GWR MetroWest Enhancements Stock

[HamworthyGoods]

So within 3.5 months should be known where the new trains for future fleet are coming from as committed to have done contract award by then.

No in 3.5 months we won’t know the new trains for a future fleet, you’ve misinterpreted this as you’ve contradicted yourself in the same post.

..... commence procurement no later than 23 September 2023

procurement is the starting of opening a tendering process to the award of a contract, not the end result.

 

[Class 170101]

Bristol Temple Meads - Worcester Foregate Street hasn't gone from 0.5 to 1 tph; there are still some 2 hour gaps, and some services which only run as far as Worcester Shrub Hill (which then ruins some connections from Foregate Street) Departures from Temple Meads:

• 06:xx MISSING TRAIN
• 07:xx MISSING TRAIN
• 08:40 to Foregate Street
• 09:38 to Foregate Street
• 10:xx MISSING TRAIN
• 11:38 to Foregate Street
• 12:38 to Foregate Street
• 13:39 to Foregate Street
• 14:39 to Foregate Street
• 15:38 to Shrub Hill
• 16:39 to Foregate Street
• 17:38 to Shrub Hill
• 18:40 to Great Malvern
• 19:xx MISSING TRAIN
• 21:00 to Shrub Hill
• 22:xx MISSING TRAIN

Seems a bit strange/unfortunate to have not made it a reliable 1tph right through to Foregate Street, but I'm sure they have their reasons for it.

Can't see any mention but there is a 06:10 Bristol to Worcester Shrub Hill. No path beyond Shrub Hill due to LM services.

15:38 again due to LM services no path beyond Shrub Hill.
17:38 looks like it runs through to Foregate Street.

 

[Snow1964]

procurement is the starting of opening a tendering process to the award of a contract, not the end result.

ok, I will accept your thoughts
but as clause (iv) specifically said contract awarded, and a few lines earlier gave a date 9 months earlier (by 9 Dec 2022) for Secretary of State to be notified with preferred bidder etc so they can make decision, I read it as procurement has got to contract award stage by the 23 September 2023 date, even if build is not started immediately.

I would have thought the initial (outline) tendering would have been done so meet requirements of the December 2022 submission, and it's final version (clause 2.4 on page 27) by 31 March 2023

I simply don't see purpose of the Business commitment having a schedule of dates over 16 months relating to future fleet from date of signing of document on pages 26 and 27 if that isn't what DfT wanted to happen. If the dates weren't serious why would DFT publish them unredacted in June 2023 (it has redacted other items in the document).

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1160393/first-greater-western-limited-2022-business-plan-commitments.pdf

 

[Clarence Yard]

That very well may be what the DfT intend (or intended at time of signing) but look carefully at the wording of 2.5. It starts off with the words “The Secretary of State may……”, so that doesn’t bind the DfT and then, towards the end, there is the phrase “and subject to any changes that the Secretary of State may specify”.

So, there is no duty on the Secretary of State to instruct GWR to carry out such a procurement exercise commencing this September or indeed at any time. It may wish to do so, it might want to know what the market can provide but equally it could say there is little new money for rolling stock and either not instruct GWR to carry out such an exercise or bin it all off after examining the tender proposals.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Maybe I've just been unlucky, but noticing a lot more issues than before on the Bristol area services in the last two weeks. Two carriages seem to be the norm now, as do delays causing crew issues that lead to longer delays or cancellations. The services have always been susceptible to cascading delays but I've not seen it this bad before.

And a side note, I've noticed that at least some of the ex Worcester services that terminate at Temple Meads then make up the next stopping service out towards Bath and Westbury. Before the recent changes these used to be proper through services. If the same units are still making up the same journeys it seems a bit of a game GWR are playing to say they aren't actually through journeys!

 

[HamworthyGoods]

And a side note, I've noticed that at least some of the ex Worcester services that terminate at Temple Meads then make up the next stopping service out towards Bath and Westbury. Before the recent changes these used to be proper through services. If the same units are still making up the same journeys it seems a bit of a game GWR are playing to say they aren't actually through journeys!

Whilst stock cascades are going on it’s not always constant what forms what at Bristol with the trains from Worcester, some are 80x which cannot easily work towards Westbury be for example this week just gone with the Severn Tunnel Blockade sone Worcester trains were HSTs.

That is why the services aren’t advertised through services as it provides some operational flexibility.

There were very few through journeys from north of Gloucester through to Bath and Westbury and there remains an hourly through Gloucester to Westbury service.

 

[Snow1964]

Not directly rolling stock, but new article has been published on suggestion of reopening St Anne's station (between Bristol TM and Keynsham), which would put more pressure on Metrowest rolling stock. Already severe crowding on some trains between Bristol and Bath.

The ‘forgotten’ area of Bristol where a new railway station could still be on track

The St Annes Park station closed in 1970 but a campaign has submitted a bid to reopen it

www.bristolworld.com

.

 

[RPI]

Maybe I've just been unlucky, but noticing a lot more issues than before on the Bristol area services in the last two weeks. Two carriages seem to be the norm now, as do delays causing crew issues that lead to longer delays or cancellations. The services have always been susceptible to cascading delays but I've not seen it this bad before.

And a side note, I've noticed that at least some of the ex Worcester services that terminate at Temple Meads then make up the next stopping service out towards Bath and Westbury. Before the recent changes these used to be proper through services. If the same units are still making up the same journeys it seems a bit of a game GWR are playing to say they aren't actually through journeys!

Been the same around Exeter too, I don't think there was a single day last week where all Exmouth-Paignton diagrams were correctly formed, and a few days where nearly every diagram was short formed.
Looked the same on Cardiff-Portsmouth too.

 

[The exile]

There were very few through journeys from north of Gloucester through to Bath and Westbury and there remains an hourly through Gloucester to Westbury service.

In the peak, though, the number of through journey opportunities from Bristol Parkway to Bath (and beyond) has halved with at least one now requiring a platform 1 - 15 change. Interestingly, though, the 16:16 ex Parkway was short formed (2car 165 instead of 5car IET) yesterday and Monday - but on both days actually arrived early at both Parkway and Temple Meads - a rare event.

 

[Benjwri]

In the peak, though, the number of through journey opportunities from Bristol Parkway to Bath (and beyond) has halved with at least one now requiring a platform 1 - 15 change. Interestingly, though, the 16:16 ex Parkway was short formed (2car 165 instead of 5car IET) yesterday and Monday - but on both days actually arrived early at both Parkway and Temple Meads - a rare event.

It’s unfortunate, but I would say that doing it has improved the delays on services through Bath, and fore example when the area around Gloucester would closed due to a signalling system failure there were far less delays. Considering there is still one through train an hour at least, I would say that seems a reasonable compromise.

 

[The exile]

It’s unfortunate, but I would say that doing it has improved the delays on services through Bath, and fore example when the area around Gloucester would closed due to a signalling system failure there were far less delays. Considering there is still one through train an hour at least, I would say that seems a reasonable compromise.

Oh yes - overall it’s an improvement. However, in a couple of years using the 16.15, 17.15 and 18.15 (all -ish) from Parkway, I’m not sure I can remember a delayed arrival at Temple Meads great enough to be the direct cause of a late departure. Observations post t/t change suggest that on one of those 3 (tge 17.15ish?) the guard “works through” (even though the stock doesn’t) and on the 18.15 the stock does.