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!
Future 802 deployment: 11 9s for hourly Penzance, 8 5s for hourly Plymouth/Paignton/Exeter, and 12 5s on hourly Penzance - Cardiff. Customers won't complain and DfT will welcome the £s saved.
Must be enough 800s to cover the remaining traffic - 5s on Oxford / Cotswolds (again commuter traffic has nosedived) and Cheltenham, 9s / 10s on Bristol / Cardiff / Swansea.
Several 9s are currently used on B&H stoppers because they were once well subscribed commuter runs. With traffic more evenly spread through the day, I agree 5s would suffice, perhaps hourly serving Hungerford.
Future 802 deployment: 11 9s for hourly Penzance, 8 5s for hourly Plymouth/Paignton/Exeter, and 12 5s on hourly Penzance - Cardiff. Customers won't complain and DfT will welcome the £s saved.
Must be enough 800s to cover the remaining traffic - 5s on Oxford / Cotswolds (again commuter traffic has nosedived) and Cheltenham, 9s / 10s on Bristol / Cardiff / Swansea.
Is this the actual future deployment or what you think ot should be? I tend to agree with what you suggest, just a shame that lots of 10s will be necessary due to the daft number of 5 car sets GWR are lumbered with.
Is this the actual future deployment or what you think ot should be? I tend to agree with what you suggest, just a shame that lots of 10s will be necessary due to the daft number of 5 car sets GWR are lumbered with.
My best guess based on available information (Posandane, Bedwyn shuttle, HSTs out). Further rumoured savings include 387s on all Cardiffs released through TfL taking over all traffic on the slows and Reading - Didcot being a 4-car shuttle.
Must be enough 800s to cover the remaining traffic - 5s on Oxford / Cotswolds (again commuter traffic has nosedived) and Cheltenham, 9s / 10s on Bristol / Cardiff / Swansea.
Yes, particularly on weekends. The mid-late morning departures from London to Worcester have been full and standing on recent Saturdays at least as far as Oxford, showing that 5-cars are not sufficient as a blanket solution.
My sense is that off-peak traffic on the Cotswold Line is actually greater than pre-pandemic - particularly at my local station of Charlbury, which seems to have become Soho Farmhouse Parkway.
My sense is that off-peak traffic on the Cotswold Line is actually greater than pre-pandemic - particularly at my local station of Charlbury, which seems to have become Soho Farmhouse Parkway.
I've also noticed the Cotswold trains appear very busy at London . I guess this is an example where some 7s would be useful , as 9s are overkill.
But if its a case of a 5 on Oxford or Penzance then the 9 has to be on the Penzance every time, as its a hell of a lot longer period to stand.
Yes, particularly on weekends. The mid-late morning departures from London to Worcester have been full and standing on recent Saturdays at least as far as Oxford, showing that 5-cars are not sufficient as a blanket solution.
I've also noticed the Cotswold trains appear very busy at London . I guess this is an example where some 7s would be useful , as 9s are overkill.
But if its a case of a 5 on Oxford or Penzance then the 9 has to be on the Penzance every time, as its a hell of a lot longer period to stand.
A 9 would not be overkill on a Worcester service on a Saturday on Sunday peak (1030-1230). Even with the Oxford stoppers supplementing then, they were packed.
Obviously you wouldn’t put a 5 on a WoE service versus an Oxford terminator. That being said one of the only routes where splitting might be beneficial for a 10-car would be a Worcester/Hereford service splitting at Oxford give how much the flow drops off after Slough (Windsor) & Oxford.
There is insufficient slack in the schedules to permit detach/attach to occur at Oxford. It requires 8 mins to do so, whereas generally only 2-3 are available.
There is insufficient slack in the schedules to permit detach/attach to occur at Oxford. It requires 8 mins to do so, whereas generally only 2-3 are available.
There is insufficient slack in the schedules to permit detach/attach to occur at Oxford. It requires 8 mins to do so, whereas generally only 2-3 are available.
IETs led to an increased stop at Plymouth (partly for splitting and joining), would an extra 4 or 5 minutes really make a difference at Oxford? And i think its less than 8 minutes , sure there are some 6 or 7 minute split/join Plymouth stops. I think 10s to Oxford, for 5 forward onto the cotswold would be a good idea, and give more capacity where really needed.
IETs led to an increased stop at Plymouth (partly for splitting and joining), would an extra 4 or 5 minutes really make a difference at Oxford? And i think its less than 8 minutes , sure there are some 6 or 7 minute split/join Plymouth stops. I think 10s to Oxford, for 5 forward onto the cotswold would be a good idea, and give more capacity where really needed.
Yes, because all the available slack after Oxford has been converted into making every stop on the route pretty much hourly, rather than skipping stops (pick one of Hanborough, Honeybourne, Pershore, Worc Parkway, not counting the Oxfordshire halts) and every down Cotswold service has an awkward cross either approaching/at Worcester Shrub Hill, or at Henwick, with a down train, and must also dovetail between WMR services to Malvern and Hereford.
IETs led to an increased stop at Plymouth (partly for splitting and joining), would an extra 4 or 5 minutes really make a difference at Oxford? And i think its less than 8 minutes , sure there are some 6 or 7 minute split/join Plymouth stops. I think 10s to Oxford, for 5 forward onto the cotswold would be a good idea, and give more capacity where really needed.
Plymouth has 5 through platforms and Oxford has only 2 with a similar number of train movements so finding time in the platform to attach could be challenging.
Plymouth has 5 through platforms and Oxford has only 2 with a similar number of train movements so finding time in the platform to attach could be challenging.
I have an old Railway Magazine with an article titled 'Oxford - An operational problem'. It dates from...... 1954 !
There are of course plans to build an additional through platform behind number 4, but a lot of demolition and then construction is required, going on observation yesterday absolutely nothing has started yet.
There is insufficient slack in the schedules to permit detach/attach to occur at Oxford. It requires 8 mins to do so, whereas generally only 2-3 are available.
It may take 8 mins in practice, but the specification suggests otherwise: IEP Units must be able to automatically couple or uncouple with each other in no more than 2 minutes. So, a Salisbury SWR 159 type operation should be possible.
In reality Agility Trains may be incurring penalties for not delivering to this specification, and perhaps this could provides the basis of negotiation for the rumoured 7s?
Supposing the 7s can be 800s, Cotswold and Cheltenham would need 14 7s (including maintenance) which would leave 14 9s and 29 5s for Bristol / Cardiff / Swansea / Oxford terminators.
With the 802 deployment previously mentioned, I reckon that would all work well for DfT, Treasury and passengers with today's lower levels of commuting, and increasing leisure market.
It may take 8 mins in practice, but the specification suggests otherwise: IEP Units must be able to automatically couple or uncouple with each other in no more than 2 minutes. So, a Salisbury SWR 159 type operation should be possible.
In reality Agility Trains may be incurring penalties for not delivering to this specification, and perhaps this could provides the basis of negotiation for the rumoured 7s?
Supposing the 7s can be 800s, Cotswold and Cheltenham would need 14 7s (including maintenance) which would leave 14 9s and 29 5s for Bristol / Cardiff / Swansea / Oxford terminators.
With the 802 deployment previously mentioned, I reckon that would all work well for DfT, Treasury and passengers with today's lower levels of commuting, and increasing leisure market.
I’m afraid this is all pie in the sky, crayonista thinking.
The 2-min specification referred to the physical couple/uncouple process, which the train does achieve. The wider allowance required for wheels-stop to wheels start, which also includes dwell, cab actions, driver movement and dispatch procedure, takes 8 mins for uncoupling, and 6 mins for coupling, as absolute minimums.
It's sort of coming. The larger base station (as per Cambridge, interestingly) - allows for bays which are much needed. It's a shame that the south-facing bay project didn't happen. But the Chiltern ones are being put to use so well, and EWR no doubt will tap into these too.
I think a larger island might have enabled some bays on the western side - both north and south facing could be useful, if full length widths could be reasonable and with a wider central section for circulating, waiting, toilets/retail etc. The issue is that now you'd not want a bay on that side shorter than a 5 car 80x.
It's sort of coming. The larger base station (as per Cambridge, interestingly) - allows for bays which are much needed. It's a shame that the south-facing bay project didn't happen. But the Chiltern ones are being put to use so well, and EWR no doubt will tap into these too.
I think a larger island might have enabled some bays on the western side - both north and south facing could be useful, if full length widths could be reasonable and with a wider central section for circulating, waiting, toilets/retail etc. The issue is that now you'd not want a bay on that side shorter than a 5 car 80x.
True, but even the GWR's own route network was fairly extensive at the time. It must have justified at least as much flexibility as Newton Abbot (which was rebuilt with two Islands) as an example).
South facing bays would be useful for the local services terminating at Oxford, only a small proportion of those run through to Banbury and I don't see that changing. I still believe the car park on the Up side would have been an ideal site.
South facing bays would be useful for the local services terminating at Oxford, only a small proportion of those run through to Banbury and I don't see that changing. I still believe the car park on the Up side would have been an ideal site.
I guess if you had a South-facing bay you’d have the trains sitting there, whereas currently terminators go and sit in the sidings North of the station.
There has been talk of sending some Oxford terminators to Long Hanborough to clear Oxford station and save having to do a reversing move directly North.
True, but even the GWR's own route network was fairly extensive at the time. It must have justified at least as much flexibility as Newton Abbot (which was rebuilt with two Islands) as an example).
But NTA was on a prime holiday route with lots of engine changing, piloting etc. Oxford by contrast for the GW was operationally simple, apart from the 2tpd to/from the ex LSWR (and seasonal reliefs).
I have a vague memory they had a cunning plan but Mr Hitler intervened....
As to South end bays there, Botley Road bridge was and is awkward, and back then the goods yard was busy...
But NTA was on a prime holiday route with lots of engine changing, piloting etc. Oxford by contrast for the GW was operationally simple, apart from the 2tpd to/from the ex LSWR (and seasonal reliefs).
I have a vague memory they had a cunning plan but Mr Hitler intervened....
As to South end bays there, Botley Road bridge was and is awkward, and back then the goods yard was busy...
I’m afraid this is all pie in the sky, crayonista thinking.
The 2-min specification referred to the physical couple/uncouple process, which the train does achieve. The wider allowance required for wheels-stop to wheels start, which also includes dwell, cab actions, driver movement and dispatch procedure, takes 8 mins for uncoupling, and 6 mins for coupling, as absolute minimums.
I'm afraid to say those values are excessive. Other 80x operators routinely plan coupling and uncoupling on 4-5 mins, and indeed that is a much more standard value across the network for other stock. There is no reason why excessive timings should be accepted by GWR.
It may take 8 mins in practice, but the specification suggests otherwise: IEP Units must be able to automatically couple or uncouple with each other in no more than 2 minutes. So, a Salisbury SWR 159 type operation should be possible.
In reality Agility Trains may be incurring penalties for not delivering to this specification, and perhaps this could provides the basis of negotiation for the rumoured 7s?
I'm afraid to say those values are excessive. Other 80x operators routinely plan coupling and uncoupling on 4-5 mins, and indeed that is a much more standard value across the network for other stock. There is no reason why excessive timings should be accepted by GWR.
In reality the reason why the times are so long is ATP and the challenges this legacy system brings in resetting up the cab/TMS not the physical detach time, and the blame there can’t really be laid at either GWR or Agility, instead the reason as is often the case is somewhat more complicated.
IETs were not specified with ATP fitted as the GWML should have been resignalled by that point and ATP would have been redundant. Instead as the project was descoped ATP then had to be fitted in a contract variation but has proven technically challenging. It is the issues with ATP that has fixed the attach/detach times.
You can’t blame Agility and say GWR shouldn’t accept the times when the contracts for the trains didn’t have ATP specified.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
My best guess based on available information (Posandane, Bedwyn shuttle, HSTs out). Further rumoured savings include 387s on all Cardiffs released through TfL taking over all traffic on the slows and Reading - Didcot being a 4-car shuttle.
I’m afraid this is all pie in the sky, crayonista thinking.
The 2-min specification referred to the physical couple/uncouple process, which the train does achieve. The wider allowance required for wheels-stop to wheels start, which also includes dwell, cab actions, driver movement and dispatch procedure, takes 8 mins for uncoupling, and 6 mins for coupling, as absolute minimums.
The post speculates on ways of more effectively using the fleet and reducing costs without the uncoupling (having acknowledged the restrictions at Oxford), whilst maintaining customer satisfaction.
You’ve clearly never negotiated contract addendums. ATP isn’t an excuse to make clauses totally redundant, and it’s not as if Hitachi has performed well in all areas! There’s room for negotiation- like the 800s not returning to Hitachi depots each day.
And it’s not my crayons making rumours of 7 cars. It’s publicly known that GWR is not happy with the current fleet mix, particularly if it has to meet DfT cost savings. This might be a means to a better place.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes, but again not my rumours. Just bringing together what has been reported across the industry media. Many ideas get discussed and some obviously won’t go ahead.
The tunnel has Swansea services - there would be a service and the full 2 per hour never runs via Gloucester.
TfL taking all the slows has definitely been discussed. Might not happen, but if it does there will be surplus 387s.
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.
