They or the very similar 166s ran there regularly for many years on London services. Better than no train
They were standard traction for many years, even all the way from London.
I'm really not disagreeing, just to be clear on that. But let's just run everything as 150s then, as it's better than no train.They or the very similar 166s ran there regularly for many years on London services. Better than no train
)
Do you know about the proportion of HST vs 165/166 back over the years? I am curious about it.They or the very similar 166s ran there regularly for many years on London services. Better than no train
Good god.
Looks like I am getting delay repay too as my 387 got so delayed I had to change at Reading for a XC 221 as I won’t make the connection at Didcot. Still no sight of the 165 which is supposed to depart RDG 1 min after the 221.
It was about 50/50 on the Costwold line services before the IETs. The 2012 timetable shows 17 trains from London, 9 were Turbos, 8 were HSTs.
Agree. Turbo Exeter to London, I'm just a tiny bit jealous of whoever got to drive that!
What proportion of the passengers are doing Paddington - Great Malvern, though?
I thought there’d be more iets available since it’s the weekend?
They or the very similar 166s ran there regularly for many years on London services. Better than no train
I famously hate the “Would you prefer that or no train at all?” comments and always call them out as and when they pop up. Primarily because we’ve reached a new low if our services - for which tickets cost an absolute fortune anyway - get a massive downgrade to capacity and facilities (and potentially comfort but that is always subjective!) and we’re told we should be grateful it’s running at all.I'm really not disagreeing, just to be clear on that. But let's just run everything as 150s then, as it's better than no train.
(Oh wait... forgot about TfW
Just gonna put it out there, while a lot of people seem to think this is far worse I will just add that Paddington Great Malvern is actually upto half an hour longer than Paddington Exeter typically is, and at least 166s have little tables. There’s also usually less time to wait for the next Western IET as well.
Some diagrams were also 180s.
People forget Oxford - Malvern is a very slow trundle along mostly single track railway. It's a glorified branch line in effect.
In Thames Trains days, everything on the Cotswold Line was a Turbo (165/166) apart from two return journeys operated by Great Western with HSTs.
Nope. It's only single track from Wolvercot to Charlbury and from Pershore to Norton Junction, certainly not "mostly". Numerous sections have 90mph-100mph linespeed.
It's Wolvercot all the way to Ascott then Moreton - Worcestershire Parkway single track, with the stations acting as passing loops. Some sections might be 90-100mph but a lot of it is substantially slower than 125mph Reading - Exeter.
It's not a new development though. Lower quality stock replacing high quality (on paper) as an emergency stand in has always been a thing. It's a reality in all things in life that stuff on occasion goes wrong and every now and then the alternative to "Cancelled" will be something you'd really rather wasn't used.
It isn't a regular occurrence (at least, not for the last few years!).
You need a new rail atlas.
That must be a phantom second platform at Charlbury then.
Keep up. It’s single from Wolvercot to just short of Charlbury then double track through to the Worcester side of Evesham, then single again to Norton Jc. Redoubling was done in 2011.
So im guessing you would prefer the train to just be cancelled & either wait for the next one, which may also be short formed or just prefer a bus instead.
Ah, that's why...
Been looking at old satelites. Never mind, but the point is the route is slower and windier unlike Reading - Exeter hence the quicker journeys on that route.
I recommend the national electronic sectional appendix for one of the most accurate references, an incredibly useful tool once you figure out how to use them.
www.networkrail.co.uk
