The decline of GWR...

[jimm]

I don't know if you picked this up, but all these variants of a plan appear from the previous few pages of this thread? A new variant has since appeared whereby there will be 5 car trains entering service after the morning peak. What you haven't explained is with this new off-peak service of 5 car IETs when they all pile up at Paddington at the beginning of the evening peak, potentially 11? off peak services an hour, how you are going to get them all paired up? It sounds like the makings of a real mess. The higher off-peak frequency actually means there will be less opportunity for taking trains to the depot between the peaks and there can't be many more paths in the peak than what is running today?


When you talk in vague generalities and borderline insults such as 'do you get trains spend the night at depots' or 'trains can go out of service after the morning peak' I am afraid I just see the same vagueness used by politicians when they don't want to show any detail.



Wait and see isn't going to wash as an argument. Sadly it will be years before this can be revisited in the real world, despite the confidence of some that a follow on order will be reasonably close behind. I would much rather an operation is built around paying passengers than around avoiding taking a long train somewhere when it isn't busy. And again that doesn't actually seem to be a blocker for other TOCs.



I apologise if you are offended by my mixing up long trains and capacity, but you should try not to lapse into cheap insults. I have gone out of my way to stress that this is an issue of capacity, as is most rail investment in the UK.



I have repeatedly stressed that is about the Reading market, despite your great enthusiasm to conflate various largely unrelated issues like suburban trains, Maidenhead, Staines etc... Now it seems that you want to talk about 'routes' and even off-peak frequencies to Cheltenham of all things? By virtue of the fact the additional peak seating capacity at Reading will be taken the day this plan comes to life, I think I am perfectly justified to say it is being approached from a point of not thinking of future growth. Phrases like wait and see only reinforce the impression the issue isn't being taken seriously.

So in essence, you don't want to listen to anything anyone else says, and refuse to a accept that train frequencies, seating capacity and just about anything else to do with the operation of IETs on a GWR network that extends far beyond Reading are NOT all about providing for the needs of Reading commuters for a few hours, five days a week.

Short of someone providing you with a full timetable plan and detailed rolling stock diagrams for next January, next May and next December, and probably several years hence as well by the sound of it, you will be doing well to get the kind of detail you seem to want - and which apparently won't satisfy you anyway, since you already know it will be terrible.

If you don't want to listen to me, The Ham, or anyone else - or wait to see what happens out there in the real world as opposed to in your crystal ball - at least have the courtesy to take heed of what Clarence Yard says, as someone at the heart of planning the actual service.

 

[159220]

(Mid Feb 2019, heading towards May 2019), it won’t see huge amounts of split and join moves on the 5 cars - we have seen to that, provided NR doesn’t mess things up with the paths or platforming.
..... or buffet.

A most interest post, as I believed that the 802/0s would split at Plymouth, sending only one unit forward to Penzance. Likewise at Bristol TM and the 800/0 splitting, sending one unit forward to Weston SM or Taunton/Paignton. This is now confirmed as not happening? I imagine the increase in 802/1s allows for all through services to Penzance to be 9-car vice 5-car? Good move really, as though it works on SWT/SWR west of Bournemouth, I cannot see the Westcountry coping with 5-car in the summer peak!

Thus you have to ask, why 5-car 802s? (we know why 5-car 800/0s as the DfT thought of a masterplan to split all over the place/run 5-car off peak). I have seen NR are gauge learning West Country platforms to 6-car 'IET' (where no space for 9-10 car)....

As for the buffet comment, due to the design being modular, installing a 'shop' with a decent espresso coffee machine, fridge for Luscombes lemonade and microwave/oven for a bacon baguette is an easy thing for Hitachi to retro-fit, at the loss of c.16-20 seats. - really this can be compensated in the 5-cars by the 1st class kitchen in the being reduced to a food preparation area (as per TPE 802/2s), increasing 1st class seating in the DPTF and moving all 1st into this car, thus offsetting the loss of c.16-20 standard in a MS by converting the MC into an MS - seeing as the Pullman shall only be served in 9-car 800/3 & 802/0, you do not need a kitchen on the 5-cars.

Or have I interpreted your very interesting, informed post, incorrect by adding the informed understandings I have had?

 

[jayah]

Yet as I've pointed out (and you appear to have chosen to ignore) SWR rarely use 10 coach units off peak on their longer distance units. Although the SWR 5 coach units would have a couple more seats than the 5 coach 80x's, however on quite a few services which they do run as 10 coach trains these then split or join on route (Especially those going to Weymouth) which is the very thing you fear on GWR.

Rarely?

I haven't ignored you.

In #310 you said you didn't deny that SWR used a lot of 10 coach off peak formations, while also saying you didn't know what they ran towards Weymouth and Southampton.

West Coast of course run lots of 9/11 car formations off-peak. I can't think of any TOCs that run less capacity in the peak purely to avoid empty seats in the off peak?

I wouldn't mind splitting and attaching mid journey but only if it could be done in a way that doesn't cause more congestion and delays as there is too much of both already, and in a way which doesn't waste peak on train capacity, both of which are the case on SWR at Bournemouth but isn't true for GWR at Oxford, Swindon nor would adding a dozen or more attachments at Paddington in the evenings when all these 5 car formations are arriving every few minutes, needing to return as 10.

 

[jayah]

As the person who, with the late Roger Watkins (166220), put the stock diagrams for the December 2018 timetable together I have tried to not to enter the fray but, really, I have had just about enough of this. I will repeat some of what I said on the 800 thread but I’m not going to get to get into the ideal length debate again - we have done that one to death and beyond on that thread.

Roger and I took all the current loadings, the predictions from the industry revenue system, rebased against those actual loadings and predicted forward, station by station, for the preferred timetable and added growth scenarios for following years. Of course, with some of the trains in a future timetable, punters could go to either of one or two trains so there will always be some degree of inaccuracy here.

Given we have only a fixed amount of 5, 9 and 10 cars to play with (although our work resulted in more 9 car 802 units being ordered), we weren’t going to get everyone from Reading throughout the next few years a seat on the main on an IET in the peak, even with the huge increase in peak seats provided. There just aren’t enough available paths on the main line to achieve this. The 387 units will peak bust to a certain extent but some Reading punters will have to go 345 on the reliefs.

That goes to what the DfT wants for this timetable and that is more peak main line seats into London from west of Reading/Didcot. It also wants to see more all day paths per hour from west of Reading and when that timetable finally gets going (now back to Mid Feb 2019, heading towards May 2019), it won’t see huge amounts of split and join moves on the 5 cars - we have seen to that, provided NR doesn’t mess things up with the paths or platforming.

The current problem with the 10 cars (which all but the 4 ex cl.180 diagrams all 800 sets should be in and out of Pad) is that Agility are not supplying the goods. Their availability target is too onerous for the amount of 5 car sets that have been delivered so far and the reliability hasn’t been stunning. Both are getting better but it isn’t as good for the punters as GWR would wish.

That’s why some currently see GWR in decline. If it is 5 vice 10 or a Cape, then you are going to feel there is a marked decline in intercity service and that is before issues such as seat res or buffet.

I appreciate your honesty and frankness about what has gone into this process.

There are some positives the additional 1x9 can at least theoretically be lengthened without massive infrastructure costs unlike 2x5.

Some negatives though. I do question to what extent you have managed expectations promising jam tomorrow, more seats, faster journeys if the predictions are Reading commuters will need to use the much slower Crossrail? Current behaviour is they head straight for the two main line platforms and pile into the first express they can find. I am not sure how this is meant to happen in real life.

A little standing for a 25min journey may be expected but at the moment some peak trains are too full to board. If 345s are the solution, the problem sounds quite serious, especially if Crossrail does make Reading much more popular?

The most interesting part is that the DfT wanted more peak main line seats to Reading / Didcot. They ordered these trains? They could have added about 15% more seats to the fast trains quite easily.

 

[jimm]

A most interest post, as I believed that the 802/0s would split at Plymouth, sending only one unit forward to Penzance. Likewise at Bristol TM and the 800/0 splitting, sending one unit forward to Weston SM or Taunton/Paignton. This is now confirmed as not happening? I imagine the increase in 802/1s allows for all through services to Penzance to be 9-car vice 5-car? Good move really, as though it works on SWT/SWR west of Bournemouth, I cannot see the Westcountry coping with 5-car in the summer peak!

Thus you have to ask, why 5-car 802s? (we know why 5-car 800/0s as the DfT thought of a masterplan to split all over the place/run 5-car off peak). I have seen NR are gauge learning West Country platforms to 6-car 'IET' (where no space for 9-10 car)....

As for the buffet comment, due to the design being modular, installing a 'shop' with a decent espresso coffee machine, fridge for Luscombes lemonade and microwave/oven for a bacon baguette is an easy thing for Hitachi to retro-fit, at the loss of c.16-20 seats. - really this can be compensated in the 5-cars by the 1st class kitchen in the being reduced to a food preparation area (as per TPE 802/2s), increasing 1st class seating in the DPTF and moving all 1st into this car, thus offsetting the loss of c.16-20 standard in a MS by converting the MC into an MS - seeing as the Pullman shall only be served in 9-car 800/3 & 802/0, you do not need a kitchen on the 5-cars.

Or have I interpreted your very interesting, informed post, incorrect by adding the informed understandings I have had?

Clarence Yard did not say there would never be any splits/joins of formations in service.

As I said previously, there will be a limited amount at limited locations.

No one is going to retro-fit buffets. The 800s are the DfT's train set, not GWR's, so the interiors are what the DfT wants and GWR has stuck with that layout for its 802s, so that the type of catering services offered are consistent across the whole IET fleet.

And you ought to look at a picture of the first TPE 802 before suggesting that you could shift all first class in the five-car sets into the driving trailer by shrinking the kitchen.

The TPE sets have just one bay more of seating in the driving trailer at that end of the train than on the GWR 800s. The smaller TPE kitchen still requires two blank windows on either side of the TPE 802s. So six more first class seats there would not make up for the loss of 18 in the adjacent coach. The only way to do that would be to dispense with any kind of kitchen/crew area.

Pictures and video of the first TPE set setting off from Japan

https://www.railjournal.com/index.p...first-class-802-for-transpennine-express.html

http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/hitach...rm-journeys-in-the-north-and-scotland-2483541

I
The most interesting part is that the DfT wanted more peak main line seats to Reading / Didcot. They ordered these trains? They could have added about 15% more seats to the fast trains quite easily.

Read things more carefully - Clarence Yard's post did not say what you seem to think it did.

That goes to what the DfT wants for this timetable and that is more peak main line seats into London from west of Reading/Didcot

Not for Reading and Didcot, where there will be lots of long 387 formations, plus Crossrail at Reading as well.

If what Reading commuters really really want is a seat, then they need to start looking at the alternatives there are now and will be more of in future. Is a seat on a non-stop 387, taking 30 minutes, compared with standing on an IET taking 22 or 23, an unacceptable option?

Here is a current Class 387 service designed specifically to meet the needs of Reading and Didcot commuters - not anyone else, as it doesn't stop anywhere else.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C40439/2018/06/04/advanced

 

[CC 72100]

Not for Reading and Didcot, where there will be lots of long 387 formations, plus Crossrail at Reading as well.

If what Reading commuters really really want is a seat, then they need to start looking at the alternatives there are now and will be more of in future. Is a seat on a non-stop 387, taking 30 minutes, compared with standing on an IET taking 22 or 23, an unacceptable option?

Here is a current Class 387 service designed specifically to meet the needs of Reading and Didcot commuters - not anyone else, as it doesn't stop anywhere else.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C40439/2018/06/04/advanced

Fully agree on all points.

The fact is that is you commute into a capital city, where the journey time is less than 40 minutes, then you have to accept that it is unlikely you will get a seat. Spare seats on the 0745 non-stop from Reading I'd argue is unrealistic expectation. If the network were to provide enough seats for all commuters, how long would trains be and how much extra would commuters be willing to pay for this?

I'd argue that come Jan 19 (or May 19 if things slip etc.), with IETs and long, limited-stop 12-car 387 formations, Didcot/Reading/Slough commuters will never have had it so good before!

 

[The Ham]

Rarely?

I haven't ignored you.

In #310 you said you didn't deny that SWR used a lot of 10 coach off peak formations, while also saying you didn't know what they ran towards Weymouth and Southampton.

West Coast of course run lots of 9/11 car formations off-peak. I can't think of any TOCs that run less capacity in the peak purely to avoid empty seats in the off peak?

I wouldn't mind splitting and attaching mid journey but only if it could be done in a way that doesn't cause more congestion and delays as there is too much of both already, and in a way which doesn't waste peak on train capacity, both of which are the case on SWR at Bournemouth but isn't true for GWR at Oxford, Swindon nor would adding a dozen or more attachments at Paddington in the evenings when all these 5 car formations are arriving every few minutes, needing to return as 10.

Let's see what I said in post 310 (chiefly the bit about the metro services):

I didn't deny that there's quite a lot of 10 coach units in the off peaks, however:
- 2tph to the WofE line 6 or 9 coach trains (a few may even be 3 but that's quite rare)
- 1tph to Portsmouth via Basingstoke 4 coaches
- 2 tph Basingstoke Stoppers 8 coaches
- 2 tph Alton services 8 coaches
- 1 tph to Poole (show-ish) 5 coaches
- 2 tph slower services to Portsmouth or Haselmere 4 or 8 coaches
- 2tph faster services to Portsmouth some 10 and some 5

I don't know about the Southampton and Weymouth services but that's only a few (I think it's about 2 or 3 tph). Whatever it is and however long they are that's still the vast majority of the 10 coach units are the metro services which people don't use to get to Woking or Guildford or Basingstoke because they take too long.

As such to get to Woking or beyond in a reasonable amount of time you are most likely to be in a train which is not 10 coaches or longer. This would be the same as people using the GWR services on the slow lines, which is the very thing you have said would never happen (although some limited number of people would).

Of course the reason that you didn't quote post 310 and just talked about it is because it wouldn't have shown what you thought you wanted to read and you were relying on others not bothering to go back a page to see what I actually said.

 

[cactustwirly]

Fully agree on all points.

The fact is that is you commute into a capital city, where the journey time is less than 40 minutes, then you have to accept that it is unlikely you will get a seat. Spare seats on the 0745 non-stop from Reading I'd argue is unrealistic expectation. If the network were to provide enough seats for all commuters, how long would trains be and how much extra would commuters be willing to pay for this?

I'd argue that come Jan 19 (or May 19 if things slip etc.), with IETs and long, limited-stop 12-car 387 formations, Didcot/Reading/Slough commuters will never have had it so good before!

I don't understand where the stock is coming from for the non stop 387s, given that 1/4 of the fleet will be with HEx.

 

[PHILIPE]

I don't understand where the stock is coming from for the non stop 387s, given that 1/4 of the fleet will be with HEx.

Try this:-

www.railforums.co.uk/threads/heathrow-express-gwr-contract.162470

 

[jayah]

Let's see what I said in post 310 (chiefly the bit about the metro services):



As such to get to Woking or beyond in a reasonable amount of time you are most likely to be in a train which is not 10 coaches or longer. This would be the same as people using the GWR services on the slow lines, which is the very thing you have said would never happen (although some limited number of people would).

Of course the reason that you didn't quote post 310 and just talked about it is because it wouldn't have shown what you thought you wanted to read and you were relying on others not bothering to go back a page to see what I actually said.

What you said is SWR rarely use 10 car units on their long distance off peak services. Which clearly contradicts #310 where you give examples of 10 car units off peak. If you want to say it is a low proportion of trains that go beyond Woking or some proportion of the 10 car Metro services, fair enough, but that clearly is not the same thing. I will equally say that from Euston to Manchester off peak the proportion of 9/11 car units off peak is very high.

Replying to bits of different messages in one message is nigh on impossible on a phone, so please don't accuse me of some imagined conspiracy against you.

 

[jimm]

I don't understand where the stock is coming from for the non stop 387s, given that 1/4 of the fleet will be with HEx.

The 387s are not due to start operating on Heathrow Express until May next year. The 769s GWR is getting will help plug the gap while the 387s are converted for Heathrow Express and for the rest of next year.

When Crossrail's full service starts running from December next year, then the 387s currently tied up working the GW relief line services are freed up for other work as the 345s will take over.

This has been discussed in the thread PhilipE noted above and this one.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ains-from-319s-initially-for-northern.138660/

 

[jayah]

Clarence Yard did not say there would never be any splits/joins of formations in service.

As I said previously, there will be a limited amount at limited locations.

No one is going to retro-fit buffets. The 800s are the DfT's train set, not GWR's, so the interiors are what the DfT wants and GWR has stuck with that layout for its 802s, so that the type of catering services offered are consistent across the whole IET fleet.

And you ought to look at a picture of the first TPE 802 before suggesting that you could shift all first class in the five-car sets into the driving trailer by shrinking the kitchen.

The TPE sets have just one bay more of seating in the driving trailer at that end of the train than on the GWR 800s. The smaller TPE kitchen still requires two blank windows on either side of the TPE 802s. So six more first class seats there would not make up for the loss of 18 in the adjacent coach. The only way to do that would be to dispense with any kind of kitchen/crew area.

Pictures and video of the first TPE set setting off from Japan

https://www.railjournal.com/index.p...first-class-802-for-transpennine-express.html

http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/hitach...rm-journeys-in-the-north-and-scotland-2483541



Read things more carefully - Clarence Yard's post did not say what you seem to think it did.



Not for Reading and Didcot, where there will be lots of long 387 formations, plus Crossrail at Reading as well.

If what Reading commuters really really want is a seat, then they need to start looking at the alternatives there are now and will be more of in future. Is a seat on a non-stop 387, taking 30 minutes, compared with standing on an IET taking 22 or 23, an unacceptable option?

Here is a current Class 387 service designed specifically to meet the needs of Reading and Didcot commuters - not anyone else, as it doesn't stop anywhere else.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C40439/2018/06/04/advanced

It is a bit of an unusual turn of phrase to talk about the stations after the ones you want to increase capacity which granted I didn't spot.

But unless the Reading / Didcot calls are coming out of the main line trains en masse, the result is exactly the same, as the vast majority of Reading / Didcot capacity will still come from points west and would still maximised by a 1x10 formation.

The 387 option is already there and is existing capacity, the capacity to expand this is constrained by paths on the main line. What was suggested to an extent was the 345s which is very different as Crossrail to Paddington will be much slower and don't really fit the narrative of faster journeys.

 

[jimm]

Didn't cause me any problems understanding a perfectly clear bit of English.

You don't seem to recognise that there might also be a need to increase capacity at stations beyond Reading or Didcot.

Again, I'd suggest you do some research - this time on how much new housing is going into places like Oxford and nearby, Newbury, Swindon, Cirencester (served by Kemble station), Chippenham, the north end of Bristol and adjacent areas in South Gloucestershire.

Have you ever heard of the concept of compromise?

The train fleet and the current and future service patterns on GWR, including between Reading and London, are the result of a series of compromises, decided by the detailed processes that Clarence Yard indicated GWR has gone through in developing timetable and rolling stock requirements, and the changes that result from Crossrail - and on how much money the DfT is willing to put in itself or allow GWR to spend under the terms of its franchise, and allow Network Rail to spend on infrastructure.

I'm sure if you went and asked commuters from other places that are around 20 or 30 minutes' journey time from central London if they would all like a guaranteed seat on an IET or something similar every morning and evening peak, they would agree in an instant.

But they're not going to get that - and in many cases they will never have access to a range of options like those that are/will be available at Reading, be that GWR IETs and 387s, Crossrail 345s or SWR services to Waterloo.

 

[jayah]

Didn't cause me any problems understanding a perfectly clear bit of English.

You don't seem to recognise that there might also be a need to increase capacity at stations beyond Reading or Didcot.

Again, I'd suggest you do some research - this time on how much new housing is going into places like Oxford and nearby, Newbury, Swindon, Cirencester (served by Kemble station), Chippenham, the north end of Bristol and adjacent areas in South Gloucestershire.

Have you ever heard of the concept of compromise?

The train fleet and the current and future service patterns on GWR, including between Reading and London, are the result of a series of compromises, decided by the detailed processes that Clarence Yard indicated GWR has gone through in developing timetable and rolling stock requirements, and the changes that result from Crossrail - and on how much money the DfT is willing to put in itself or allow GWR to spend under the terms of its franchise, and allow Network Rail to spend on infrastructure.

I'm sure if you went and asked commuters from other places that are around 20 minutes' journey time from central London if they would all like a guaranteed seat on an IET or something similar every morning and evening peak, they would agree in an instant.

But they're not going to get that - and in many cases they will never have access to a range of options like those that are/will be available at Reading, be that GWR IETs and 387s, Crossrail 345s or SWR services to Waterloo.

To be honest it didn't. The peak services are not overcrowded west of Didcot except on local commuting flows for example around Bristol, and were it not for Reading / Didcot the existing timetable and stock would have ample peak capacity. And again at the risk of repetition, the way to increase capacity from places west of Didcot is exactly the same as increasing it at Reading / Didcot 1x10.

Back to the real issue, 345s are a very different option to 387s are they? And I have not suggested a guaranteed seat.

 

[jimm]

To be honest it didn't. The peak services are not overcrowded west of Didcot except on local commuting flows for example around Bristol, and were it not for Reading / Didcot the existing timetable and stock would have ample peak capacity. And again at the risk of repetition, the way to increase capacity from places west of Didcot is exactly the same as increasing it at Reading / Didcot 1x10.

You clearly don't get west of Reading very much then.

I must have been hallucinating on many occasions over the bast part of 20 years when travelling on London-bound eight-coach high-density HSTs arriving at Oxford in the morning peak off the Cotswold Line full and standing, or watching HSYs and now IETs to Bristol and South Wales leaving Reading full and standing on weekday afternoons - and I don't just mean Fridays.

1x10 might answer the only question you are interested in - it does not answer the many other questions the GWR planning teams have to deal with affecting places many miles away from Reading and at times of the day and week outside the weekday commuter peaks. That's where the compromises come into it.

 

[The Ham]

What you said is SWR rarely use 10 car units on their long distance off peak services. Which clearly contradicts #310 where you give examples of 10 car units off peak.

Can you please quote my post from #310 where I give examples of significant numbers of the long distance services on the SWML which are 10 coaches.

Thanks.

 

[tbtc]

As the person who, with the late Roger Watkins (166220), put the stock diagrams for the December 2018 timetable together I have tried to not to enter the fray but, really, I have had just about enough of this. I will repeat some of what I said on the 800 thread but I’m not going to get to get into the ideal length debate again - we have done that one to death and beyond on that thread.

Roger and I took all the current loadings, the predictions from the industry revenue system, rebased against those actual loadings and predicted forward, station by station, for the preferred timetable and added growth scenarios for following years. Of course, with some of the trains in a future timetable, punters could go to either of one or two trains so there will always be some degree of inaccuracy here.

Given we have only a fixed amount of 5, 9 and 10 cars to play with (although our work resulted in more 9 car 802 units being ordered), we weren’t going to get everyone from Reading throughout the next few years a seat on the main on an IET in the peak, even with the huge increase in peak seats provided. There just aren’t enough available paths on the main line to achieve this. The 387 units will peak bust to a certain extent but some Reading punters will have to go 345 on the reliefs.

That goes to what the DfT wants for this timetable and that is more peak main line seats into London from west of Reading/Didcot. It also wants to see more all day paths per hour from west of Reading and when that timetable finally gets going (now back to Mid Feb 2019, heading towards May 2019), it won’t see huge amounts of split and join moves on the 5 cars - we have seen to that, provided NR doesn’t mess things up with the paths or platforming.

The current problem with the 10 cars (which all but the 4 ex cl.180 diagrams all 800 sets should be in and out of Pad) is that Agility are not supplying the goods. Their availability target is too onerous for the amount of 5 car sets that have been delivered so far and the reliability hasn’t been stunning. Both are getting better but it isn’t as good for the punters as GWR would wish.

That’s why some currently see GWR in decline. If it is 5 vice 10 or a Cape, then you are going to feel there is a marked decline in intercity service and that is before issues such as seat res or buffet.

Insightful posts like this are what make this Forum and make it worthwhile to scroll past the 99% "chaff" -its almost like the reality of transforming the GWML is more complicated than some armchair experts would have us believe - thank you @Clarence Yard

 

[FenMan]

Insightful posts like this are what make this Forum and make it worthwhile to scroll past the 99% "chaff" -its almost like the reality of transforming the GWML is more complicated than some armchair experts would have us believe - thank you @Clarence Yard

Seconded. I'd also love to know how things are going with integrating the North Downs Lime timetable with SWR's shiney proposed service enhancements circa December 2018, as the NDL and some Blackwater Valley users have been bruised somewhat by the recent Thameslink changes and a repeat wouldn't be welcome.

 

[jayah]

Can you please quote my post from #310 where I give examples of significant numbers of the long distance services on the SWML which are 10 coaches.

Thanks.

The bit where it says Portsmouth some 10. I am not going to labour this very tedious point any more, as there are countless other examples on other TOCs and people are probably fed up reading about what you said before arguing that something that is a low proportion of something else is rare.

 

[jayah]

You clearly don't get west of Reading very much then.

I must have been hallucinating on many occasions over the bast part of 20 years when travelling on London-bound eight-coach high-density HSTs arriving at Oxford in the morning peak off the Cotswold Line full and standing, or watching HSYs and now IETs to Bristol and South Wales leaving Reading full and standing on weekday afternoons - and I don't just mean Fridays.

1x10 might answer the only question you are interested in - it does not answer the many other questions the GWR planning teams have to deal with affecting places many miles away from Reading and at times of the day and week outside the weekday commuter peaks. That's where the compromises come into it.

I would have regarded Oxford as north of Didcot rather than west. If this is still the case after a new line opened to Oxford then it merely strengthens the case for 1x10 which is the only way to increase capacity on high speed trains without extra paths, which probably don't exist on the Cotswold line any more than they do between Reading and London.

Most high speed trains towards Bristol and Wales also call at Didcot if they leave Reading completely full. If a train has more seats that passengers, there is not some great imagined problem that needs to be traded against crowding in the peaks.

If this is really happening today with the 2x5 IETs, then the Reading issue is very serious indeed and needs to be addressed, not horse traded with some imagined problem that is hurting nobody and is widely practised elsewhere eg. West Coast.

Can you confirm what you actually mean by afternoon, as most commuters know that in the peak, long distance trains are actually quieter?

 

[TRIAR]

Roger and I took all the current loadings, the predictions from the industry revenue system, rebased against those actual loadings and predicted forward, station by station, for the preferred timetable and added growth scenarios for following years. Of course, with some of the trains in a future timetable, punters could go to either of one or two trains so there will always be some degree of inaccuracy here.

Thanks for the insight - clearly a lot of thought goes into the timetabling process (Grayling take note). Would love to know what your models say about the following points that have always puzzled me:

1) Why is it such a bad idea to run some ex Didcot stoppers fast (i.e. on the UM) from TLH (or RDG at a push) into PAD in the morning peak? I would estimate 90% of customers on these trains change at RDG onto a IET/HST for the last leg to PAD, significantly adding to the number customers needing to board at Reading*.

2) Once you strip out the NBY/RDG/DID/SWI commuters (plus the stations these feed such as TLH, RDW, THA, etc) is there really enough demand to justify the planned extra London to Bristol services using full-length trains? If the demand is there, haven't you just stated the greater need is elsewhere?

3) If the current constraint is lack of paths, why not maximise the capacity between PAD and RDG? For example, why not have 10-car IEP shuttles with no seat reservations going PAD -> RDG -> DID on the UM leaving every 10 mins in the evening peak? Granted, six new paths an hour will be hard to find, but if you start some services to Bedwyn/Oxford/Newbury (and the additional Bristol service) at RDG they could be found. I feel like the recent timetable changes have taken a baby step in this direction with the 12 car 387 'queue busters', but they don't cut it because the run on the reliefs and stop a couple of times before they reach RDG.

*I appreciate this would reduce the seats at TWY and MAI, but the constraint is not rolling stock, extra stoppers departing from RDG to PAD on the reliefs would solve this.

 

[The Ham]

The bit where it says Portsmouth some 10. I am not going to labour this very tedious point any more, as there are countless other examples on other TOCs and people are probably fed up reading about what you said before arguing that something that is a low proportion of something else is rare.

Your point was why don't we run the 80x's a 9 coach trains all the time like on the SWML as there was lots of 10 coach trains leaving Waterloo on the off peaks.

I pointed out that although there were some 10 coach trains on the long distance services it tended to be a few on the Portsmouth's and there could be a few on the Southampton's/Weymouth's (as I didn't know their lengths very well). As such there could be up to 4 out of about 18 services out of Waterloo each hour which give you a reasonable journey time to Woking (i.e. not the metro services).

You are now claiming that this supports your point that you started with.

Yes, you've won that argument, well done. I'll better go off and lick my wounds.

 

[jimm]

I would have regarded Oxford as north of Didcot rather than west. If this is still the case after a new line opened to Oxford then it merely strengthens the case for 1x10 which is the only way to increase capacity on high speed trains without extra paths, which probably don't exist on the Cotswold line any more than they do between Reading and London.

Most high speed trains towards Bristol and Wales also call at Didcot if they leave Reading completely full. If a train has more seats that passengers, there is not some great imagined problem that needs to be traded against crowding in the peaks.

If this is really happening today with the 2x5 IETs, then the Reading issue is very serious indeed and needs to be addressed, not horse traded with some imagined problem that is hurting nobody and is widely practised elsewhere eg. West Coast.

Can you confirm what you actually mean by afternoon, as most commuters know that in the peak, long distance trains are actually quieter?

You do like to clutch at straws, don't you?

Let's just say "beyond Didcot" shall we? Although if you draw a line on a map, then most placess on the Cotswold Line and Worcester etc are west of Didcot.

The extra seats available on a long IET formation should provide a seat for anyone who currently has to stand on a Cotswold Line peak train - and the route does not need 700-seat trains outside the peaks - and never will. A five-car IET is more than adequate. A nine-car would be overkill, never mind a 10-car. Some nine-cars may appear, to keep diagrams straightforward, but that does not mean they are needed.

How hard is it to grasp that there are big variations in passenger numbers between peak and off-peak periods? THat's why they have different names...

What is happening today is with the current trains and current timetable - the new trains and new timetables are designed to address the issues there are at the moment and allow for growth - as Clarence Yard has told you.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Thanks for the insight - clearly a lot of thought goes into the timetabling process (Grayling take note). Would love to know what your models say about the following points that have always puzzled me:

1) Why is it such a bad idea to run some ex Didcot stoppers fast (i.e. on the UM) from TLH (or RDG at a push) into PAD in the morning peak? I would estimate 90% of customers on these trains change at RDG onto a IET/HST for the last leg to PAD, significantly adding to the number customers needing to board at Reading*.

2) Once you strip out the NBY/RDG/DID/SWI commuters (plus the stations these feed such as TLH, RDW, THA, etc) is there really enough demand to justify the planned extra London to Bristol services using full-length trains? If the demand is there, haven't you just stated the greater need is elsewhere?

3) If the current constraint is lack of paths, why not maximise the capacity between PAD and RDG? For example, why not have 10-car IEP shuttles with no seat reservations going PAD -> RDG -> DID on the UM leaving every 10 mins in the evening peak? Granted, six new paths an hour will be hard to find, but if you start some services to Bedwyn/Oxford/Newbury (and the additional Bristol service) at RDG they could be found. I feel like the recent timetable changes have taken a baby step in this direction with the 12 car 387 'queue busters', but they don't cut it because the run on the reliefs and stop a couple of times before they reach RDG.

*I appreciate this would reduce the seats at TWY and MAI, but the constraint is not rolling stock, extra stoppers departing from RDG to PAD on the reliefs would solve this.

I'm not going to get into the minutiae of the timetable because the work Roger and I did has been handed over to the GWR planning team to go through the bid and offer process with NR and it all might get amended in that process (!) but to answer the specific points;

1) It isn't a bad idea and that is how some of the morning peak services from west of Reading that also serve Twyford and Maidenhead only are planned to work. But the compromise is that anything that goes relief west of Reading has to be load 8.

2) In the peak and shoulder peak (note, not only the London Peak), yes.

3) It has been. For the high peak hour arrivals at Paddington, the DA plan for Dec 2018 had 18 GWR arriving ML, 16 stopping at Reading en-route and 2 passing through, up from the 16 arrivals at Paddington today. At 18 TPH for GWR and with all the other operators trains, you are starting to get very close to the limit of Paddington's capability.

The total number of ML peak standard seat arrivals at Pad will have grown from 14400 at start of DA to around 19000 now and when the Dec 2018 timetable is in, it will be a whopping 27000. The high peak hour ML standard seats at Pad will have grown from 6000 at start of DA, to around 7500 now and will finally be just over 10000.

The planned stock for the 18 high peak ML arrivals at Pad are currently 4 x EMU (exact balance of load 8/12 to be determined), 7 x 10 car IET and 7 x 9 car IET.

 

[Phil G]

Peak service the 17:00 from Bristol TM after Bath is so full not everyone got on. More seats I don't think so! Presumably 800 availability issues again, but why cut down one of the busiest trains of the day to 5 carriages?

 

[Charlie M.]

Peak service the 17:00 from Bristol TM after Bath is so full not everyone got on. More seats I don't think so! Presumably 800 availability issues again, but why cut down one of the busiest trains of theView attachment 47911 day to 5 carriages?

I do hope that this is rare this time next year as promised.

 

[Parallel]

The trains around Bath have been hideous today. I planned on taking 08.00 Trowbridge to Cardiff (alighting at Bath) earlier, but the brakes of the 158 got locked on at Westbury when they tried to attach the 150 and wouldn’t release. The 08.23 was delayed by a few mins (Turbo) and was crushloaded from Bradford. The service that had the locked brakes eventually got moving 35 late but as a 2-car 150 only (Assume the 158 has to wait for fitters).

This afternoon the 17.37 Bath to Portsmouth train is formed of only 3 coaches and crushloaded (not sure if everyone managed to get on, couldn’t see) and the IEP/HST at the other platform was running half an hour late due to an ‘earlier broken down train’ and the platform was full of passengers trying to squeeze on a single 158 for Cardiff. Needless to say, most couldn’t get on as the train was well loaded into Bath.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

The trains around Bath have been hideous today. I planned on taking 08.00 Trowbridge to Cardiff (alighting at Bath) earlier, but the brakes of the 158 got locked on at Westbury when they tried to attach the 150 and wouldn’t release. The 08.23 was delayed by a few mins (Turbo) and was crushloaded from Bradford. The service that had the locked brakes eventually got moving 35 late but as a 2-car 150 only (Assume the 158 has to wait for fitters).

This afternoon the 17.37 Bath to Portsmouth train is formed of only 3 coaches and crushloaded (not sure if everyone managed to get on, couldn’t see) and the IEP/HST at the other platform was running half an hour late due to an ‘earlier broken down train’ and the platform was full of passengers trying to squeeze on a single 158 for Cardiff. Needless to say, most couldn’t get on as the train was well loaded into Bath.

The Portsmouth-Cardiff ran this morning with a 2-car 158 only, not 150. Saw it while waiting for my connection!

 

[PHILIPE]

Seconded. I'd also love to know how things are going with integrating the North Downs Lime timetable with SWR's shiney proposed service enhancements circa December 2018, as the NDL and some Blackwater Valley users have been bruised somewhat by the recent Thameslink changes and a repeat wouldn't be welcome.

Probably find some info here on the North Downs thread

www.railforums.co.uk/threads/3tph-on-north-downs-line.140595/page-12

 

[jayah]

You do like to clutch at straws, don't you?

Let's just say "beyond Didcot" shall we? Although if you draw a line on a map, then most placess on the Cotswold Line and Worcester etc are west of Didcot.

The extra seats available on a long IET formation should provide a seat for anyone who currently has to stand on a Cotswold Line peak train - and the route does not need 700-seat trains outside the peaks - and never will. A five-car IET is more than adequate. A nine-car would be overkill, never mind a 10-car. Some nine-cars may appear, to keep diagrams straightforward, but that does not mean they are needed.

How hard is it to grasp that there are big variations in passenger numbers between peak and off-peak periods? THat's why they have different names...

What is happening today is with the current trains and current timetable - the new trains and new timetables are designed to address the issues there are at the moment and allow for growth - as Clarence Yard has told you.

You are still completely missing the point. What is the harm of running more seats in the off-peak? Many TOCs are doing this already, and almost all UK rail investment is driven towards getting as much capacity into the peaks as possible. Nobody cares about a fleet of CrossRail trains, Thameslink trains or anything else running round empty between the peaks or parked up. This is the only railway where if you speak for GWR you want to run less capacity in the peak to avoid having too much in the off-peak?

You have also said that you see the current 2x5 IET leaving Reading full and standing going west, now the seats per high peak do look impressive, but that really isn't a good sign is it? Especially when you max out at just 4 crowd busters into 2 extra paths, before Paddington becomes saturated. If the 387s calling at Twyford and Maidenhead don't cut it, the 345s certainly won't either.