GWR Cascade Delayed!

[deltic08]

ITV West (Bristol) are reporting today that the cascade of trains to the west to combat overcrowding is being delayed by up to 2 years. Presumably, they are referring to the 165's & 166's moving west which would allow the 158's to move to Devon & Cornwall.

Of course, this hardly news to those who read these forums and are up with events concerning the slow progress being made to electrify the Great Western.

Would I be right in thinking that the most vital work that needs to be done to release the 165's / 166's is getting the wires as far as Oxford? I understand that priority has been given to getting the Hybrid Hitachi's built first. That being so, would it not be beneficial to actually put them to work on the London > Oxford > Worcester > Hereford route first as this would release the most turbostars?

The situation on services such as Cardiff > Bristol > Bath > Soton > Portsmouth is now quite desperate regarding overcrowding. Getting the 165's & 166's released to form longer trains on the routes through Bristol musty surely be a top priority?

http://www.itv.com/news/west/update/2015-11-11/plans-to-ease-overcrowding-on-trains-to-go-on-hold/

Cardiff-Portsmouth would be a good route for a 5-car bimode as half is under the wires when completed. More if Westbury-Bath is wired as a diversion route for Reading-Bath as has been proposed by certain MPs.

 

[JamesRowden]

With the Hendy report yesterday and latest comments on GW electrification completion, I one wonders if all GW IEP's will now be Bi-mode, and what are the chances of some 365/387's being sat in a siding for quite a while.

If all GW IEP's do become bi-modes then you would think that once they get to Didcot getting to Oxford ought to be then the next Priority.

Meanwhile If Northern are planning getting on some cascaded stock from GW they might just about get it before the Pacer deadline if they are lucky.

Presumably the HST cascade to Scotrail will still be a priority and more Bi-modes will help this.

In the event of Didcot-Paddington being electrified well in advance of Oxford-Didcot, perhaps the Paddington-Oxford stoppers and Reading-Redhill/Gatwick services could be reformatted into:

• 2tph Oxford-Redhill/Gatwick (Turbos)
• 2tph Didcot-Paddington (365s/387s)

This would free-up some Turbos/HSTs/180s for cascade.

 

[The Ham]

In the event of Didcot-Paddington being electrified well in advance of Oxford-Didcot, perhaps the Paddington-Oxford stoppers and Reading-Redhill/Gatwick services could be reformatted into:

• 2tph Oxford-Redhill/Gatwick (Turbos)
• 2tph Didcot-Paddington (365s/387s)

This would free-up some Turbos/HSTs/180s for cascade.

An interesting suggestion. It would mean that either the trains would have to split at Reading on the Oxford-Redhill/Gatwick or they would be limited to three coach units.

Also, wasn't the Reading-Gatwick/Redhill service due to increase to 3tph fairly soon, in which case would there be benefit and/or capacity in increase the frequency to 3tph (would mean the need for an extra 4 units) between Oxford and Redhill/Gatwick?

 

[JamesRowden]

An interesting suggestion. It would mean that either the trains would have to split at Reading on the Oxford-Redhill/Gatwick or they would be limited to three coach units.

Also, wasn't the Reading-Gatwick/Redhill service due to increase to 3 tph fairly soon, in which case would there be benefit and/or capacity in increase the frequency to 3 tph (would mean the need for an extra 4 units) between Oxford and Redhill/Gatwick?

The demand upon my suggested Oxford-Redhill/Gatwick services could be reduced by running them close behind the Didcot-Paddington services in both directions.

The Gatwick frequency is planned to increase to 2tph with the Redhill terminator frequency remaining at 1 tph. Therefore, if my suggestion were implemented it would make sense to have the Gatwick services run through to Oxford and the Redhill service terminate at Reading.

 

[edwin_m]

The demand upon my suggested Oxford-Redhill/Gatwick services could be reduced by running them close behind the Didcot-Paddington services in both directions.

You'd want good connections at Didcot for Oxford-Paddington passengers, so the other way round might be better to avoid a longish wait at Didcot.

 

[JamesRowden]

You'd want good connections at Didcot for Oxford-Paddington passengers, so the other way round might be better to avoid a longish wait at Didcot.

I'm suggesting altering the Oxford-Paddington stoppers, not the Oxford-Paddington fast services, which would probably overtake my suggested Oxford-Redhill/Gatwick services between Didcot and Reading.

 

[jimm]

I'm suggesting altering the Oxford-Paddington stoppers, not the Oxford-Paddington fast services, which would probably overtake my suggested Oxford-Redhill/Gatwick services between Didcot and Reading.

While it may look a nice idea in outline, I think there are a lot of flaws in this idea.

Is this part of a long-term plan for Oxford-Gatwick trains? The idea is an aspiration in many quarters but unless the electrification gaps between Reading and Redhill are bridged, allowing dual-voltage emus to do the job, and it runs fast between Didcot and Reading to make the journey time quick enough to knock out competition from the M40/M25/M23 coach link, I can't see it working.

You are proposing a lot of diesel running under the wires. How would that look in the light of all the problems with electrification? Wires are up but people still see Turbos running past all day. What would they say in the Goring Gap...?

Rolling stock. Converting as many GWR services to electric operation as fast as possible is vital, but this idea would stop Turbos being sent west and, if continued after wires get to Oxford, would require more units to stay at Reading depot than currently planned, as allowing for round trips to Oxford as part of this service, even if it just ran hourly, will need several more three-car sets. Which would inevitably affect the plans for the West of England and stock cascades from there to other operators.

Is there really a justification for 4tph at most of the stations between Didcot and Reading, other than perhaps Tilehurst? I have my doubts, especially when you propose bunching up the trains close to the Didcot emus, thus rendering the frequency increase a bit of a nonsense. And non-stop running isn't on if the idea is to maintain the direct link between those stations and Oxford.

It may be a nuisance for a couple of years but I can't help thinking that a slick cross-platform or same-platform change at Didcot Parkway between emus and a Didcot-Oxford/Banbury Turbo shuttle is probably a better idea. There are already a couple of two-car sets in Reading's post-electrifcation allocation to work Oxford-Banbury shuttles and to cover the peak Cotswold Line halts services, both with plenty of spare time between duties, so add another set or two to the mix, timetable things judiciously and you probably have an interim solution in place.

 

[JamesRowden]

While it may look a nice idea in outline, I think there are a lot of flaws in this idea.

Is this part of a long-term plan for Oxford-Gatwick trains? The idea is an aspiration in many quarters but unless the electrification gaps between Reading and Redhill are bridged, allowing dual-voltage emus to do the job, and it runs fast between Didcot and Reading to make the journey time quick enough to knock out competition from the M40/M25/M23 coach link, I can't see it working.

You are proposing a lot of diesel running under the wires. How would that look in the light of all the problems with electrification? Wires are up but people still see Turbos running past all day. What would they say in the Goring Gap...?

Rolling stock. Converting as many GWR services to electric operation as fast as possible is vital, but this idea would stop Turbos being sent west and, if continued after wires get to Oxford, would require more units to stay at Reading depot than currently planned, as allowing for round trips to Oxford as part of this service, even if it just ran hourly, will need several more three-car sets. Which would inevitably affect the plans for the West of England and stock cascades from there to other operators.

Is there really a justification for 4tph at most of the stations between Didcot and Reading, other than perhaps Tilehurst? I have my doubts, especially when you propose bunching up the trains close to the Didcot emus, thus rendering the frequency increase a bit of a nonsense. And non-stop running isn't on if the idea is to maintain the direct link between those stations and Oxford.

It may be a nuisance for a couple of years but I can't help thinking that a slick cross-platform or same-platform change at Didcot Parkway between emus and a Didcot-Oxford/Banbury Turbo shuttle is probably a better idea. There are already a couple of two-car sets in Reading's post-electrifcation allocation to work Oxford-Banbury shuttles and to cover the peak Cotswold Line halts services, both with plenty of spare time between duties, so add another set or two to the mix, timetable things judiciously and you probably have an interim solution in place.

My suggestion is for just an interim measure. My chain of thought is that running turbos on Oxford to Paddington sstoppers during the peak once Didcot to Paddington is electrified would be a waste of turbos, but that through services between Oxford and the stations to Reading need to be maintained. I then thought that there would be benefits to combining the services with the North Downs services rather than terminating at Reading even if the Oxford stoppers only avoid Paddington during the peak. Compared with your idea, mine has the potential to offer many useful through services for the cost of one additional turbo being required.

 

[JN114]

My suggestion is for just an interim measure. My chain of thought is that running turbos on Oxford to Paddington sstoppers during the peak once Didcot to Paddington is electrified would be a waste of turbos, but that through services between Oxford and the stations to Reading need to be maintained. I then thought that there would be benefits to combining the services with the North Downs services rather than terminating at Reading even if the Oxford stoppers only avoid Paddington during the peak. Compared with your idea, mine has the potential to offer many useful through services for the cost of one additional turbo being required.

Creating new links and increased frequencies as an interim measure when it won't be possible to run them once electrification and cascade is complete is lunacy though - all it'll achieve is hacking off users of intermediate stations between Reading and Oxford with their reduced frequency, and people that currently change from Oxford services to N Downs services or vv at Reading, for their lost through service.

Simply delaying the cascade is probably the best course of action. Wiring to Reading/Didcot and rejigging some of the stopping service diagrams will permit some turbos to be freed up. I'd expect 1 or 2 to head West to allow traction training to take place at the west depots. Anything else freed up can be used to temporarily strengthen the busiest services. This will also keep some electrics free for traction training.

It wouldn't be the first time a major national rolling stock cascade has been delayed, and I'll bet you now it won't be last!

 

[JamesRowden]

Creating new links and increased frequencies as an interim measure when it won't be possible to run them once electrification and cascade is complete is lunacy though - all it'll achieve is hacking off users of intermediate stations between Reading and Oxford with their reduced frequency, and people that currently change from Oxford services to N Downs services or vv at Reading, for their lost through service.

Simply delaying the cascade is probably the best course of action. Wiring to Reading/Didcot and rejigging some of the stopping service diagrams will permit some turbos to be freed up. I'd expect 1 or 2 to head West to allow traction training to take place at the west depots. Anything else freed up can be used to temporarily strengthen the busiest services. This will also keep some electrics free for traction training.

It wouldn't be the first time a major national rolling stock cascade has been delayed, and I'll bet you now it won't be last!

So you think that it's better to leave EMUs in sidings and use DMUs that are needed elsewhere in order to avoid creating short term links which would later disappear?

 

[JN114]

So you think that it's better to leave EMUs in sidings and use DMUs that are needed elsewhere in order to avoid creating short term links which would later disappear?

In short, yes.

The longer answer is XC have made abundantly clear the problems with creating a level of demand that isn't sustainable. Majority of XC services on their core routes at any time of day, week and year are full and standing. Why? Because the people that decided to double the frequency of services on those core routes didn't foresee the increased demand the additional services would generate. Both the North Downs and Reading - Oxford corridor are incredibly busy in peak hours. Plus you'll start to tap that coach traffic from Oxford to Gatwick that use the coach because it's more convenient than changing trains at Reading. The 387s come in and you have to take away the direct service you've just created them (as they can't get to Gatwick via the N Downs owing to a lack of electrification), you have to reduce the recently increased frequency between Oxford and Reading as you can't run the train lengths originally committed to with new the (smaller with the turbos now gone) all electric fleet.

Then begs the question of pathing. The GW North Downs service is carefully threaded between various intense services over a lot of flat junctions, so those paths are relatively immovable without massive repercussions to the SW and SN outer suburban services on the Windsor Lines, around Guildford and on the incredibly busy Redhill - Gatwick corridor. And, Being the slowest services, the Reading - Oxford stoppers are also carefully flighted (with a long pathing stop at Didcot already) so as not to get in the way on the congested 2 track section betwixt Didcot and Oxford. Taking both of those as immovable constants that can't be arbitrarily retimed without national timetable implications, can we really afford to occupy both (you'll need 2 as they'll cross) platforms 7, and one of 13-15 at Reading for the 15-20 minute stand you'll need to get the paths to match up either side of Reading?

Then there's service recovery. The North Downs is already a nightmare to recover the service on, as there's little opportunity to turn services short, and small infrastructure problems can have a massive impact. The fact it's all self contained means that, with the exception of a bit of cross-crewing of guards with the Basingstoke line, service recovery on the N Downs only affects the N Downs. Start extending them to Oxford and you start importing all the N Downs disruption onto the GWML, and vice versa. Say nothing of potential disruption to XC services that can impact the whole country.

No, what's much, much more sensible is a gradual introduction of the EMUs into the services they can operate, with longer Turbo formations running wholly or partly under the wires until such time their diagrams can fully switch to electric traction.

Yes, the cascade of 16X stock to the west will be delayed. But enough, if not all units will move West in time to take the pacers out of service around Exeter before the deadline. No other stock transfers to other operators are formally committed to at the present time, so "hoarding" 387s that can't be used as the wires aren't up isn't hurting any other operators. The 365s are due a refurbishment before they come over to GW so that'll give them a chance to be done before making the transition.

There is more to timetable planning than looking at a trackplan and seeing what moves are possible. Oxford to Gatwick is a lucrative market that GWR and their predecessors have long looked at a way of tapping. With the exception of a few very early morning Oxford - Gatwicks in Thames days (which were about a lack of stabling at Reading more than anything else) it hasn't been done yet - don't you wonder why?

 

[D365]

The 365s are due a refurbishment before they come over to GW so that'll give them a chance to be done before making the transition.

The Class 365 refurbishment programme is ongoing and will be completed next year, before units were planned to be cascaded from Great Northern.

 

[RobShipway]

In short, yes.

The longer answer is XC have made abundantly clear the problems with creating a level of demand that isn't sustainable. Majority of XC services on their core routes at any time of day, week and year are full and standing. Why? Because the people that decided to double the frequency of services on those core routes didn't foresee the increased demand the additional services would generate. Both the North Downs and Reading - Oxford corridor are incredibly busy in peak hours. Plus you'll start to tap that coach traffic from Oxford to Gatwick that use the coach because it's more convenient than changing trains at Reading. The 387s come in and you have to take away the direct service you've just created them (as they can't get to Gatwick via the N Downs owing to a lack of electrification), you have to reduce the recently increased frequency between Oxford and Reading as you can't run the train lengths originally committed to with new the (smaller with the turbos now gone) all electric fleet.

Then begs the question of pathing. The GW North Downs service is carefully threaded between various intense services over a lot of flat junctions, so those paths are relatively immovable without massive repercussions to the SW and SN outer suburban services on the Windsor Lines, around Guildford and on the incredibly busy Redhill - Gatwick corridor. And, Being the slowest services, the Reading - Oxford stoppers are also carefully flighted (with a long pathing stop at Didcot already) so as not to get in the way on the congested 2 track section betwixt Didcot and Oxford. Taking both of those as immovable constants that can't be arbitrarily retimed without national timetable implications, can we really afford to occupy both (you'll need 2 as they'll cross) platforms 7, and one of 13-15 at Reading for the 15-20 minute stand you'll need to get the paths to match up either side of Reading?

Then there's service recovery. The North Downs is already a nightmare to recover the service on, as there's little opportunity to turn services short, and small infrastructure problems can have a massive impact. The fact it's all self contained means that, with the exception of a bit of cross-crewing of guards with the Basingstoke line, service recovery on the N Downs only affects the N Downs. Start extending them to Oxford and you start importing all the N Downs disruption onto the GWML, and vice versa. Say nothing of potential disruption to XC services that can impact the whole country.

No, what's much, much more sensible is a gradual introduction of the EMUs into the services they can operate, with longer Turbo formations running wholly or partly under the wires until such time their diagrams can fully switch to electric traction.

Yes, the cascade of 16X stock to the west will be delayed. But enough, if not all units will move West in time to take the pacers out of service around Exeter before the deadline. No other stock transfers to other operators are formally committed to at the present time, so "hoarding" 387s that can't be used as the wires aren't up isn't hurting any other operators. The 365s are due a refurbishment before they come over to GW so that'll give them a chance to be done before making the transition.

There is more to timetable planning than looking at a trackplan and seeing what moves are possible. Oxford to Gatwick is a lucrative market that GWR and their predecessors have long looked at a way of tapping. With the exception of a few very early morning Oxford - Gatwicks in Thames days (which were about a lack of stabling at Reading more than anything else) it hasn't been done yet - don't you wonder why?

First, I agree with all your points above but have to correct you that there has been a Oxford - Gatwick service before, which was run as part of the original Virgin Cross Country services to/from Brighton.

Admittedly, the paths are no longer there but if you are going to have a Oxford to Gatwick service, I feel that it should be part of a regular XC service from Brighton to say Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow. But that is never going to happen now.

If was not for the fact that Grand central will get the 5 Class 180 trains, I would say that 2 or 3 of those should be used on the stopping service, after the arrival of the Hybrid class 800's between Reading and Oxford.

 

[D365]

Could the 4 Class 180s currently operated by Hull Trains, when replaced by the AT300s that are currently on order, be of use in that case?

 

[Class 170101]

Aren't Grand Central getting those 180s as well? Remember they are dispensing with their HSTs.

 

[RobShipway]

Aren't Grand Central getting those 180s as well? Remember they are dispensing with their HSTs.

According to Wikipedia, it is just the 5 GWR class 180's that are going to Grand central. The 4 Hull trains Class 180's would still be available.

 

[D365]

According to Wikipedia ...

:roll:

... it is just the 5 GWR class 180s that are going to Grand central. The 4 Hull trains Class 180s would still be available.

The news that Hull Trains will be ordering AT300s only came a few months ago. No decision has been announced yet, regarding future plans for the remaining Class 180s.

 

[jimm]

First, I agree with all your points above but have to correct you that there has been a Oxford - Gatwick service before, which was run as part of the original Virgin Cross Country services to/from Brighton.

Admittedly, the paths are no longer there but if you are going to have a Oxford to Gatwick service, I feel that it should be part of a regular XC service from Brighton to say Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow. But that is never going to happen now.

If was not for the fact that Grand central will get the 5 Class 180 trains, I would say that 2 or 3 of those should be used on the stopping service, after the arrival of the Hybrid class 800's between Reading and Oxford.

Yes, XC used to link Oxford and Gatwick but the question under discussion here is a potential point-to-point service via Reading, Guildford and Redhill, not the former intermediate journey possible on long-distance services mainly routed via West London. The paths for those along the GWML and down to Brighton are long gone, so, as you say, no chance of them coming back.

Class 180s on stopping services? Not happening. They are slow to load and unload, especially with just one passenger door on the driving coaches and a big step up and down. In addition, FGW/GWR had a bad experience when they put 180s on some Oxford semi-fasts after their return in 2012, with the effects of frequent stops and starts between Didcot and Reading thought to be pulling down mechanical reliability badly by comparison with the HT and GC sets that spend most of their time cruising along at speed up and down the ECML. Hence the switch of a set from an early Oxford-Paddington semi-fast to a limited-stop Newbury-Paddington

The use of a 180 on the 17.18 Paddington-Oxford - and an HST on the 17.36 semi-fast - is down to their ability to run at up to 125mph on the fast line to the first stop at Maidenhead and the lack of any more suitable stock for these jobs until the 387s arrive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My suggestion is for just an interim measure. My chain of thought is that running turbos on Oxford to Paddington sstoppers during the peak once Didcot to Paddington is electrified would be a waste of turbos, but that through services between Oxford and the stations to Reading need to be maintained. I then thought that there would be benefits to combining the services with the North Downs services rather than terminating at Reading even if the Oxford stoppers only avoid Paddington during the peak. Compared with your idea, mine has the potential to offer many useful through services for the cost of one additional turbo being required.

But as I, and JN114 have both said, once you give people the idea they can do Oxford-Gatwick direct, taking it away again two years later is not going to go down well - if you are going to do it, then do it properly - which requires electrification throughout as a minimum and preferably better infrastructure as well to address at least some of the intermediate points of conflict and potential delay that JN114 identifies.

And of course it would be a waste running Turbos to Paddington once the wires are in use - which is why it is not going to happen. While maintaining the direct link into Oxford for intermediate stations in the Thames Valley would be nice, well-organised electric to diesel connections at Didcot - where, as noted above, most semi-fasts already stand for seven minutes or so anyway, so ample time to step off one train and straight on to another - would not be the end of the world as an intermediate measure.

A fair few people commute into Didcot anyway from both directions to get to work at the likes of the Milton Park business estate or the Harwell Science Centre, using the onward bus links, so for them a Class 387 from Paddington and Reading only going as far as Didcot Parkway or a Turbo just doing Oxford-Didcot would be fine.

One additional Turbo? Perhaps for an Oxford/Banbury-Didcot shuttle, in addition to the sets already allotted to Oxford area work post-electrification. But to allow for semi-fasts linked to the Reading-Gatwick route, I somehow doubt it. A round trip for a semi-fast between Reading and Oxford typically takes 50 minutes each way, plus the time to go into the sidings at Oxford and then cross back to platform 1 for the return journey, so two hours seems a reasonable allowance to complete the exercise. i'm no diagramming expert but that looks like it needs several Turbos to maintain a 2tph frequency - and preferably make allowance for a 'hot spare' set to step up if there is disruption south of Reading that mucks up the timetable.

And that pair of two-car 165s will need to be at Oxford anyway, even after wires reach Oxford. What you are suggesting requires more Turbos to remain in the Thames Valley for longer than necessary and three-car sets at that to meet the requirements of Reading-Gatwick, when three-cars are desperately needed around Bristol.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Class 365 refurbishment programme is ongoing and will be completed next year, before units were planned to be cascaded from Great Northern.

Plenty more work will be needed before GWR can use them - new livery, whether paint or vinyls, and seat trim for starters, plus CCTV equipment and in-cab displays for driver-only operation, plus Dellner couplings, so they and 387s can can attach to each other for rescue purposes if a train fails.

 

[D365]

Plenty more work will be needed before GWR can use them - new livery, whether paint or vinyls, and seat trim for starters, plus CCTV equipment and in-cab displays for driver-only operation, plus Dellner couplings, so they and 387s can can attach to each other for rescue purposes if a train fails.

But in their current state, they're just fine for Great Northern?

 

[RobShipway]

Yes, XC used to link Oxford and Gatwick but the question under discussion here is a potential point-to-point service via Reading, Guildford and Redhill, not the former intermediate journey possible on long-distance services mainly routed via West London. The paths for those along the GWML and down to Brighton are long gone, so, as you say, no chance of them coming back.

Class 180s on stopping services? Not happening. They are slow to load and unload, especially with just one passenger door on the driving coaches and a big step up and down. In addition, FGW/GWR had a bad experience when they put 180s on some Oxford semi-fasts after their return in 2012, with the effects of frequent stops and starts between Didcot and Reading thought to be pulling down mechanical reliability badly by comparison with the HT and GC sets that spend most of their time cruising along at speed up and down the ECML. Hence the switch of a set from an early Oxford-Paddington semi-fast to a limited-stop Newbury-Paddington

The use of a 180 on the 17.18 Paddington-Oxford - and an HST on the 17.36 semi-fast - is down to their ability to run at up to 125mph on the fast line to the first stop at Maidenhead and the lack of any more suitable stock for these jobs until the 387s arrive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But as I, and JN114 have both said, once you give people the idea they can do Oxford-Gatwick direct, taking it away again two years later is not going to go down well - if you are going to do it, then do it properly - which requires electrification throughout as a minimum and preferably better infrastructure as well to address at least some of the intermediate points of conflict and potential delay that JN114 identifies.

And of course it would be a waste running Turbos to Paddington once the wires are in use - which is why it is not going to happen. While maintaining the direct link into Oxford for intermediate stations in the Thames Valley would be nice, well-organised electric to diesel connections at Didcot - where, as noted above, most semi-fasts already stand for seven minutes or so anyway, so ample time to step off one train and straight on to another - would not be the end of the world as an intermediate measure.

A fair few people commute into Didcot anyway from both directions to get to work at the likes of the Milton Park business estate or the Harwell Science Centre, using the onward bus links, so for them a Class 387 from Paddington and Reading only going as far as Didcot Parkway or a Turbo just doing Oxford-Didcot would be fine.

One additional Turbo? Perhaps for an Oxford/Banbury-Didcot shuttle, in addition to the sets already allotted to Oxford area work post-electrification. But to allow for semi-fasts linked to the Reading-Gatwick route, I somehow doubt it. A round trip for a semi-fast between Reading and Oxford typically takes 50 minutes each way, plus the time to go into the sidings at Oxford and then cross back to platform 1 for the return journey, so two hours seems a reasonable allowance to complete the exercise. i'm no diagramming expert but that looks like it needs several Turbos to maintain a 2tph frequency - and preferably make allowance for a 'hot spare' set to step up if there is disruption south of Reading that mucks up the timetable.

And that pair of two-car 165s will need to be at Oxford anyway, even after wires reach Oxford. What you are suggesting requires more Turbos to remain in the Thames Valley for longer than necessary and three-car sets at that to meet the requirements of Reading-Gatwick, when three-cars are desperately needed around Bristol.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Plenty more work will be needed before GWR can use them - new livery, whether paint or vinyls, and seat trim for starters, plus CCTV equipment and in-cab displays for driver-only operation, plus Dellner couplings, so they and 387s can can attach to each other for rescue purposes if a train fails.

So explain to me then, how 3 of the class 180's where good enough to do stopping services in place of class 150's with Northern then please?

As you state the three car clas 165/166's are needed elsewhere towards Bristol, the two car 165's will not have large enough capacity unless used in pairs to do a Didcot - Banbury stopping service?

Also, note that the class 180's pretty much do the stopping service in Peak times on the Cotswold line.

 

[Domh245]

So explain to me then, how 3 of the class 180's where good enough to do stopping services in place of class 150's with Northern then please?

Because that was the only available rolling stock. They didn't want to put them on those services, they were forced to because there weren't any viable alternatives!

 

[RobShipway]

Because that was the only available rolling stock. They didn't want to put them on those services, they were forced to because there weren't any viable alternatives!

Okay, so if the two & three class 165's and the 3 car 166's need to move west to replace class 142's etc, what choice does GWR have but to use the class 180's doing shuttle service between Reading/Didcot - Oxford/Banbury if the wires are not in place?

 

[The Ham]

Okay, so if the two & three class 165's and the 3 car 166's need to move west to replace class 142's etc, what choice does GWR have but to use the class 180's doing shuttle service between Reading/Didcot - Oxford/Banbury if the wires are not in place?

The alternative is the status quo, but with 800's and 801's replacing HST's on some services (to allow enough HST's to head to Scotland). It would, however, mean pacers staying with Northern to closer to the 2020 deadline, but they don't want southern (well southwestern in this case) castoffs anyway so that won't upset them.

 

[jimm]

Okay, so if the two & three class 165's and the 3 car 166's need to move west to replace class 142's etc, what choice does GWR have but to use the class 180's doing shuttle service between Reading/Didcot - Oxford/Banbury if the wires are not in place?

As I keep saying, the alternative is that for a couple of years you cut short the Paddington-Oxford semi-fasts as Didcot, where, in the seven to 10minute window the current timetable provides you get passengers to change to/from a Turbo to get to/from Oxford.

To assist towards the delivery of which there are already a pair of Turbos allotted to Oxford, irrespective of the electrification, ie sets that are not part of the allocation destined for cascade to Bristol - unlike the idea of linking the Oxford-Reading leg of the semi-fasts with Gatwick, which would need lots more Turbos and three-car sets to boot. An Oxford-Didcot shuttle would probably need no more than a couple of extra two-car sets.

Oxford-Reading passengers will still have GWR and XC fasts to use every 15 minutes, same as they do now and in the big scheme of things a limited period of disruption for the passengers at the intermediate stations travelling to/from Oxford or going from Radley, Culham and Appleford towards Reading or London is unfortunate but not the end of the world - and anyone going to/from Reading from stations east of Didcot will be on an emu anyway.

So explain to me then, how 3 of the class 180's where good enough to do stopping services in place of class 150's with Northern then please?

As you state the three car clas 165/166's are needed elsewhere towards Bristol, the two car 165's will not have large enough capacity unless used in pairs to do a Didcot - Banbury stopping service?

Also, note that the class 180's pretty much do the stopping service in Peak times on the Cotswold line.

As said above, they were what Northern could get its hands on - and the persistent mechanical problems and poor availability throughout their time in Manchester were hardly a secret.

Exactly how many people do you think use the stoppers between Banbury and Oxford? Point-to-point passengers will use faster XC services unless they have just missed one and a GWR service is close behind. It could be a squeeze in a two-car on one or two peak trains between Didcot and Oxford but 180s are already used to help here by calling on a couple of contra-peak Cotswold Line-bound trains in the morning, so 800s could well be used in the same way in future, both in the interim and long term.

That a 180 works the afternoon halts train up the Cotswold Line is because the selective door opening they offer allows a two-car Turbo that would otherwise be to be needed to serve Combe and Finstock to be allocated elsewhere in the Thames Valley to strengthen a Turbo service, not because it is seen as the most desirable use of a 180. The morning halts train into Oxford has always been a two-car 165 and the plan post-electrification is that the afternoon train will revert to one, hence one of that pair of 165s already being slated for use at Oxford.

 

[RobShipway]

As I keep saying, the alternative is that for a couple of years you cut short the Paddington-Oxford semi-fasts as Didcot, where, in the seven to 10minute window the current timetable provides you get passengers to change to/from a Turbo to get to/from Oxford.

To assist towards the delivery of which there are already a pair of Turbos allotted to Oxford, irrespective of the electrification, ie sets that are not part of the allocation destined for cascade to Bristol - unlike the idea of linking the Oxford-Reading leg of the semi-fasts with Gatwick, which would need lots more Turbos and three-car sets to boot. An Oxford-Didcot shuttle would probably need no more than a couple of extra two-car sets.

Oxford-Reading passengers will still have GWR and XC fasts to use every 15 minutes, same as they do now and in the big scheme of things a limited period of disruption for the passengers at the intermediate stations travelling to/from Oxford or going from Radley, Culham and Appleford towards Reading or London is unfortunate but not the end of the world - and anyone going to/from Reading from stations east of Didcot will be on an emu anyway.



As said above, they were what Northern could get its hands on - and the persistent mechanical problems and poor availability throughout their time in Manchester were hardly a secret.

Exactly how many people do you think use the stoppers between Banbury and Oxford? Point-to-point passengers will use faster XC services unless they have just missed one and a GWR service is close behind. It could be a squeeze in a two-car on one or two peak trains between Didcot and Oxford but 180s are already used to help here by calling on a couple of contra-peak Cotswold Line-bound trains in the morning, so 800s could well be used in the same way in future, both in the interim and long term.

That a 180 works the afternoon halts train up the Cotswold Line is because the selective door opening they offer allows a two-car Turbo that would otherwise be to be needed to serve Combe and Finstock to be allocated elsewhere in the Thames Valley to strengthen a Turbo service, not because it is seen as the most desirable use of a 180. The morning halts train into Oxford has always been a two-car 165 and the plan post-electrification is that the afternoon train will revert to one, hence one of that pair of 165s already being slated for use at Oxford.

Okay, thanks Jimm.

 

[Rapidash]

Just to be clear, purely from a selfish Devon Metro users point of view, when are we waving bon voyage to the Pacers and nabbing the extra Sprinters? Cause it's getting harder and harder to nab a seat in the evening on the single 143....I get all envious when the 159's turn up on P3!

Next year? 2017?

 

[swt_passenger]

Just to be clear, purely from a selfish Devon Metro users point of view, when are we waving bon voyage to the Pacers and nabbing the extra Sprinters? Cause it's getting harder and harder to nab a seat in the evening on the single 143....I get all envious when the 159's turn up on P3!

Next year? 2017?

If your question could be answered this thread probably wouldn't have been started. The whole issue is up in the air, and until NR firm up their wiring dates route by route we can't know.

 

[The Ham]

If your question could be answered this thread probably wouldn't have been started. The whole issue is up in the air, and until NR firm up their wiring dates route by route we can't know.

Although we don't need to know the end date before improvements could start to happen. Also even with firm dates for wiring routes there is still a of possible options for the released stock and a lot for us to discuss here until it is all finished.

For instance as soon as there is enough stock released to justify moving some 16x's towards Bristol it could then allow some of the stock around Bristol to head to Exeter.

Depending on how many different types of sets that are going to be cascaded through (i.e. 80x's replaces HST's HST's replace 166's, 166 replace 158's, 158's replace 150's, 150's replace 144's, 144's replace 153's, which then could allow 153's to run in pairs) one unit being released from the Thames Valley could result in improvements on anything between 1 and 7 different services (or possibly even more).

Also depending on the length of service being replaced you could see more or less improvements. For instance a train used on 5 hour end to end service gets moved to a service which is 1 hour end to end will result in more services improving that it going the other way (i.e. from a 1 hour service to a hour service).

There is also the question of what do gWr see as a priority, are they going to increase to 3tph between Reading and Gatwick before or after lengthening services around Bristol and Exeter? Do they replace the 150's on the Reading/Basingstoke service with 16x's to allow them to go elsewhere or do they send the 16x's to Bristol to allow the units there to go elsewhere?

Finally there is the question of how when gWr start to release for elsewhere their existing stock. Clearly HST's to Scotland will happen fairly quickly, however given that Scotrail want 27 shortened sets and gWr have 58 full length sets and only appear to want about 20 of those for the Cornish services, however that still leaves about 10 which should be enough to run a half hourly service between Paddington and Oxford.

 

[sprinterguy]

Just to be clear, purely from a selfish Devon Metro users point of view, when are we waving bon voyage to the Pacers and nabbing the extra Sprinters? Cause it's getting harder and harder to nab a seat in the evening on the single 143....I get all envious when the 159's turn up on P3!

Next year? 2017?

The cascade of Turbos from the Thames Valley was due to start in June 2017, and the full raft of timetable changes and capacity enhancements was due to be implemented in December 2018, before the current delays in the GWML wiring became apparent, so I wouldn't expect to see any change for at least another two years, and nothing major for more than three (at least).

The 143s are due off lease between January and July 2017, and the 150/1s between August 2017 and December 2018 - I don't know whether we can expect to see short term lease extensions negotiated on at least a part of these fleets (three of the 143s are actually assets of the franchise, for example, so shouldn't be too hard to keep hold of for a while longer, I would have thought).

 

[jimm]

Although we don't need to know the end date before improvements could start to happen. Also even with firm dates for wiring routes there is still a of possible options for the released stock and a lot for us to discuss here until it is all finished.

For instance as soon as there is enough stock released to justify moving some 16x's towards Bristol it could then allow some of the stock around Bristol to head to Exeter.

Depending on how many different types of sets that are going to be cascaded through (i.e. 80x's replaces HST's HST's replace 166's, 166 replace 158's, 158's replace 150's, 150's replace 144's, 144's replace 153's, which then could allow 153's to run in pairs) one unit being released from the Thames Valley could result in improvements on anything between 1 and 7 different services (or possibly even more).

Also depending on the length of service being replaced you could see more or less improvements. For instance a train used on 5 hour end to end service gets moved to a service which is 1 hour end to end will result in more services improving that it going the other way (i.e. from a 1 hour service to a hour service).

There is also the question of what do gWr see as a priority, are they going to increase to 3tph between Reading and Gatwick before or after lengthening services around Bristol and Exeter? Do they replace the 150's on the Reading/Basingstoke service with 16x's to allow them to go elsewhere or do they send the 16x's to Bristol to allow the units there to go elsewhere?

Finally there is the question of how when gWr start to release for elsewhere their existing stock. Clearly HST's to Scotland will happen fairly quickly, however given that Scotrail want 27 shortened sets and gWr have 58 full length sets and only appear to want about 20 of those for the Cornish services, however that still leaves about 10 which should be enough to run a half hourly service between Paddington and Oxford.

I take it you mean 143s, as that's the only type of Pacer GWR operates. The 150/0s will most likely be going west the instant that some emus start working inner suburban jobs in the Thames Valley and ease the pressure on the Turbo fleet. And class 387s will displace plenty of Turbos once they can operate at least as far as Didcot.

Some HSTs will most likely be needed longer than planned for Oxford-London fasts, but you won't need that many, because half the service - and more in the direction of the main peak flows - will be provided by Cotswold Line Class 800 services. Unless the 800s destined for the Cotswold Line are initially used on Bristol/Cardiff jobs until wires get to those places meaning HSTs survive a bit longer to Worcester, Hereford and Cheltenham. There are only 52 or 53 HST rakes in service with GWR, not 58.

But all will probably become clearer shortly, once Network Rail's revised enhancement plan appears, giving some idea of the dates at which wires get to particular places - or at least are now supposed to get to them.