Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Realtime Trains provides live realtime running information for the Great British railway network using open data.
www.realtimetrains.co.uk
603 617 618 moving Wednesday from EX-SPM as already discussed above - subject to line being open.
Their last workings in date order were
12/12 603 2T15 1056 Exmouth to Paignton (to Exeter)
24/12 618 2T34 2020 Exmouth to Exeter
28/12 617 2E37 2136 Paignton to Exeter
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
No it isn't, that path is for the 143s and is provided by a FOC, not GWR.
The situation has changed since that pronouncement, due the Virus.
Local Exmouth and Torbay trains formed of only a single two car set will not be ideal on certain journeys, particularly when Exeter college and schools return from next week.
Agreed. Ditching the 143s during a pandemic is a disaster. We pander to the disability and political lobby, and potentially , lives may ultimately be lost as a worst case (and quite likely) scenario.
The situation has changed since that pronouncement, due the Virus.
Local Exmouth and Torbay trains formed of only a single two car set will not be ideal on certain journeys, particularly when Exeter college and schools return from next week.
tfw have now been told all non prm units must run with a prm unit (or so I've heard) also all trains without a tank fitted for the wc must have toilets locked shut so i would say tfw need all the 150s they can getb
Agreed. Ditching the 143s during a pandemic is a disaster. We pander to the disability and political lobby, and potentially , lives may ultimately be lost as a worst case (and quite likely) scenario.
You don't think your post is something of a hysterical over-reaction? Isn't it reasonable that persons of reduced mobility should be able to use the train like everyone else? Lives lost as a "quite likely" worst case. Presumably these lost lives are due to catching Covid on the train: how many people have died so far from catching Covid on a train. I'll bet it's not many, but perhaps you can share some evidence on this "quite likely" scenario.
Agreed. Ditching the 143s during a pandemic is a disaster. We pander to the disability and political lobby, and potentially , lives may ultimately be lost as a worst case (and quite likely) scenario.
Lives lost as a "quite likely" worst case. Presumably these lost lives are due to catching Covid on the train: how many people have died so far from catching Covid on a train. I'll bet it's not many, but perhaps you can share some evidence on this "quite likely" scenario.
Probably next to none since the trains emptied out in the spring and various cleaning and distancing rules came in. From what I've seen (and my own mum included) those in higher risk categories are also tending to avoid rail travel for the most part too.
It would be nice for a need to have a need for 143s, were one to exist, but sounds like a very limited one once to the 3 car hsts are out in the new year (releasing 150s off other turns), assuming that plan hasn't been shelved. If there is a shortfall of rolling stock now it'll be temporary touchwood. In any case, there is a possibility 2 cars will suffice for a while if tier 3 reaches Devon or Cornwall (or even tier 4/lockdown). Tomorrow may shed further light on things.
You don't think your post is something of a hysterical over-reaction? Isn't it reasonable that persons of reduced mobility should be able to use the train like everyone else? Lives lost as a "quite likely" worst case. Presumably these lost lives are due to catching Covid on the train: how many people have died so far from catching Covid on a train. I'll bet it's not many, but perhaps you can share some evidence on this "quite likely" scenario.
Of course they can travel as every none compliant 143 is attached to a compliant 150. Is it really so much hardship to have to travel in the rear 2 carriages instead of the front 2??? I'm not quite sure what the big issue is. Obviously a 143 on its own would be a no no, but attached to a compliant 150 I think banning 143s smacks of political dogma.
DfT (etc) made it quite clear years ago they wanted Pacers in the bin, along with many rail user groups, all of which now probably have members who have shorter trains / less seats at some point or another on their daily commutes.
In terms of meeting PRM requirements, it all worked well in Devon for the last year, due to the fixed plan of having 143s at the "Bristol end" of formations, all the stations etc knew where customers needed to be stood who may have required the use of the PRM kitted out unit and it seemed to, from what I saw on my visits work quite well.
It's a shame they didn't continue on with the PRM project on pacers after that 144 got done, 5 car 144 formations probably would have worked well on the branches with a bit of platform extending!
I can't help but feel (these views are my own!) that staff and customers will suffer with the removal of the 143 fleet in Devon.
The railway (and above) has delivered what it has been pressured to do for many years, may those who demanded it, now enjoy the consequence. I notice most days from observations that the 0824 Exmouth to Paignton seems to now always be a 2 car train, this surely can't be easy to socially distance on? That's just one example.
Spot on. Its easy to forget that overcrowding isn't confined to the north, although if you listened to certain northern politicians you would think everything is rosy in the south! Far from it! The devon metro is doing very well, and short formations will now be inevitable going forward. The GWR 143s weren't even that bad in my view and I personally preferred them from a passenger perspective to 150s.
Spot on. Its easy to forget that overcrowding isn't confined to the north, although if you listened to certain northern politicians you would think everything is rosy in the south! Far from it! The devon metro is doing very well, and short formations will now be inevitable going forward. The GWR 143s weren't even that bad in my view and I personally preferred them from a passenger perspective to 150s.
Presumably if aspects of the GW electrification towards the London /oxford end had not been cut back on there, there would have been more turbo DMUs for use in Devon area? or am I wrong about that?
Presumably if aspects of the GW electrification towards the London /oxford end had not been cut back on there, there would have been more turbo DMUs for use in Devon area? or am I wrong about that?
Yes seems crazy that Oxford hasn't been done and yet Blackpool was! About time Didcot to Oxford was done and as you say will allow the turbos to filter south west and solve the problem the loss of pacers will create.
You don't think your post is something of a hysterical over-reaction? Isn't it reasonable that persons of reduced mobility should be able to use the train like everyone else? Lives lost as a "quite likely" worst case. Presumably these lost lives are due to catching Covid on the train: how many people have died so far from catching Covid on a train. I'll bet it's not many, but perhaps you can share some evidence on this "quite likely" scenario.
Running trains in a 143+150 formation quite reasonably satisfies requirements for persons of restricted mobility, so that’s not an issue.
At this time, or any time for that matter, stock should not be being withdrawn on the basis of accessibility if this means short formations are going to occur, especially when (as above) there’s a perfectly reasonable solution for accessibility.
Yes seems crazy that Oxford hasn't been done and yet Blackpool was! About time Didcot to Oxford was done and as you say will allow the turbos to filter south west and solve the problem the loss of pacers will create.
Running trains in a 143+150 formation quite reasonably satisfies requirements for persons of restricted mobility, so that’s not an issue.
At this time, or any time for that matter, stock should not be being withdrawn on the basis of accessibility if this means short formations are going to occur, especially when (as above) there’s a perfectly reasonable solution for accessibility.
I agree with this - it's just about DfT politicians not having to be seen to make a U turn (as opposed to their utter dedication to making a fully disabled accessible railway). I suspect Dept of Health / public health officials, if they have even noticed, let alone been consulted, would have urged retention to maintain social distancing for a bit longer...
Running trains in a 143+150 formation quite reasonably satisfies requirements for persons of restricted mobility, so that’s not an issue.
At this time, or any time for that matter, stock should not be being withdrawn on the basis of accessibility if this means short formations are going to occur, especially when (as above) there’s a perfectly reasonable solution for accessibility.
So far there's one additional HST set available, which doesn't cover stock to cover 4 143s (the amount diagramed in autumn), in reality earlier in the year it wasn't unusual to have 6 or even all 8 out.
Devon Metro with 2 cars will not allow social distancing on at least 2 trains in each stock diagram, in my opinion as a regular user.
The extra stock that has arrived a few weeks back needs to under go post works checks etc etc. Currently the HST fleet is expected to provide 10 or 11 sets some days and there's only 12 currently made up.
I agree with this. When I made a trip to Devon a few weeks ago I was shocked at how busy the Devon Metro trains were. On a 143/150 combo, all double seats were taken up by at least one person. Had that been just a 150, it wouldn’t have been possible to do any distancing.
The Severn Beach line was also well used when I used it last week. Clearly Metro routes are the routes that will be generating revenue for the railway for the foreseeable...
I agree with this. When I made a trip to Devon a few weeks ago I was shocked at how busy the Devon Metro trains were. On a 143/150 combo, all double seats were taken up by at least one person. Had that been just a 150, it wouldn’t have been possible to do any distancing.
The Severn Beach line was also well used when I used it last week. Clearly Metro routes are the routes that will be generating revenue for the railway for the foreseeable...
I travelled a few weeks ago, it was really busy on the Devon Metro, and even though I’m not particularly fond of 143s, I do think losing them is going to make social distancing difficult, at least in the short term.
The previous operating notice that restricted GWR 2+3 HSTs to 75mph has been removed, enabling all sets to work at 100mph.
This obviously has stock utilisation advantages while the temporary 2+3 sets are available as they'll also be suitable for Taunton-Cardiff diagrams, and therefore able to displace DMU stock to fill in on former '143' diagrams.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.realtimetrains.co.uk
