massive issue either, these units can couple further along the route, with the first portion stopping at all stations whilst the delayed portion catches up, that sort of thing.

Yes, there will be times of disruption, but by being able to change things around, mix up formations and solve problems a little easier, the disruption in most cases will be eased, only in a small number of scenarios will it be exacerbated by 5 car sets.

 

[ainsworth74]

Also, how do current TOCs which split and join en-route cope with delays? Such as Southern (if they're running any trains that is )?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

In the DA Dec 18 timetable we only had one train leaving Padd between 1600 and 1900 as a single 5 car unit and that was the 1648 to the Cotswolds, a light loader today. How this all now works in the world of the possible 7 additional 9 car sets is something we are working through at the moment with the DfT.

Demand on the Cotswold Line is moderately elastic in the late afternoon and early evening - people will adapt their travel patterns to whatever's affordable. The peak/off-peak/super off-peak boundaries are currently not very well chosen and cause lumpy loadings. Rethinking these could go a long way to evening out demand.

 

[swt_passenger]

Also, how do current TOCs which split and join en-route cope with delays? Such as Southern (if they're running any trains that is )?

ISTM there are a number of different types of splitting and joining. Southern for example have a significant number where the train simply divides and carries on to completely different destinations, hence in the return direction there is some likelihood of trains missing each other during perturbations on part of the network.

Then there is the method of dividing into fast and slow portions where the slow picks up stops that the front portion skips, but follows behind on the same route. Examples being SWT, evening peak Weymouths, that drop a Poole or Bournemouth portion that follows behind. This might also apply in a way to the Southern services from Victoria to Portsmouth and Southampton that drop a slow portion off at Horsham that follows behind as fas as Barnham, where it goes off to Bognor. Similarly in the up direction, but the main thing is both portions are running in the same basic route area.

However I think that SWT's majority of 'splitting and joining' happens for capacity tweaking purposes where the rear portion empties and goes out of service at a key location such as Bournemouth or Salisbury, and is shunted about to become the front portion of a later up service.

AIUI from everything described here so far the GWR IEPs that split or join will be doing more like my third description, which on the face of it ought to be the more reliable.

 

[Dave1987]

If one portion is 5 minutes late the departure will be the full length, but about 2 minutes late (if that), as there would be an allowance in the timetable for joining the train of a few minutes longer than a normal station stop.

One of the ways it will be used will be to have one half stop at a station and wait to do the return leg, often that is for 10-15 minutes.

If trains are late enough to mean the departure is 5 minutes, then chances are it will run late. However the later it is the greater the risk that it will run as a short train.

However, often there is an underlying cause if trains are more than 5 minutes late, such as signaling problems, track problems, fatalities, fires, etc. Therefore, depending on where that is on the network it could mean that lots of services are disrupted.

The problem with stopping a service short rather than run it late is that you then have to get those passengers to their destinations, as such that's two trains which are overloaded, rather than one train that is late.

Anyway, on the rare occasion that it happens passengers cope. How I wish that if one of the services was a reduction from 10 coaches to 5 or 10 coaches loading onto 10 coaches if there are delays. As one commuter service I catch is scheduled as 12 coaches with the following being 5, if the 12 is cancelled the 5 coaches get a bit busy. Yes there are complaints, but people cope and yet the situation you fear is much better than that.

Well I know exactly how they will get around it, they will put some mega padding in the timetable.

 

[Dave1987]

It's a known issue, as The Ham points out, but it's essentially the opposite of what happens today, where delayed train A can delay train B, C and D and prevent any service at all from running.

Five minutes isn't a massive issue either, these units can couple further along the route, with the first portion stopping at all stations whilst the delayed portion catches up, that sort of thing.

Yes, there will be times of disruption, but by being able to change things around, mix up formations and solve problems a little easier, the disruption in most cases will be eased, only in a small number of scenarios will it be exacerbated by 5 car sets.

I'm sure that would play havoc with the crew diagrams.

 

[Domh245]

Do you continue into London with just a 5 car to protect PPM or wait for the other bit to ensure there isn't mass overcrowding?

Would that not count towards a PPM failure of sorts? On the one hand the first service is shortened but on time, but the other half is cancelled halfway along it's route - which should incur a fine if I remember correctly.