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!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Without addressing every one of your points, my argument is fairly simple. Passenger on the wofe route spends about 3 hours on average on the train. On the cotswold thats more like an hour or so. So if someone is going to stand, it should be the cotswold commuter, and not the long distance passenger. In an ideal world we would just have enough stock , but thanks to the Dft that isn't the reality.
And that's just it, isn't it? You make all kinds of assertions with zero evidence to back them up, but as soon as I question what you say, you just take your ball home.
If your argument is simple - never mind all the twists and turns it has taken over the years - why do you repeat stuff like the line that since December all 9-car IETs have 'disappeared down here'? You were told the first time you posted it that almost the entire London-Penzance service is being operated with 9-cars, which you grudgingly admitted was the case, but then posted the same line again.
Does 'down here' mean Plymouth? If so, what exactly is the problem with a 2x5 formation, with 650 seats, that stays coupled together for the entire journey?
Given that the Government won't even fund a half-decent pay offer to rail staff, NHS staff, teachers, etc, it is not going to shell out to lease lots of extra IET coaches for 20 years, so GWR is going to have to continue do the best job it can with what's available.
In case you've forgotten, the 802 order was used by GWR in part to try to correct some of the issues resulting from the DfT-led IEP order for Class 800s. And the IEP order was not just meant to replace HSTs, it was to replace the 180s and 166s that were the regular fare most of the day on the Cotswold Line, and allow for the Cheltenham service to go hourly, and more, so there were always going to be plenty of five-car sets in that batch, even without the DfT's odd notions about service patterns.
And you probably ought to be thanking your lucky stars that GWR did get the 802 deal past the Treasury, as otherwise the South West would now be stuck with worn-out HSTs, costing a fortune to operate, and no prospect of any new trains for some time, whatever the number of coaches in them.
Can't fault any of what you say here to me Jimm. You must admit however that the whole IET project and subsequent orders has been badly handled and implemented from the start and it's not really just about waxing lyrical about the W of E. The soon to be cascaded to the west clearly shows how little thought went in to the process at the time. Irish Rail and I among others have made this point and indeed this isn't with the benefit of hindsight. No one should have been shortchanged in regard to what turns up and when. 5 car trains only was the original West of Plymouth idea which was doomed to fail from the start. A few 5 cars as are used now are fine but not those only. It won`t work whether or not every train adds a unit at Plymouth. We can blame covid and brexit for whatever reasons. Pretty pointless seeing as procurement was done before either of these but ultimately we are where we are through poor management.
But the backdrop to irish_rail's argument is that the WoE is special, that people using it 'deserve' and are 'entitled' to this that and the other - while everywhere else can 'make do' - all wording used in recent posts here. Never mind all the dismissive remarks over the years about other GWR routes and silly stuff like the mythical armada of 9-car IETs on the Cotswold Line.
Clarence Yard has pointed out I don't know how many times that there was never a plan for only five-car sets to operate west of Plymouth, that there were arrangements in place to increase capacity in the summer, etc, etc.
I'd like to know why you think five-car operation west of Plymouth was 'doomed to fail'. It seems to work fine west of Swansea on a more modest scale - though that may be about to change in the face of open-access competition - and portion working is part of the daily routine elsewhere in this country and in Europe.
It was what happened at Plymouth day in, day out, before HSTs appeared. Just because you and irish_rail don't like it doesn't mean there is anything inherently wrong with it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That would need irish_rail's assertion to be correct - as ever, it comes with no actual evidence to back it up - Hanborough is an hour from London, any journey to/from London using a station west of there is more than an hour... or are you going to fall for the 'it's just people commuting into Oxford' line too?
And that's just it, isn't it? You make all kinds of assertions with zero evidence to back them up, but as soon as I question what you say, you just take your ball home.
If your argument is simple - never mind all the twists and turns it has taken over the years - why do you repeat stuff like the line that since December all 9-car IETs have 'disappeared down here'? You were told the first time you posted it that almost the entire London-Penzance service is being operated with 9-cars, which you grudgingly admitted was the case, but then posted the same line again.
Does 'down here' mean Plymouth? If so, what exactly is the problem with a 2x5 formation, with 650 seats, that stays coupled together for the entire journey?
Given that the Government won't even fund a half-decent pay offer to rail staff, NHS staff, teachers, etc, it is not going to shell out to lease lots of extra IET coaches for 20 years, so GWR is going to have to continue do the best job it can with what's available.
In case you've forgotten, the 802 order was used by GWR in part to try to correct some of the issues resulting from the DfT-led IEP order for Class 800s. And the IEP order was not just meant to replace HSTs, it was to replace the 180s and 166s that were the regular fare most of the day on the Cotswold Line, and allow for the Cheltenham service to go hourly, and more, so there were always going to be plenty of five-car sets in that batch, even without the DfT's odd notions about service patterns.
And you probably ought to be thanking your lucky stars that GWR did get the 802 deal past the Treasury, as otherwise the South West would now be stuck with worn-out HSTs, costing a fortune to operate, and no prospect of any new trains for some time, whatever the number of coaches in them.
But the backdrop to irish_rail's argument is that the WoE is special, that people using it 'deserve' and are 'entitled' to this that and the other - while everywhere else can 'make do' - all wording used in recent posts here. Never mind all the dismissive remarks over the years about other GWR routes and silly stuff like the mythical armada of 9-car IETs on the Cotswold Line.
Clarence Yard has pointed out I don't know how many times that there was never a plan for only five-car sets to operate west of Plymouth, that there were arrangements in place to increase capacity in the summer, etc, etc.
I'd like to know why you think five-car operation west of Plymouth was 'doomed to fail'. It seems to work fine west of Swansea on a more modest scale - though that may be about to change in the face of open-access competition - and portion working is part of the daily routine elsewhere in this country and in Europe.
It was what happened at Plymouth day in, day out, before HSTs appeared. Just because you and irish_rail don't like it doesn't mean there is anything inherently wrong with it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That would need irish_rail's assertion to be correct - as ever, it comes with no actual evidence to back it up - Hanborough is an hour from London, any journey to/from London using a station west of there is more than an hour... or are you going to fall for the 'it's just people commuting into Oxford' line too?
Calm down Jimm , no need to get so uptight. Frankly no one agrees with you that cotswold line journey times are even in the same league as Wofe route journey times, least of all GWR management, who, thankfully do concentrate generally resources of longer trains onto the Wofe route.
So anywhere beyond Hanborough is in the same league as South west to London? Please! The vast majority of London traffic on the cotswold starts from Moreton eastwards. So thats an hour and a half. The idea that there are countless folk travelling Pershore or Colwall to London is laughable. The cotswold line is basically Moreton Kingham Charlbury and Hanborough, to London (although probably more traffic to Oxford and Reading). And without going into detail, I DO know what I'm talking about here, trust me.
Back onto the Wofe, yes all the Plymouth terminators are now 10 car i think. You say that's fine. Well as a taxpayer I don't agree, they are expensive to run and costly and confuse passengers in terms of locating the correct coach. Thats the reality. I live it, you don't. Now I do agree we are where we are and are stuck with it due to poor decisions made 5 or more years ago. I suppose we need to be pragmatic and make do, but really the dft should be persuaded that extending some 5 cars to 9s would save alot of money in the longer run.
I suppose we need to be pragmatic and make do, but really the dft should be persuaded that extending some 5 cars to 9s would save alot of money in the longer run.
So now there are long distance trains to the west of England which don't count as long distance trains to the West of England????
You never made any such comment in your original statement. Changing the parameters when someone challenges your assertions does nothing to help you sound convincing
Sorry? So for some reason people need to get from the West of England to London, but not from areas along the Cotswold Line? What about Worcester? As far as I’m aware there’s no special reason people from Cornwall have greater need to get to London, and the North Cotswold Line is the quickest way to get to London from Worcester.
What makes a 10 car so much more expensive to run? And as for confusing passengers very, few 10 cars split so there isn’t the issue of getting the correct half. It’s not harder to find your coach than a 9 car, and if you’re talking about not being able to walk between the halves, the loading on 9 cars, which you so often talk about being high from WoE, usually means you can’t walk through those either.
I'd like to know why you think five-car operation west of Plymouth was 'doomed to fail'. It seems to work fine west of Swansea on a more modest scale - though that may be about to change in the face of open-access competition - and portion working is part of the daily routine elsewhere in this country and in Europe.
It was what happened at Plymouth day in, day out, before HSTs appeared. Just because you and irish_rail don't like it doesn't mean there is anything inherently wrong with it.
I never said all 5 car trains west were necessary, just some. The 0509 and the 0710 weekday services from Penzance are such and work just fine. Beyond that perhaps not as can be seen from the diagrams. I don't think the level of 9 cars was intended as such as per the number of 5/9 vice. The Ponsendane lengthening again proves the point. That's what I meant by doomed to fail.
That would need irish_rail's assertion to be correct - as ever, it comes with no actual evidence to back it up - Hanborough is an hour from London, any journey to/from London using a station west of there is more than an hour... or are you going to fall for the 'it's just people commuting into Oxford' line too?
Beyond Moreton are you seriously suggesting the need for the original 9 car extended order? I doubt Penzance would have had that in a day and indeed now. Irish Rail is probably right about the Traffic going beyond Moreton too. I doubt that exceeds the Cornish services. I have also pointed out the season in Cornwall is virtually year round now albeit busier from May to October.
Sorry? So for some reason people need to get from the West of England to London, but not from areas along the Cotswold Line? What about Worcester? As far as I’m aware there’s no special reason people from Cornwall have greater need to get to London, and the North Cotswold Line is the quickest way to get to London from Worcester.
Sorry? So for some reason people need to get from the West of England to London, but not from areas along the Cotswold Line? What about Worcester? As far as I’m aware there’s no special reason people from Cornwall have greater need to get to London, and the North Cotswold Line is the quickest way to get to London from Worcester.
What makes a 10 car so much more expensive to run? And as for confusing passengers very, few 10 cars split so there isn’t the issue of getting the correct half. It’s not harder to find your coach than a 9 car, and if you’re talking about not being able to walk between the halves, the loading on 9 cars, which you so often talk about being high from WoE, usually means you can’t walk through those either.
Are you seriously suggesting you’re the only person on this forum to have an idea of conditions in GWR services?
A 10 car has to be crewed in both halves. That costs money. It requires greater driver workload both in service and on depot , which again will be budgeted into the driver establishment at places like Laira. There is also more maintenance costs as the equipment is all duplicated, so for example 4 x compressors to maintain instead of 2. All of this over a period of years will massively add up and that's why more 9 car sets would certainly pay for themselves over the life of the train.
And as for the rest of what you say, frankly as another user pointed out its nonsense. No of course I'm not the only user of GWr on here and the likes of Clarence Yard probably has a more accurate and less anecdotal idea of whats going on, BUT , day in day out I observe on the ground what is happening and am privy to how many people are on a train thanks to the 80x TMS passenger loadings info, so I'd argue I'm better placed than some to provide the facts.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
So now there are long distance trains to the west of England which don't count as long distance trains to the West of England????
You never made any such comment in your original statement. Changing the parameters when someone challenges your assertions does nothing to help you sound convincing
Okay, I think perhaps we all need to take a step back and calm down for a little while. Emotions are running a little high and tempers seem to be getting frayed. Perhaps members could dial it down a notch or two and not assume bad faith where I suspect none is intended by anyone? Thank you
Okay, I think perhaps we all need to take a step back and calm down for a little while. Emotions are running a little high and tempers seem to be getting frayed. Perhaps members could dial it down a notch or two and not assume bad faith where I suspect none is intended by anyone? Thank you
Agreed. I do often think if we had these debates face to face they would be a lot more good natured, and I think typing stuff online often can come across as far more nasty than is intended.
Agreed. I do often think if we had these debates face to face they would be a lot more good natured, and I think typing stuff online often can come across as far more nasty than is intended.
Absolutely, I've been to plenty of Forum Meets and not yet have we had an argument as tempestuous as some on here. Though having said that I've probably jinxed it now
This point needs hammering home to DfT and the Treasury. They are more likely to sit up and take notice when it has the potential to save the railway as a whole money, after all they are providing the money!
Right. Having calmed down from what would have been sending a blasting to all sides, the this line vs that line argument is (expletive) pointless. With resources, you have to go where the money is first - nothing else matters. If it means other passengers get crammed in or have to stand, that’s tough - you only have so much in the way of rolling stock to play with and you have to max your return.
If we look at weekday London revenue (the main flow at each station, by far) from the pre COVID days, Oxford, Bristol Parkway, Bath, Swindon, Cardiff - they were each three times what Plymouth brought in. The Meads was four times, Reading six times! Incidentally, Plymouth, Cheltenham, Swansea - they were almost identical to each other. Penzance (about a third of Plymouth) was also about half of Gloucester and also less than Worcester. Even Charlbury was about two thirds of Penzance!
That was then and with the change in demand, GWR can now redeploy to suit. But it isn’t a case that all weekday demand from x has disappeared or it is growing by y elsewhere. It’s a much more complex picture and it hasn’t fully settled down yet. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot.
The SW has now benefited from consistently longer formations past Plymouth at the expense of Bedwyn man and the HST sets are disappearing thanks to the 80x freed up from a combination of Thames Valley commuters not commuting so much and the Bristol superfasts getting junked. When the current slack 80x diagrams get tightened back up again, even more HST sets will heading to the scrap heap.
The North Cots is still quite vibrant and some trains do require more than load 5 a long way west of Oxford. Those are the ones that are 9 car and if there is any more significant growth on some other trains on that route, GWR will have a problem.
One of the advantages of the North Cots is that it is relatively resource efficient - Worcester is a five hour cycle from Pad, Bristol TM is better with 4 hours but Cardiff is also 5 hours and Swansea is 7 hours. By the way, Plymouth is a 9 hour cycle and Penzance is 13 hours.
So now, I hope, you can see why the fleet was deployed as it was back in 2017-9 and why it is being deployed in the way it is now.
Right. Having calmed down from what would have been sending a blasting to all sides, the this line vs that line argument is (expletive) pointless. With resources, you have to go where the money is first - nothing else matters. If it means other passengers get crammed in or have to stand, that’s tough - you only have so much in the way of rolling stock to play with and you have to max your return.
If we look at weekday London revenue (the main flow at each station, by far) from the pre COVID days, Oxford, Bristol Parkway, Bath, Swindon, Cardiff - they were each three times what Plymouth brought in. The Meads was four times, Reading six times! Incidentally, Plymouth, Cheltenham, Swansea - they were almost identical to each other. Penzance (about a third of Plymouth) was also about half of Gloucester and also less than Worcester. Even Charlbury was about two thirds of Penzance!
That was then and with the change in demand, GWR can now redeploy to suit. But it isn’t a case that all weekday demand from x has disappeared or it is growing by y elsewhere. It’s a much more complex picture and it hasn’t fully settled down yet. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot.
The SW has now benefited from consistently longer formations past Plymouth at the expense of Bedwyn man and the HST sets are disappearing thanks to the 80x freed up from a combination of Thames Valley commuters not commuting so much and the Bristol superfasts getting junked. When the current slack 80x diagrams get tightened back up again, even more HST sets will heading to the scrap heap.
The North Cots is still quite vibrant and some trains do require more than load 5 a long way west of Oxford. Those are the ones that are 9 car and if there is any more significant growth on some other trains on that route, GWR will have a problem.
One of the advantages of the North Cots is that it is relatively resource efficient - Worcester is a five hour cycle from Pad, Bristol TM is better with 4 hours but Cardiff is also 5 hours and Swansea is 7 hours. By the way, Plymouth is a 9 hour cycle and Penzance is 13 hours.
So now, I hope, you can see why the fleet was deployed as it was back in 2017-9 and why it is being deployed in the way it is now.
Interesting. However you look at it GWR really could do with additional rolling stock on the Intercity side of things (as well as the local stuff) . I would argue GWR and XC are the two intercity operators that would benefit most from additional coaches so maybe its upto the lobbyists and politicians in the West to pull their collective finger out and start arguing for more of the pie.
So anywhere beyond Hanborough is in the same league as South west to London? Please! The vast majority of London traffic on the cotswold starts from Moreton eastwards. So thats an hour and a half. The idea that there are countless folk travelling Pershore or Colwall to London is laughable. The cotswold line is basically Moreton Kingham Charlbury and Hanborough, to London (although probably more traffic to Oxford and Reading). And without going into detail, I DO know what I'm talking about here, trust me.
Back onto the Wofe, yes all the Plymouth terminators are now 10 car i think. You say that's fine. Well as a taxpayer I don't agree, they are expensive to run and costly and confuse passengers in terms of locating the correct coach. Thats the reality. I live it, you don't. Now I do agree we are where we are and are stuck with it due to poor decisions made 5 or more years ago. I suppose we need to be pragmatic and make do, but really the dft should be persuaded that extending some 5 cars to 9s would save alot of money in the longer run.
You appear to have missed out Worcester, and Evesham gets a not inconsiderate loading too. The main issue being Oxford primarily and the hordes of people who travel there. 5-cars regularly full and standing 10-15 minutes before departure time at Paddington on the weekend. But as you say, the West of England also tends to get prioritised anyway - particularly the Penzance services and the N. Cotswolds is lighter past Oxford.
You seem to want more 9-cars which would be nice, but the order is what the order was and seeing as the thread titile is "What (if anything) was wrong with the IEP procurement?", this is certainly one part of it if there were more 9-cars, but there aren't
The North Cotswolds routes is probably one of the only ones - besides Plymouth outside of the peak months - where splitting might be beneficial (at Oxford) because in excess of 50% of the train could tip out at Oxford; it really is a sight to behold. You'd need some creative diagraming to sort out what to do with the other 5-car, plus the disruption that splitting/joining causes and platforming issues.
Calm down Jimm , no need to get so uptight. Frankly no one agrees with you that cotswold line journey times are even in the same league as Wofe route journey times, least of all GWR management, who, thankfully do concentrate generally resources of longer trains onto the Wofe route.
So anywhere beyond Hanborough is in the same league as South west to London? Please! The vast majority of London traffic on the cotswold starts from Moreton eastwards. So thats an hour and a half. The idea that there are countless folk travelling Pershore or Colwall to London is laughable. The cotswold line is basically Moreton Kingham Charlbury and Hanborough, to London (although probably more traffic to Oxford and Reading). And without going into detail, I DO know what I'm talking about here, trust me.
Back onto the Wofe, yes all the Plymouth terminators are now 10 car i think. You say that's fine. Well as a taxpayer I don't agree, they are expensive to run and costly and confuse passengers in terms of locating the correct coach. Thats the reality. I live it, you don't. Now I do agree we are where we are and are stuck with it due to poor decisions made 5 or more years ago. I suppose we need to be pragmatic and make do, but really the dft should be persuaded that extending some 5 cars to 9s would save alot of money in the longer run.
If you want to live in your alternative reality, good luck. I have made no secret of the fact that I use the Cotswold Line, have done so regularly for more than 20 years and have known the route pretty much all my life, so have a fair grasp of what's going on and what has happened hereabouts in the past.
If you want trust, then you'll need to do better than leaving out those details that might give you some credibility - oh, and not posting stuff here that is just wrong and then having the nerve to repeat some of it, even after you were told it was wrong, with supporting evidence to demonstrate this, the first time round.
Even if there is a change of Government in a couple of years' time, the railways are not going to be on the end of a cash bonanza again any time soon. It's not about persuading the DfT of anything. It's all down to the Treasury and the only thing they want to hear about the railways is that they are funnelling more revenue back into its coffers, not that they should buy more IET coaches because you say so.
Right. Having calmed down from what would have been sending a blasting to all sides, the this line vs that line argument is (expletive) pointless. With resources, you have to go where the money is first - nothing else matters. If it means other passengers get crammed in or have to stand, that’s tough - you only have so much in the way of rolling stock to play with and you have to max your return.
If we look at weekday London revenue (the main flow at each station, by far) from the pre COVID days, Oxford, Bristol Parkway, Bath, Swindon, Cardiff - they were each three times what Plymouth brought in. The Meads was four times, Reading six times! Incidentally, Plymouth, Cheltenham, Swansea - they were almost identical to each other. Penzance (about a third of Plymouth) was also about half of Gloucester and also less than Worcester. Even Charlbury was about two thirds of Penzance!
That was then and with the change in demand, GWR can now redeploy to suit. But it isn’t a case that all weekday demand from x has disappeared or it is growing by y elsewhere. It’s a much more complex picture and it hasn’t fully settled down yet. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot.
The SW has now benefited from consistently longer formations past Plymouth at the expense of Bedwyn man and the HST sets are disappearing thanks to the 80x freed up from a combination of Thames Valley commuters not commuting so much and the Bristol superfasts getting junked. When the current slack 80x diagrams get tightened back up again, even more HST sets will heading to the scrap heap.
The North Cots is still quite vibrant and some trains do require more than load 5 a long way west of Oxford. Those are the ones that are 9 car and if there is any more significant growth on some other trains on that route, GWR will have a problem.
One of the advantages of the North Cots is that it is relatively resource efficient - Worcester is a five hour cycle from Pad, Bristol TM is better with 4 hours but Cardiff is also 5 hours and Swansea is 7 hours. By the way, Plymouth is a 9 hour cycle and Penzance is 13 hours.
So now, I hope, you can see why the fleet was deployed as it was back in 2017-9 and why it is being deployed in the way it is now.
I'm sorry if you, or anyone else, thinks I have ever been trying to set line against line here. I remain unconvinced that carrying lots of empty seats up and down Cornwall on 9-car sets much of the time is a sensible use of resources, but if GWR has decided this is the way to go for now, then there we are.
I have never suggested that the Cotswold Line has some special entitlement to this, that or the other thing - just a sensible allocation of rolling stock resources at appropriate times of the day/week, reflecting the ways that people actually use the route, such as the strong passenger flows to and from London.
As you say, GWR has on the whole achieved a decent match of stock to services and traffic since the IET fleet arrived, despite issues with the shape of that fleet that were not of its own making - and managed to produce a far better spread of late afternoon services eastbound from Worcester. As opposed to lurid claims from a certain quarter about the Cotswold Line having a vast number of services each week operated by 9-car sets, which in reality was 30% on initial plans, a figure which will likely be closer to 20% from May when the 04.49 from Hereford to Paddington is cut back to start at Oxford.
Thank you for the information about London revenue figures pre-Covid. It would be interesting to know what is going on at Worcester now, as Worcestesrhire Parkway does seem to be showing its true potential at last, even allowing for traffic transfer from the city centre stations.
And thanks for confirming my own observations about current loadings. I do have concerns about how things may develop in future, especially if peak commuting does become a thing again.
There are a lot more new houses on the way near Hanborough in particular and at Chipping Norton, near Kingham - and the area between the edge of Worcester and Worcestershire Parkway is also slated to be developed in future. The estate agents will not shy away from telling people about how close the developments are to a station and what the journey time to London is.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You appear to have missed out Worcester, and Evesham gets a not inconsiderate loading too. The main issue being Oxford primarily and the hordes of people who travel there. 5-cars regularly full and standing 10-15 minutes before departure time at Paddington on the weekend. But as you say, the West of England also tends to get prioritised anyway - particularly the Penzance services and the N. Cotswolds is lighter past Oxford.
You seem to want more 9-cars which would be nice, but the order is what the order was and seeing as the thread titile is "What (if anything) was wrong with the IEP procurement?", this is certainly one part of it if there were more 9-cars, but there aren't
The North Cotswolds routes is probably one of the only ones - besides Plymouth outside of the peak months - where splitting might be beneficial (at Oxford) because in excess of 50% of the train could tip out at Oxford; it really is a sight to behold. You'd need some creative diagraming to sort out what to do with the other 5-car, plus the disruption that splitting/joining causes and platforming issues.
I wouldn't concern yourself too much with a certain someone's claims about Cotswold Line custom.
If you were ever to contemplate multiple splits and joins at Oxford, you would need some very creative diagramming to allow for all the services that require more than 320 seats past Oxford, two new through platforms (not just the one in the works), plus a complete timetable rewrite to allow for the late-running XC services that mess things up there so often, otherwise you would just end up wrecking GWR's service in both directions. Unlike Plymouth station, Oxford was not purpose-built with splitting and joining trains in mind.
Removing the Slough calls on Oxford/Cotswold services from May should help matters when it comes to weekend loadings in particular.
If you want to live in your alternative reality, good luck. I have made no secret of the fact that I use the Cotswold Line, have done so regularly for more than 20 years and have known the route pretty much all my life, so have a fair grasp of what's going on and what has happened hereabouts in the past.
If you want trust, then you'll need to do better than leaving out those details that might give you some credibility - oh, and not posting stuff here that is just wrong and then having the nerve to repeat some of it, even after you were told it was wrong, with supporting evidence to demonstrate this, the first time round.
Even if there is a change of Government in a couple of years' time, the railways are not going to be on the end of a cash bonanza again any time soon. It's not about persuading the DfT of anything. It's all down to the Treasury and the only thing they want to hear about the railways is that they are funnelling more revenue back into its coffers, not that they should buy more IET coaches because you say so.
I'm sorry if you, or anyone else, thinks I have ever been trying to set line against line here. I remain unconvinced that carrying lots of empty seats up and down Cornwall on 9-car sets much of the time is a sensible use of resources, but if GWR has decided this is the way to go for now, then there we are.
I have never suggested that the Cotswold Line has some special entitlement to this, that or the other thing - just a sensible allocation of rolling stock resources at appropriate times of the day/week, reflecting the ways that people actually use the route, such as the strong passenger flows to and from London.
As you say, GWR has on the whole achieved a decent match of stock to services and traffic since the IET fleet arrived, despite issues with the shape of that fleet that were not of its own making - and managed to produce a far better spread of late afternoon services eastbound from Worcester. As opposed to lurid claims from a certain quarter about the Cotswold Line having a vast number of services each week operated by 9-car sets, which in reality was 30% on initial plans, a figure which will likely be closer to 20% from May when the 04.49 from Hereford to Paddington is cut back to start at Oxford.
Thank you for the information about London revenue figures pre-Covid. It would be interesting to know what is going on at Worcester now, as Worcestesrhire Parkway does seem to be showing its true potential at last, even allowing for traffic transfer from the city centre stations.
And thanks for confirming my own observations about current loadings. I do have concerns about how things may develop in future, especially if peak commuting does become a thing again.
There are a lot more new houses on the way near Hanborough in particular and at Chipping Norton, near Kingham - and the area between the edge of Worcester and Worcestershire Parkway is also slated to be developed in future. The estate agents will not shy away from telling people about how close the developments are to a station and what the journey time to London is.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I wouldn't concern yourself too much with a certain someone's claims about Cotswold Line custom.
If you were ever to contemplate multiple splits and joins at Oxford, you would need some very creative diagramming to allow for all the services that require more than 320 seats past Oxford, two new through platforms (not just the one in the works), plus a complete timetable rewrite to allow for the late-running XC services that mess things up there so often, otherwise you would just end up wrecking GWR's service in both directions. Unlike Plymouth station, Oxford was not purpose-built with splitting and joining trains in mind.
Removing the Slough calls on Oxford/Cotswold services from May should help matters when it comes to weekend loadings in particular.
Until you can grasp the difference between an intercity service and a primarily local/commuter service , then im banging my head against a brick wall. And, by the way I've no need to go into detail about my cotswold line knowledge on a public forum, but let's just say I've known it longer than you according to what you have written here......
I wouldn't concern yourself too much with a certain someone's claims about Cotswold Line custom.
If you were ever to contemplate multiple splits and joins at Oxford, you would need some very creative diagramming to allow for all the services that require more than 320 seats past Oxford, two new through platforms (not just the one in the works), plus a complete timetable rewrite to allow for the late-running XC services that mess things up there so often, otherwise you would just end up wrecking GWR's service in both directions. Unlike Plymouth station, Oxford was not purpose-built with splitting and joining trains in mind.
Removing the Slough calls on Oxford/Cotswold services from May should help matters when it comes to weekend loadings in particular.
I agree it wouldn’t be easy - or even feasible currently - but demand wise it would be somewhere that might make sense.
Having travelled on the line many times past Oxford, I think 5 coaches for the vast majority of the time would do the job, but accept certain times more might be required.
Considering how many board at Paddington and now plus the Didcot call, I’m not certain removing Slough will be that useful, although there were certainly people travelling on that service for Windsor but I don’t think in numbers that will make a discernible difference, but will be pleasantly surprised if it does even out loadings.
Can we stop this pointless argument about the North Cots please? Both of you protagonists going at it all the time haven’t got the detailed loadings figures for the North Cots when the trains were ordered and, frankly, it shows.
The North Cots is not a primarily local/commuter route. It is an IC route that also caters for local traffic. The traffic there pays a decent yield - Worcester to London is comparable with the likes of Bath to London and the stations east of Worcester get you a yield way in excess of what you get from Oxford to London, which is really low, not much greater than Reading in fact. The North Cots is also relatively cheap to resource.
Where the DfT consultants went wrong in the initial order was that they used MOIRA to get their loads. When you looked at that prediction model, it was way adrift from the actuals at that time and completely undersold the then actual loadings west of Oxford. This was because the demand model MOIRA uses puts too much of the traffic onto the peak trains (a common MOIRA issue). So I did the correction in time for the 802 order when the late Roger Watkins and I came up with the number of 9 cars needed to sort out the issue.
The way the great cartographer came up with the initial 5 car 800 order was to have split and joins all over the place. Swindon, Oxford, Bristol and Cardiff were the main stations where it was to be done in service “en-route”. Roger and I decided to fillet that down to basically Bristol (to get 5 cars for WSM/Taunton) and the daily Swansea “split and join” for the Carmarthen. And this was all before the cab set up time for GWR ATP issue became apparent!
I agree it wouldn’t be easy - or even feasible currently - but demand wise it would be somewhere that might make sense.
Having travelled on the line many times past Oxford, I think 5 coaches for the vast majority of the time would do the job, but accept certain times more might be required.
Considering how many board at Paddington and now plus the Didcot call, I’m not certain removing Slough will be that useful, although there were certainly people travelling on that service for Windsor but I don’t think in numbers that will make a discernible difference, but will be pleasantly surprised if it does even out loadings.
I think it'll make it worse, as Didcot picks up a fair amount of people on the Bristol services which obviously have more capacity than the 5s on the Oxfords
Oh, let's put it all in the too difficult category - so very, very 21st century railway.
Let's forget that FGW used to insert an additional TGS into HST sets on a Friday night so they could provide additional luggage capacity on the Saturday morning Newquay turn.
Also the HSTs used to carry lobsters from Cornwall to the London markets, packing into the "guard's van" in cold crates. This was extra revenue which cost little or nothing to earn and took traffic off the roads. OK a marginal gain for the railway but no doubt it's all gone now. Other produce was carried as well.
I think it'll make it worse, as Didcot picks up a fair amount of people on the Bristol services which obviously have more capacity than the 5s on the Oxfords
Binning the Slough stop will be good for other fast services which won't now be slowed when inevitably catching it up. Stopping at Didcot the train is out of the way of the fast lines when it stops. I've always found it odd that Slough gets such a good intercity service into London, especially now they have frequent high capacity crossrail trains.
Binning the Slough stop will be good for other fast services which won't now be slowed when inevitably catching it up. Stopping at Didcot the train is out of the way of the fast lines when it stops. I've always found it odd that Slough gets such a good intercity service into London, especially now they have frequent high capacity crossrail trains.
My understanding is its generally been historical for the change to Windsor. It's the largest settlement between Reading and London so not completely odd, but probably not intercity worthy. They still get a "fast" off-peak service in May, just running on the reliefs as part of the Didcot Parkway stopper. It's probably a change for the best but I don't think it's going to be changing the loadings on rammed Oxford services somehow!
Also the HSTs used to carry lobsters from Cornwall to the London markets, packing into the "guard's van" in cold crates. This was extra revenue which cost little or nothing to earn and took traffic off the roads. OK a marginal gain for the railway but no doubt it's all gone now. Other produce was carried as well.
And Cakes too. There’s an award winning couple who have been featured on TV a few times based down in Penzance, who used to ship their cakes by rail too.
Until you can grasp the difference between an intercity service and a primarily local/commuter service , then im banging my head against a brick wall. And, by the way I've no need to go into detail about my cotswold line knowledge on a public forum, but let's just say I've known it longer than you according to what you have written here......
Did you miss the bit in Clarence Yard's post about weekday London revenue at various stations pre-Covid on Monday (post 222)?
I don't recall saying how old I am, so perhaps best not to make such an assumption - and the fact remains that despite your 'knowledge', your posts about the Cotswold Line (and other routes) over the years have been littered with errors and distortions, backed up with a refusal to listen when they are pointed out - and not just by me.
I agree it wouldn’t be easy - or even feasible currently - but demand wise it would be somewhere that might make sense.
Having travelled on the line many times past Oxford, I think 5 coaches for the vast majority of the time would do the job, but accept certain times more might be required.
Considering how many board at Paddington and now plus the Didcot call, I’m not certain removing Slough will be that useful, although there were certainly people travelling on that service for Windsor but I don’t think in numbers that will make a discernible difference, but will be pleasantly surprised if it does even out loadings.
I don't know what you mean by 'plus the Didcot call' - the weekday and Saturday Oxford/Cotswold fast services will still not call there, same as now. Sunday trains will call at Didcot, as they do now. The only change I can see in Oxfordshire is the insertion of Sunday stops at Radley, which isn't going to generate anything like the same volume of passengers as Slough - many of whom live there and just want a quick run to/from Paddington, with the tourists visiting Windsor yet another factor in the equation.
Binning the Slough stop will be good for other fast services which won't now be slowed when inevitably catching it up. Stopping at Didcot the train is out of the way of the fast lines when it stops. I've always found it odd that Slough gets such a good intercity service into London, especially now they have frequent high capacity crossrail trains.
The service level commitment required FGW/GWR (and presumably Thames Trains before them) to provide regular off-peak fast services between Paddington and Slough, with the Oxford/Cotswold route services being the chosen means of doing that up to now. The changed circumstances, with the Elizabeth Line now fully up and running, have provided an opportunity to do something different.
Can we stop this pointless argument about the North Cots please? Both of you protagonists going at it all the time haven’t got the detailed loadings figures for the North Cots when the trains were ordered and, frankly, it shows.
The North Cots is not a primarily local/commuter route. It is an IC route that also caters for local traffic. The traffic there pays a decent yield - Worcester to London is comparable with the likes of Bath to London and the stations east of Worcester get you a yield way in excess of what you get from Oxford to London, which is really low, not much greater than Reading in fact. The North Cots is also relatively cheap to resource.
Where the DfT consultants went wrong in the initial order was that they used MOIRA to get their loads. When you looked at that prediction model, it was way adrift from the actuals at that time and completely undersold the then actual loadings west of Oxford. This was because the demand model MOIRA uses puts too much of the traffic onto the peak trains (a common MOIRA issue). So I did the correction in time for the 802 order when the late Roger Watkins and I came up with the number of 9 cars needed to sort out the issue.
The way the great cartographer came up with the initial 5 car 800 order was to have split and joins all over the place. Swindon, Oxford, Bristol and Cardiff were the main stations where it was to be done in service “en-route”. Roger and I decided to fillet that down to basically Bristol (to get 5 cars for WSM/Taunton) and the daily Swansea “split and join” for the Carmarthen. And this was all before the cab set up time for GWR ATP issue became apparent!
I would not have uttered a peep had you know who not felt the need to post nonsense for several years now about the Cotswold Line and to constantly demand special treatment for the West of England at the expense of the Cotswold Line and every other GWR intercity service - and who clearly still isn't satisfied, even with the December reshuffle that I assume you had a hand in providing 9-cars end to end on almost all London-Penzance services, 2x5s all the time on Plymouth services and long formations on most of the Exeter/Paignton semi-fasts to boot.
No, I don't know what the detailed loading figures are, nor exactly what the yields look like, as I don't work for GWR, but I have used enough Cotswold Line services since 2001, at every time of the day from start of service to the end, across all seven days, and paid enough money into the coffers of Thames Trains, FGW and GWR, to have a decent grasp of what was and what is going on here, which has guided what I have posted for years.
The Cotswold Line does indeed have a dual role and - as I kept trying to tell irish_rail in recent weeks to no avail - we certainly are not all just commuting into Oxford (even if that was what many of my journeys were in the past).
I have never demanded 9-car trains on everything west of Oxford, as that would be plain daft. There were certain peak shading into shoulder peak services post December 2019 and pre-Covid where the use of a 5-car IET was chancing it loadings-wise in my opinion, but that is clearly less of an issue at present, and the nonsense of all morning peak trains off the Cotswold Line stopping in Reading, while next to nothing called the other way in the evening peak, is about to be reversed.
The loadings between Oxford and London will remain a challenge for sure, but there are no easy answers to that, especially while the Class 387s cannot get to Oxford and reach all those carriage sidings that were laid out specially for them.
Now that they have settled down, are the Hitachi 80x trains proving to be more reliable than the trains they replaced?
As a regular passenger, albeit on a short stretch of the ECML, I would say that delays and cancellations arising from train faults have fallen significantly.
Now that they have settled down, are the Hitachi 80x trains proving to be more reliable than the trains they replaced?
As a regular passenger, albeit on a short stretch of the ECML, I would say that delays and cancellations arising from train faults have fallen significantly.
I'd say reliability is reasonable, however the passenger seating is fast falling into a state of disrepair with numerous seat base cushions now completely collapsed. Engines are still an issue, frequently being isolated, however this does not generally get noticed too much by the passenger, until two engines go at which point time will be lost.
I'd say reliability is reasonable, however the passenger seating is fast falling into a state of disrepair with numerous seat base cushions now completely collapsed. Engines are still an issue, frequently being isolated, however this does not generally get noticed too much by the passenger, until two engines go at which point time will be lost.
My usual trains are 801s, with only the occasional 800, so I haven't come across any engine failures in service. Every once in a while, an 800 turns up on the up service running in diesel mode, usually signified by a two or three minute late arrival at Morpeth.
The seats on the Azumas, while they'll never win awars for comfort, also seem to be in reasonable condition.
My usual trains are 801s, with only the occasional 800, so I haven't come across any engine failures in service. Every once in a while, an 800 turns up on the up service running in diesel mode, usually signified by a two or three minute late arrival at Morpeth.
The seats on the Azumas, while they'll never win awars for comfort, also seem to be in reasonable condition.
In the summer it’s not uncommon for 800/802s to have several engines (GUs - generator units) knocked out on GWR sets, preventing some for heading out towards West of England, and not sure if that’s improved.
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.
