First Great Western - Transforming Travel eh?

[Techniquest]

They'd better not screw up my trip home from London on the 19th! We won't accept a bustiution either!

Whatever happens, it's more fuel...

 

[Andrew]

The strikes have been called off.

As for the infrastructure, the GWML is hardly full of extra capacity that can help in times of delay.

As a quick example - look at the number of fast line trains running out of King's Cross in a typical hour - 2 for Leeds, 2 for Newcastle/beyond and possibly an extra one for Hull or wherever + 2 FCC Cambridge fasts. That's 7 trains per hour - mostly electric with decent acceleration.

Then look at St Pancras - 1 to Sheffiled, 1 to Derby, 2 to Nottingham. And 2 or 3 of those 4 trains per hour is a Meridian with decent acceleration.

Next to Euston. Here we meet 2 for Manchester, 1 for Birmingham, 1 for Wolverhampton, 1 for Liverpool, 1 for the North and 1 for North Wales. That's 7 trains per hour. All electric Pendonlinos with good acceleration.

Now come down to Paddington. We have 2 for South Wales, 2 for Bristol Temple Meads or beyond, 2 for Oxford or the Cotswold Line, 1 for the South West, 1 for Newbury or beyond. That's 8 trains per hour. Oh, and you might also be lucky enough to get a Cheltenham service, which is alternate hours, making 9. 2 or 3 will typically be Adelantes which have decent acceleration. 1 (or 2) will generally be Turbos, which also have decent acceleration, though a lesser top speed. The rest will be HSTs with rubbishy acceleration. Then you try and run every single one of those trains through 1 platform (No. 4) at Reading. Everything stops there (typical off peak hour). That does not work. And we're forgetting something. Heathrow Express is also running 4 extra trains per hour in/out of Paddington on the Main Lines. That's hardly going to help things along.
13 trains per hour. If you run trains every 4 minutes and 40 seconds you just about get 25 trains every 2 hours. But that is clearly far from ideal. And then you have to integrate those with the same number entering the station. So if a train is delayed at Paddington by 2 minutes because of a late crew member (which IS FGW's fault!) - it effectively means the next train will be running on yellows til at least Airport Junction. 125mph trains are not meant to be run 4 minutes apart all day every day on GW - the signalling is generally 1960s/70s - Reading was last resignalled when Reading PSB came in - April 1965.

The Southern termini (and Liverpool St) are in a similar position, but with the benefit of suburban stop-start EMUs instead of trundling HSTs.

FGW have (IMO rightly) not added an extra 10 minutes at every terminus (a la SWT). So clearly their trains will be delayed more frequently. Slowing down timings is a step back. The times are already slower than the 70s/80s because of the extra stops (and ATP/TPWS). I don't think the answer is to put in yet more recovery time.

FGW could well do with some new trains, new tracks and a new tiemtable (as VT would put it). But it seems to me that you either get a service for the taxpayer (FGW) or a lots of investment which is delayed, over budget, and not completed (VT). Until investment can produce good results, the government will give the money and Network Rail can complete large projects on time and on budget, I think FGW are doing the right thing in hanging on in there - though I do wish they had availability of Firstminutefares on more Oxford trains! And I also wish they were keeping the Adelantes. And doing better refurbishments of the Turbos. And ...

 

[devon_metro]

The HSTs are not the problem, considering their age the acceleration is good!

It's the signalling where the problem is, particularly around Reading as you said. A complete over haul of the signalling is needed!

 

[Sprog]

Exactly a month tomorrow till i start at the marsh......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[yorkie]

Andrew - your post contains a number of inaccuracies, where is this information from?

Why not go to Finsbury Park, get a mate to go to King's Cross, set a timer when trains depart and time how long HSTs and 91s take to get there. Please do let me know the results (The 91s won't win)

It would be silly of FGW to get new trains now, given that no suitable HST replacement exists yet. HST2 is unlikely to be rushed, and is quite possibly going to be electric, and is around 15 years away. It makes sense to refurbish HSTs, and the new MTU engines do improve acceleration.

 

[Andrew]

Yes, I read an article on 'fast starts' in the Railway Magazine after writing my post - the 91s are slower off the blocks, so my post is completely wrong. Still HST acceleration isn't fantastic - the same article says how, for example, between Didcot and Swindon, an HST may not make 125mph, wheras an Adelante invariably will (on clear signals, no mechanical failures etc). So my point is not completely invalid.

As for HST2 - I am certainly not suggesting FGW should order more 180s (or something similar) now! I am saying that if, a couple of years ago, when the issue was up with GNER and FGW of HST replacement, FGW and GNER (and whoever was running the railways at that point) had funded development into the replacement, we might be in a considerably better position now in terms of punctuality.

On actual development of HST2, I seriously doubt it will be electric. I personally predict that the Western will not be electrified for HST2. Maybe 10/20 years after that. There are too many important feeder routes that are uneconomical to electrify (uneconomical according to many people - generally the people with the money) but without which make the order of electric trains too small.

 

[yorkie]

...for example, between Didcot and Swindon, an HST may not make 125mph, wheras an Adelante invariably will (on clear signals, no mechanical failures etc). ....

Yes, but what matters is timings vs efficiency. How much time will actually be saved by using up more fuel to speed up quicker? And is the cost of the fuel worth it? There comes a point where it isn't worth it.

Most Voyagers have been running with an engine down (this was the case last time I read on the subject, I don't know if it still is), but they were so overpowered anyway that the difference in terms of timings is barely noticeable. It's not just increased fuel costs, but increased track access charges too.

It has generally been accepted that any diesel version of HST2 is unlikely to have the sort of power:weight ratio of wasteful Voyagers, Adelentes etc.

BTW it's worth having a read of the latest "Informed Sources" (MR July 06)about 185s vs 158s, the gist of it is that the 185s are much more powerful so they can accelerate quicker...but it seems the designers didn't realise that the increased weight would mean the train has some rather severe speed restrictions! But the 'good news' (!) is that they won't be any slower overall apparently, despite the speed restrictions, because the increased power means that their greater acceleration can make time savings in other areas. So we are back to square one.

 

[Nick W]

The thing is, HSTs were never made to stop so often. They're meant to reach 125mph reasonably quickly at stay that speed for a while, not to get as much speed before they have to slow down to serve reading.

If there was a market for for express trains in the 1970s, there should be a merket now. Rather than sacrificing the express market for commuter services, can't we just increase capacity and maybe add more tracks so we can run enough (D)EMUs not to constantly stop express trains?

 

[Mojo]

The thing is, HSTs were never made to stop so often. They're meant to reach 125mph reasonably quickly at stay that speed for a while, not to get as much speed before they have to slow down to serve reading.

It seems to most of the Customers, and FGW themselves, that the main cause of non-Network Rail delays are due to train failures - it's rare for a few days to pass and there not being a delay due to a HST failure of some sort. Whilst the maintenance staff are highly skilled and doing all they can, they are working with old kit, which is, albeit slowly, being modernised.

Hopefully the new coaches will also have some very good work done to them, I hope that the doors will be replaced with push button ones like on 222s (with a push button and a 'kick' button) and that the windows will be sealed better. Inside door handles would be very useful too IMO now CDL is in use.

 

[devon_metro]

Replacing the doors on Mk3s? I doubt that will happen!

 

[Mojo]

Replacing the doors on Mk3s? I doubt that will happen!

The internal doors. Y'know, the ones that can't keep shut and make a click clunk noise everytime they decide to open. Even more annoyingly, FGW have modded the control switch so you can only switch them off with a T-Key.

 

[devon_metro]

Ah those annoying things!

 

[Sprog]

The internal doors. Y'know, the ones that can't keep shut and make a click clunk noise everytime they decide to open. Even more annoyingly, FGW have modded the control switch so you can only switch them off with a T-Key.

so annoying little trainspotters and moaning passengers (who think theyre helpig by interfearing..sound familiar ?) cant fiddle with them........

:???: :roll:
[EDIT]
OH, AND fGW are also actually modifying the door mechanisms to prevent them opening un-intentionally on bends...........

But thats a good point, so you overlooked that didnt ya.......... :roll: