Is GWR too complex?

[HamworthyGoods]

There is some immovable above-floor equipment on the turbos which means some of the 3+2 can't be altered.

In any case, GWR have not taken the opportunity to change the layout at all during the current refurbishment.

However as per the Chiltern sets some could be.

GWR have not taken the opportunity as their client, the DfT have not approved a reduction in seat numbers.

On that presumption if Turbostars had been ordered for GWR you could assume they would have been the 2+3 seated variety!

 

[Grecian 1998]

The air conditioning on the 166s is pretty ineffective as well, Never heard of the 170s having issues with their air con.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Turbostars were not offered with 3+2 seating, they are too narrow.

 

[Clarence Yard]

That’s right. When I was looking at Turbostars for Thames Trains in 1998, it was 2+2 seating. That provoked the 4 car discussion, as opposed to the initial assumption of 3 cars.

 

[AlastairFraser]

That’s all in the process of being altered. As a result of a current track access application GWR won’t normally be stopping anywhere between Slough and Paddington from next May, (except for overnight services), but it’s probably best to avoid duplicate discussion as it’s already being covered in other threads.

Could I have a link to the thread where this is being discussed? I can't seem to find it myself unfortunately.
Thank you very much.

 

[swt_passenger]

Could I have a link to the thread where this is being discussed? I can't seem to find it myself unfortunately.
Thank you very much.

Yes, here you go. It’s probably in the wrong place now because it was put in the existing speculation thread. Link is in post #96 here:

Should Elizabeth line take over the Thames Valley branches and also Romford - Upminster branch?

Don't you think the inability to access West Ealing / Acton Main Line with a single change from intercity services an issue? I dont think it is the primary consideration in stopping patterns on the relief line, no, not to the detriment of other users. Ultimately, stopping patterns are a matter...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[AlastairFraser]

Yes, here you go. It’s probably in the wrong place now because it was put in the existing speculation thread. Link is in post #96 here:

Should Elizabeth line take over the Thames Valley branches and also Romford - Upminster branch?

Don't you think the inability to access West Ealing / Acton Main Line with a single change from intercity services an issue? I dont think it is the primary consideration in stopping patterns on the relief line, no, not to the detriment of other users. Ultimately, stopping patterns are a matter...

www.railforums.co.uk

Thanks for your help

 

[swt_passenger]

Thanks for your help

No problem, I was in a rush but should probably have posted the link to it at the time.

 

[Snow1964]

GWR looks like a great TOC on first glance, but I just think GWR looks good because of the brand new fleet on Intercity services and 387s on London - Didcot/Newbury.

The rest of the fleet, however, is compiled from 150, 158, 165, 166 and Castle trains - the youngest train being pre-privatisation and fast approaching 30 years old, with almost all routes seeing a big mixture of trains and very little standardisation. If the Regional services formed a standalone TOC as they used to, said TOC would be rather embarrassing if you ask me, service improvements aside. Imagine Northern without the 170s and CAFs.

I think GWR do a fairly good job on their main lines and agree with others that the Thames valley and SW England branches are in good shape.

However they have slipped into a mediocre state in between the two good ends, in Heart of Wessex and Cotswold area. And it very much make do and mend with rolling stock, indifferent standards. In these areas there are many quite slow journeys, and lack of rolling stock that can’t cope at weekends etc.

The mythical 769s that never arrived, seemed to have damaged a huge number of services in the whole Heart of Wessex, Bristol & Gloucestershire area (and also services like Cardiff-Exeter) as they all seem to be dependent on hand-me-down rolling stock, some of which never actually arrived.

Unfortunately Covid has accelerated population and working pattern change, and some of the most overcrowded services are no longer in the Thames valley commuter belt, but in places like Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, but GWR seems to be blinkered or paralysed to attempt to fix it. It doesn’t even manage to implement easy changes, as an example can’t get early morning train to London from booming towns like Trowbridge and Bradford-on-Avon, instead GWR runs an empty set from Stoke Gifford through and only puts it into service in Bedywn area, not adding a train, just adding stops.

I don’t think GWR is too complex, it is just that it has become a franchise of 2 halves, one with rolling stock few years old, the other struggling with 30+ year old trains.

I am not going to go over what is already in other threads like Portsmouth-Cardiff replacement stock speculation, but really GWR needs to stop pretending everything will be ok if a few 769s arrive, and accept that even if they do go into service (a big if) it still won’t have sufficlient stock for all its secondary main routes from Bristol, so it really needs to publish some aspirations to stop it being a franchise of 2 halves : good and poor also ran with nothing bridging the gap.

 

[irish_rail]

I think GWR do a fairly good job on their main lines and agree with others that the Thames valley and SW England branches are in good shape.

However they have slipped into a mediocre state in between the two good ends, in Heart of Wessex and Cotswold area. And it very much make do and mend with rolling stock, indifferent standards. In these areas there are many quite slow journeys, and lack of rolling stock that can’t cope at weekends etc.

The mythical 769s that never arrived, seemed to have damaged a huge number of services in the whole Heart of Wessex, Bristol & Gloucestershire area (and also services like Cardiff-Exeter) as they all seem to be dependent on hand-me-down rolling stock, some of which never actually arrived.

Unfortunately Covid has accelerated population and working pattern change, and some of the most overcrowded services are no longer in the Thames valley commuter belt, but in places like Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, but GWR seems to be blinkered or paralysed to attempt to fix it. It doesn’t even manage to implement easy changes, as an example can’t get early morning train to London from booming towns like Trowbridge and Bradford-on-Avon, instead GWR runs an empty set from Stoke Gifford through and only puts it into service in Bedywn area, not adding a train, just adding stops.

I don’t think GWR is too complex, it is just that it has become a franchise of 2 halves, one with rolling stock few years old, the other struggling with 30+ year old trains.

I am not going to go over what is already in other threads like Portsmouth-Cardiff replacement stock speculation, but really GWR needs to stop pretending everything will be ok if a few 769s arrive, and accept that even if they do go into service (a big if) it still won’t have sufficlient stock for all its secondary main routes from Bristol, so it really needs to publish some aspirations to stop it being a franchise of 2 halves : good and poor also ran with nothing bridging the gap.

One of the problems in the cotswolds, be it the north or south cotswolds is the daft number if 5 car IETs lumbered on the franchise. Ineveitably these have to go somewhere and at present its those routes getting a lot of 5 car sets where previously they had 9. Classic example where if the money was available , bringing some 5 cars up to 7 cars would be desirable.

 

[pompeyfan]

It’s interesting to read that GWR control are moving over to regional controllers, as apposed to by service groups, whereas I believe SWR have gone the opposite way, with a noticeable reduction in how service recovery takes place.

 

[Purple Train]

I think GWR do a fairly good job on their main lines and agree with others that the Thames valley and SW England branches are in good shape.

However they have slipped into a mediocre state in between the two good ends, in Heart of Wessex and Cotswold area. And it very much make do and mend with rolling stock, indifferent standards. In these areas there are many quite slow journeys, and lack of rolling stock that can’t cope at weekends etc.

The mythical 769s that never arrived, seemed to have damaged a huge number of services in the whole Heart of Wessex, Bristol & Gloucestershire area (and also services like Cardiff-Exeter) as they all seem to be dependent on hand-me-down rolling stock, some of which never actually arrived.

Unfortunately Covid has accelerated population and working pattern change, and some of the most overcrowded services are no longer in the Thames valley commuter belt, but in places like Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, but GWR seems to be blinkered or paralysed to attempt to fix it. It doesn’t even manage to implement easy changes, as an example can’t get early morning train to London from booming towns like Trowbridge and Bradford-on-Avon, instead GWR runs an empty set from Stoke Gifford through and only puts it into service in Bedywn area, not adding a train, just adding stops.

I don’t think GWR is too complex, it is just that it has become a franchise of 2 halves, one with rolling stock few years old, the other struggling with 30+ year old trains.

I am not going to go over what is already in other threads like Portsmouth-Cardiff replacement stock speculation, but really GWR needs to stop pretending everything will be ok if a few 769s arrive, and accept that even if they do go into service (a big if) it still won’t have sufficlient stock for all its secondary main routes from Bristol, so it really needs to publish some aspirations to stop it being a franchise of 2 halves : good and poor also ran with nothing bridging the gap.

What's happening with the 769s now? I've been trying to follow it but it's like reading the Lord of the Rings in one hand and a Collins Bird Guide in the other to a layman such as myself.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

What's happening with the 769s now? I've been trying to follow it but it's like reading the Lord of the Rings in one hand and a Collins Bird Guide in the other to a layman such as myself.

My info is that the currently planned implementation date is 2x diagrams from some point after the December timetable change date, subject to sufficient crew training being completed. (Which I imagine the ASLEF industrial action may be impacting.)

 

[Benjwri]

Which was replaced in May 2022 by a poorly timed shuttle from Newbury.

This is I think one of the best examples of GWR being too big, the shuttle timing. There are so many examples of poor timing, for example the Henley Branch. To get the Henley shuttle, using GWR services, from London is too short of a change, ranging between 3 and 8 minutes, and is usually on the shorter side, and is often missed by the London train. From Reading it is almost always a 30 minute change, as the stopper departs at exactly the same time as the shuttle leaves, making a change impossible, and forcing you to watch you train pull away.

Returning from Henley, towards London you are again left with a very inconvenient 4 minute change, which is often missed. Going towards Reading there is another 30 minute change, as the Reading stopper leaves seconds before the shuttle arrives, but if you're lucky you make it and it's delayed. There is no feasible reason the Henley shuttle could not have it's timings changed, as in fact they do during the regatta, so that all the waits are around 10-15 minutes, 20 at most.

But in my opinion this actually shows what GWR cares about, timings are timed perfectly for trains to/from London, assuming trains are running on time, which they never are. GWR only truly cares about trains heading towards London. Every journey is timed to get people to and from London, and if you live further down their network their services get worse and worse. Take for example the Didcot - Oxford shuttle. It is the main way for people to get from Oxford to the West, and yet is hugely under provisioned. Usually a 2 car 165, which at rush hour is full and standing, and I've seen it leave people behind before. Yet GWR does nothing, not even change it to a 3 car train.

It's been mentioned, but GWR being so big gives it a huge monopoly, especially operating in areas with often poor bus services. They are one of the most expensive operators in the country. From what I've found traveling by car is almost always cheaper, even with current fuel prices, and using a railcard. This doesn't really keep to the whole travel by train rhetoric.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Take for example the Didcot - Oxford shuttle. It is the main way for people to get from Oxford to the West, and yet is hugely under provisioned. Usually a 2 car 165, which at rush hour is full and standing, and I've seen it leave people behind before. Yet GWR does nothing, not even change it to a 3 car train.

Not true they are doing nothing, as per other posts one of the Oxford IETs every hour will be calling additionally at Didcot from the May 23 timetable change to provide extra capacity.

GWR doesn’t have a cupboard full of spare 3 car trains, how do you suggest they magic one up? The delayed cascade of rolling stock from the difficulties introducing class 769s is well documented.

 

[Snow1964]

Not true they are doing nothing, as per other posts one of the Oxford IETs every hour will be calling additionally at Didcot from the May 23 timetable change to provide extra capacity.

GWR doesn’t have a cupboard full of spare 3 car trains, how do you suggest they magic one up? The delayed cascade of rolling stock from the difficulties introducing class 769s is well documented.

Sorry, but using the excuse the 769s are some magic bullet and they may trickle into service over next few years shows GWR apathy. Covid restrictions ended in March, and saying will put only 2 in service 9 months later is rather dismal.

Similarly knowing they have a problem Oxford-Didcot, but then not choosing to do anything for another 10 months is another example of reacting at a glacial pace.

I accept they don’t have a cupboard full of 3car trains, but what they do have is lots of 5car units that don’t need to be attached to another 5car for big chunks of a journey. It is more a case of can’t be bothered to uncouple some sets mid journey and redeploy them where the turbos are too short. Does it really matter if a Bristol-Frome journey uses a 5car IET thus freeing up 2 turbos to strengthen other services.

It is just bad planning and management reaction if have 10car IET running at under 20% occupancy, whilst another service is so full it is leaving people behind, because no-one makes effort to shorten one train and lengthen another. You don’t need to wait for a major timetable change to make minor changes to formation lengths

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I accept they don’t have a cupboard full of 3car trains, but what they do have is lots of 5car units that don’t need to be attached to another 5car for big chunks of a journey. It is more a case of can’t be bothered to uncouple some sets mid journey and redeploy them where the turbos are too short. Does it really matter if a Bristol-Frome journey uses a 5car IET thus freeing up 2 turbos to strengthen other services.

This might be easy on your model trainset to take one of those 5 car trains out the cupboard and replace a turbo to release is somewhere else but I’m afraid you’re loosing track of how the operational railway actually runs.

An IET is very different from a turbo to drive and needs crew trained accordingly. In case you haven’t noticed we emerged from a pandemic earlier this year (before which in cab training was not permitted) and have gone near enough straight into an industrial dispute, the strings of which are being pulled by the government. It is also not sensible to remove services from the timetable during the summer period to facilitate training on the IETs.

Trust me, this is not a can’t be bothered but more so what is realistically possible to deliver. You are welcome to argue the railway needs to change its working practices on how training etc is done, but you will notice this is at the crux of the industrial relations dispute and so is unlikely to be viewed favourably by the unions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2022 ==

You don’t need to wait for a major timetable change to make minor changes to formation lengths

No, but as outlined above you need to have sufficient traincrew trained on that traction type (of the ‘west’ crew who currently drive turbos, there are none which sign IETs) to be able to make that “simple” change to the formation.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2022 ==

Similarly knowing they have a problem Oxford-Didcot, but then not choosing to do anything for another 10 months is another example of reacting at a glacial pace.

Changing the calling pattern of the Paddington to Oxford services is not a simple change but requires quite a lot of adjustment to other operators services. The industry has set processes to carry these changes out as outlined here in the network code (part D):

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/network-code/Network%20Code%20and%20incorporated%20documents/Current%20Network%20Code%20document%20by%20Part/The%20Network%20Code%20Part%20D.pdf

Also here you will find the various milestones by which time the stages of an access proposal to change the timetable as per the network code have to be carried out:

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Calendar-of-Milestone-dates-2023-timetable-V1.2.pdf

 

[Snow1964]

No, but as outlined above you need to have sufficient traincrew trained on that traction type (of the ‘west’ crew who currently drive turbos, there are none which sign IETs) to be able to make that “simple” change to the formation.

A very good theoretical answer, but doesn’t really explain why a Operator short of turbos and with an excess of 5car IETs wouldn’t train a percentage of its crew to do both.

Now if had exactly the right amount (or an excess) of both types, having a segregation saves training. But saving training to make your organisation inflexible is in no one’s interest, including members of unions. Most Unions want a business to be attracting customers, not discouraging them as they know a thriving business can pay more and create more jobs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2022 ==

My info is that the currently planned implementation date is 2x diagrams from some point after the December timetable change date, subject to sufficient crew training being completed. (Which I imagine the ASLEF industrial action may be impacting.)

Sometime after December, obviously have to do crew training, but if can convert 2 diagrams, then in theory could convert 10 diagrams (if training is done). Have to ask a question if after 3-4 years can only get 2 conversions done, is it really a sensible way forward. But the conversions are independent of GWR crew being trained, so why is the slow conversion rate being continued, otherwise wasting crew training if not enough 769s ready for all the trained crews.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

A very good theoretical answer, but doesn’t really explain why a Operator short of turbos and with an excess of 5car IETs wouldn’t train a percentage of its crew to do both.

You’ve just given an exceptionally good theoretical answer!!

The surplus of IETs has only occurred since covid, prior to covid they were fully utilised on peak commuting services, thus there would have been no point training ‘west’ crews on IETs as there were none spare to work local trains. As you’ve previously been told during the pandemic there was a restriction on in cab training so since the IETs have become spare following the pandemic there has been no opportunity to train these crews.

Your posting seem to assume the railway has a crystal ball - it could foresee there was going to be a pandemic which would reduce the level of commuting freeing up IET sets so they should have trained crews on them prior to the pandemic so they would be ready for use on regional services post pandemic.

Hindsight is one thing, trying to predict the future is another!

 

[Benjwri]

Changing the calling pattern of the Paddington to Oxford services is not a simple change but requires quite a lot of adjustment to other operators services. The industry has set processes to carry these changes out as outlined here in the network code (part D):

The Oxford shuttle has been an issue since they stopped running Reading - Oxford stoppers. They’ve had at least 4 years to sort it, and it didn’t take a crystal ball to foresee those passenger numbers, but they’ve don’t nothing till now.

GWR doesn’t have a cupboard full of spare 3 car trains, how do you suggest they magic one up?

There are always a few hanging round, and I’ve seen a fair amount of 2 cars hanging around they could make a 4 car with. I find it hard to believe there isn’t a route with a 3 car which doesn’t need it, considering how quiet I’ve found some 3 cars around Bristol at rush hour. That is if all the ones in their depot are broken, which is also sort of their fault.

 

[Snow1964]

You’ve just given an exceptionally good theoretical answer!!

The surplus of IETs has only occurred since covid, prior to covid they were fully utilised on peak commuting services, thus there would have been no point training ‘west’ crews on IETs as there were none spare to work local trains. As you’ve previously been told during the pandemic there was a restriction on in cab training so since the IETs have become spare following the pandemic there has been no opportunity to train these crews.

Your posting seem to assume the railway has a crystal ball - it could foresee there was going to be a pandemic which would reduce the level of commuting freeing up IET sets so they should have trained crews on them prior to the pandemic so they would be ready for use on regional services post pandemic.

Hindsight is one thing, trying to predict the future is another!

Ok, I get this now, already have spare IETs, but GWR not going to train extra crews to utilise them better.

But in meantime have decided to train crews to work 769s even though they don’t have any of those currently usable.

And you wonder why I can’t understand the training priorities

 

[JN114]

The 769s are essentially ready and accepted, unit-wise.

They have not been accepted by the unions for training. Until that happens; no training can start - the project is effectively in standstill; treading water as it has for 18 months or more as there are fundamental disagreements on the suitability of them as a working environment.

There may finally be light at the end of that proverbial tunnel - but realistically even if an agreement was signed today, that would be September before training starts.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Ok, I get this now, already have spare IETs, but GWR not going to train extra crews to utilise them better.

But in meantime have decided to train crews to work 769s even though they don’t have any of those currently usable.

And you wonder why I can’t understand the training priorities

No, there were no spare IETs until covid changed commuting requirements then training was not possible due to only one in a cab requirement.

Training will start after the summer on IET training for some west crews, it is not practicable to do that at this very moment in time (summer) as the summer service requires more crew and there is a greater amount of annual leave. For now the bigger priority is during summer to have those crew available to operate trains not off traction training.

 

[Horizon22]

I think GWR do a fairly good job on their main lines and agree with others that the Thames valley and SW England branches are in good shape.

However they have slipped into a mediocre state in between the two good ends, in Heart of Wessex and Cotswold area. And it very much make do and mend with rolling stock, indifferent standards. In these areas there are many quite slow journeys, and lack of rolling stock that can’t cope at weekends etc.

The mythical 769s that never arrived, seemed to have damaged a huge number of services in the whole Heart of Wessex, Bristol & Gloucestershire area (and also services like Cardiff-Exeter) as they all seem to be dependent on hand-me-down rolling stock, some of which never actually arrived.

Unfortunately Covid has accelerated population and working pattern change, and some of the most overcrowded services are no longer in the Thames valley commuter belt, but in places like Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, but GWR seems to be blinkered or paralysed to attempt to fix it. It doesn’t even manage to implement easy changes, as an example can’t get early morning train to London from booming towns like Trowbridge and Bradford-on-Avon, instead GWR runs an empty set from Stoke Gifford through and only puts it into service in Bedywn area, not adding a train, just adding stops.

I don’t think GWR is too complex, it is just that it has become a franchise of 2 halves, one with rolling stock few years old, the other struggling with 30+ year old trains.

I am not going to go over what is already in other threads like Portsmouth-Cardiff replacement stock speculation, but really GWR needs to stop pretending everything will be ok if a few 769s arrive, and accept that even if they do go into service (a big if) it still won’t have sufficlient stock for all its secondary main routes from Bristol, so it really needs to publish some aspirations to stop it being a franchise of 2 halves : good and poor also ran with nothing bridging the gap.

I think generally - and many in the industry - that 769s were/are an experiment with perhaps some good intentions, but more hopeful than practical as a cheap attempt to up capacity across the wider network and has been shown to be a scheme that really isn't working (and may never). It is indeed a problem but this was something that perhaps was entered naively into with best intentions.

One other issue is that the 80x order was very much centred about maxing that capacity from the home counties and improving the offer for places like London as that was the direction the country was generally going in. Lo and behold Covid hits, but GWR are locked into a decades long deal with the IET fleet. And then some new diesel stock is probably required as the more it gets put off in hope of some mythical electrification that is around the corner, the worse the situation will get on regional routes. So I think they are somewhat paralysed with the fleet, and a good chunk of that is decisions beyond their control.

As for the empty set from Stoke Gifford, it would be a very early morning train and would need a subsequent guard diagram, but I agree it's not completely impossible to turn into some sort of service pattern.

5-cars are regularly employed on the Oxford and Cotswolds routes and simply cannot cope on a weekend and hindsight suggests there are too many 5-cars and too few 9-cars. That being said, GWR are hardly the only company with stock problems for their regional routes; I can think off the top of my head that EMR, XC and Northern (in parts) are as bad, if not worse.

 

[JamesT]

But going back to the original premise of this thread, that GWR is too big and complex, if it had been split local/intercity then presumably all the 80x units would belong to the intercity TOC? So there would be even less possibility of being able to substitute an 80x for an overcrowded 16x than there is currently.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

But going back to the original premise of this thread, that GWR is too big and complex, if it had been split local/intercity then presumably all the 80x units would belong to the intercity TOC? So there would be even less possibility of being able to substitute an 80x for an overcrowded 16x than there is currently.

This is an excellent observation. Certainly better than some of the armchair planning I’ve just been reading upthread.

 

[Benjwri]

But going back to the original premise of this thread, that GWR is too big and complex, if it had been split local/intercity then presumably all the 80x units would belong to the intercity TOC? So there would be even less possibility of being able to substitute an 80x for an overcrowded 16x than there is currently.

Id say a better idea would’ve been to split it by area rather than local/intercity, to tone down their monopoly, but would a regional TOC not have invested in its regional fleet, and therefore wouldn’t have this problem? The majority of GWRs spending has gone on their intercity fleet, and class 387s which only locally benefit the GWML to Didcot

 

[Horizon22]

Id say a better idea would’ve been to split it by area rather than local/intercity, to tone down their monopoly, but would a regional TOC not have invested in its regional fleet, and therefore wouldn’t have this problem? The majority of GWRs spending has gone on their intercity fleet, and class 387s which only locally benefit the GWML to Didcot

That wouldn't be practical - you'd have to carve up trains from London to Penzance / Swansea / Worcester in half if you did it that way.

 

[jimm]

One of the problems in the cotswolds, be it the north or south cotswolds is the daft number if 5 car IETs lumbered on the franchise. Ineveitably these have to go somewhere and at present its those routes getting a lot of 5 car sets where previously they had 9. Classic example where if the money was available , bringing some 5 cars up to 7 cars would be desirable.

You used to claim that the 'daft number of 5 car IETs' had ruined the services to the West Country. Now it appears they have ruined the service to the Cotswolds.

It wasn't that long ago that you were busy telling the world that there just weren't enough 5-car sets allocated to the Cotswold Line, when they were already covering 70% plus of the timetable.

As you know full well:

a. The London-Gloucester/Cheltenham services may have had 2+8 HSTs previously, but they only ran every other hour for most of the day, with a change at Swindon to/from a Class 150 being the rule in the alternate hours.

b. Cotswold Line services were operated by a mish-mash of Turbos, 180s and HSTs, right up until the IETs arrived.

An all nine-car IET fleet would be lovely but would cost even more money than the current line-up and would be carrying around even more air in a lot of places in GWR-land.

A busy five-car IET is still a distinct improvement on a two-car Turbo standing in for a London-Hereford HST at the weekend, or a Christmas Eve London-Oxford-Worcester timetable operated almost entirely by three-car Turbos, with the 180s given the day off,. Some of us remember this sort of thing happening only too well.

As for the key point of the thread, the SRA did precious few good things, but effectively reintegrating most of the passenger operations of the old Western Region was one of them.

 

[JonathanH]

5-cars are regularly employed on the Oxford and Cotswolds routes and simply cannot cope on a weekend and hindsight suggests there are too many 5-cars and too few 9-cars.

Part of the problem with Oxford / Cotswold services is the demand to Oxford outstripping the capacity of a 5-car 80x and the Cotswold bit of the journey not needing more than 5 cars. However, there isn't an easy answer to that with the lack of timetable capacity at Oxford to split trains.