GWR short train lengths

[irish_rail]

I caught the 10:04 a few weeks ago and there wasn’t a huge amount of room on board, I’m not sure there’s room for all those customers with super off-peak tickets. You’d end up with a worse example of the 12:04.

Agree, I remember the 1004 used to be awful until the changes a few years ago.

 

[CC 72100]

The challenges with the 12.03 Penzance especially on a Friday are well known and there’s plans to look at a solution for next summer.

That train (used to be 1512 off Plymouth into Cornwall) was a regular F+S in HST days, so its far from a new problem.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

That train (used to be 1512 off Plymouth into Cornwall) was a regular F+S in HST days, so its far from a new problem.

However a 9 car IET has far more seats than an HST did so that masked the problem for a while.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2023 ==

Agree, I remember the 1004 used to be awful until the changes a few years ago.

The 10.04 of course has a semi-fast both before and after it (meaning it doesn’t need to call at Taunton) where as there is no 11.35 semi-fast.

 

[heathrowrail]

Basically GWR got told by the DFT to cut costs, so all the Castle sets, 769s and 3 electrostars have been removed. Meanwhile they DFT has also told GWR they need to operate more services back to similar 2019 levels. Basically the usual DFT meddling without having a clue what they are doing.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Basically GWR got told by the DFT to cut costs, so all the Castle sets, 769s and 3 electrostars have been removed. Meanwhile they DFT has also told GWR they need to operate more services back to similar 2019 levels. Basically the usual DFT meddling without having a clue what they are doing.

At least common sense has seen some HSTs to stay on a while longer to cover the turbo refresh works

 

[Snow1964]

Basically GWR got told by the DFT to cut costs, so all the Castle sets, 769s and 3 electrostars have been removed. Meanwhile they DFT has also told GWR they need to operate more services back to similar 2019 levels. Basically the usual DFT meddling without having a clue what they are doing.

The latest ORR report shows GWR back to 96% of pre pandemic services (table 4.1), but are only operating 93% of vehicle Km (table 5.1). Thus on average trains are shorter.

Meanwhile average GWR passenger is travelling 15% further (table 2.2)

ORR doesn't split by Operator the breakdown by commuter, long distance and regional split. However been suggested (in other threads) that for GWR commuter is down about third, long distance similar, and regional nearer 115% of 2019 figures. So obviously the squeeze on train lengths is tightest on the long secondary routes

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/2207/passenger-rail-usage-jan-mar-2023.pdf

So DfT meddling has done nothing apart from cut 7% of vehicle Km operated, but generally in wrong place by stopping turbos moving west, and attacking the castle HSTs on long secondary lines, both of which affect the areas that are booming.

 

[Xavi]

GWR commuter is down about third, long distance similar,

Definitely up on London - Devon & Cornwall.

 

[irish_rail]

The latest ORR report shows GWR back to 96% of pre pandemic services (table 4.1), but are only operating 93% of vehicle Km (table 5.1). Thus on average trains are shorter.

Meanwhile average GWR passenger is travelling 15% further (table 2.2)

ORR doesn't split by Operator the breakdown by commuter, long distance and regional split. However been suggested (in other threads) that for GWR commuter is down about third, long distance similar, and regional nearer 115% of 2019 figures. So obviously the squeeze on train lengths is tightest on the long secondary routes

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/2207/passenger-rail-usage-jan-mar-2023.pdf

So DfT meddling has done nothing apart from cut 7% of vehicle Km operated, but generally in wrong place by stopping turbos moving west, and attacking the castle HSTs on long secondary lines, both of which affect the areas that are booming.

That fits with what I see on the ground. The intercity stuff is most definitely busier than pre pandemic. At some point , someone is going to need to make a case for extending some 5s to 9s, as once the industrial action finishes and the economy picks up, I can see ridership going through the roof. There just won't be that capacity if we don't act now.

 

[Horizon22]

All trains should be at least nine cars to major destinations such as Oxford, Worcester, Bristol, Swansea, Cardiff, Exeter and Plymouth.

Especially at busy times and during the increasingly busy weekends.

GWR simply don’t have the available stock to do this (nor would Hitachi release it all anyway on the weekend)

 

[Taunton]

The use of short 5-car trains is treated here as if some sort of novelty. In fact my experience of GWR has been shortened formations right from day 1 when they could; my first ever experience of the 800s was such, Cardiff to London, and likewise has continued ever since, from long before Covid, various cracks, passenger loss, and whatever.

Even without cracking this was impossible because of the longer than expected times to couple units, which unfortunately Oxford cannot handle

One does wonder how many more generations of multiple units which cannot multiple up effectively will be introduced. The old Southern used to join up slam door units in less than 60 seconds, every hour at various points, without issue. Is it not part of the specification?

 

[Topological]

The xx48 from London always form from the arrival from Swansea (seemingly) so what prevents the Cardiff trains being EMU?

It is a particular question of mine because clearly the first and last trains start in Swansea but they do not need to. I dont think Swansea justifies so many trains to London. EMUs starting in Cardiff and hourly from Swansea would be fine.

80x on the Cardiff to South West could start in Swansea to add back capacity between Swansea and Cardiff if really needed.

No doubt the DfT would not fund the necessary extra EMUs but...

 

[dk1]

I often used to use the 12:03 or 13:03 to get to Torquay changing at Abbot and always found the Penzance to be a particular nightmare. I aim for the fairly new 14:36 direct nowadays which is an absolute godsend. Okay it gets you there a bit later but just start your holiday onboard with a couple of beers. Perfect!!

 

[Nym]

The use of short 5-car trains is treated here as if some sort of novelty. In fact my experience of GWR has been shortened formations right from day 1 when they could; my first ever experience of the 800s was such, Cardiff to London, and likewise has continued ever since, from long before Covid, various cracks, passenger loss, and whatever.



One does wonder how many more generations of multiple units which cannot multiple up effectively will be introduced. The old Southern used to join up slam door units in less than 60 seconds, every hour at various points, without issue. Is it not part of the specification?

For however long politicians keep ordering trains…
There’s nothing stopping them coupling in 30 seconds other than the software and HF design of the cab.
Turning on one of them cabs even from “warm” is a corigographed dance on the controls.
Compared with the 90s kit it’s ridiculous.

 

[Snow1964]

That fits with what I see on the ground. The intercity stuff is most definitely busier than pre pandemic. At some point , someone is going to need to make a case for extending some 5s to 9s, as once the industrial action finishes and the economy picks up, I can see ridership going through the roof. There just won't be that capacity if we don't act now.

I do wonder if the 9car should be increased to 10car, would improve seat count over pairs of 5car units (for same platform length), especially as has been reported some trains now carrying over 1000 people.

Currently have the problem of some workings being 5+5 because too busy for 5car, but wasteful as double unit, as really only needs 7cars. So I do wonder if it would be better to reconfigure fleet (if no one allows extra vehicles) by lengthening some 9car to 10car, then shortening remaining 9car to 7car and at same time lengthening some 5car to 7car.

There are very few workings that need a 9 car unit, a proportion would be better as 10car, and most of the rest would be ok as 7car. Much better to have a lot of the struggling workings to have a better train length.

Would it be worse having 3 lengths of IET, not a lot especially as the 5+5 workings all day mean effectively have 3 lengths already.

 

[dk1]

I do wonder if the 9car should be increased to 10car, would improve seat count over pairs of 5car units (for same platform length), especially as has been reported some trains now carrying over 1000 people.

Currently have the problem of some workings being 5+5 because too busy for 5car, but wasteful as double unit, as really only needs 7cars. So I do wonder if it would be better to reconfigure fleet (if no one allows extra vehicles) by lengthening some 9car to 10car, then shortening remaining 9car to 7car and at same time lengthening some 5car to 7car.

There are very few workings that need a 9 car unit, a proportion would be better as 10car, and most of the rest would be ok as 7car. Much better to have a lot of the struggling workings to have a better train length.

Would it be worse having 3 lengths of IET, not a lot especially as the 5+5 workings all day mean effectively have 3 lengths already.

I think it all comes down to operational requirements. 7-car does not allow units to couple in the majority of locations and causes issues with depot capacity.

 

[Nym]

No. Have one length unless there’s locations where that won’t fit and would exceed the capabilities of SDO.
One standard fleet, carry some fresh air and get over it.

Or, use LHCS or easily reconfigurable multiple units that can be demand responsive in a meaningful manner

 

[Mark J]

GWR simply don’t have the available stock to do this (nor would Hitachi release it all anyway on the weekend)

A case then for bringing back the much missed class 165/166 for London Paddington to Oxford services. The IET trains that are freed up from doing the Paddington to Oxford route could be used to lengthen other longer distance services, such as less frequently served Worcester and Hereford.

I agree with other comments about electrification not being done between Didcot and Oxford as short sighted and counter productive. Those class 387 could have been doing the service as we speak, if it wasn't for the lack of wires.

Are there any plans to re-look at electrification to Oxford once the Station is complete? Or will the DfT just kick the can down the road until a suitable bi/tri-mode train comes along?

 

[Snow1964]

Are there any plans to re-look at electrification to Oxford once the Station is complete? Or will the DfT just kick the can down the road until a suitable bi/tri-mode train comes along?

Not funded currently so officially on hold (until further notice)

Not abandoned (much of the design work to South of Oxford station was completed and is still on file)

However with the 387s also working Heathrow services, would probably need to find spare electric units to operate a full Oxford service.

 

[JonathanH]

A case then for bringing back the much missed class 165/166 for London Paddington to Oxford services.

Much missed by who? While I personally miss the incongruity of a 165 running flat out from Paddington with all the windows open, I don't think other passengers would want them back even if there were enough units.

Those class 387 could have been doing the service as we speak, if it wasn't for the lack of wires.

We may need to be realistic about the capacity of an 8-car 387 formation relative to 9-car 80x.

 

[Anonymous10]

The xx48 from London always form from the arrival from Swansea (seemingly) so what prevents the Cardiff trains being EMU?

It is a particular question of mine because clearly the first and last trains start in Swansea but they do not need to. I dont think Swansea justifies so many trains to London. EMUs starting in Cardiff and hourly from Swansea would be fine.

80x on the Cardiff to South West could start in Swansea to add back capacity between Swansea and Cardiff if really needed.

No doubt the DfT would not fund the necessary extra EMUs but...

The 80x between Swansea and Cardiff is very much needed hourly it connects west Wales and is well patronised from my experience to remove it and not replace it would be a disaster for south Wales.

 

[sk688]

On a 5 car Bristol service this morning which should have been a 10 and was rammed throughout, to her credit the TM was apologetic and encouraged passengers to " write to GWR customer service as we are seeing more short forms recently"

 

[Topological]

The 80x between Swansea and Cardiff is very much needed hourly it connects west Wales and is well patronised from my experience to remove it and not replace it would be a disaster for south Wales.

Sorry for clarity I do not see that the hourly 80x would be axed.

Currently there is 1tph Swansea to London (some from Carmarthen) to London which has to be bi-mode. That needs to be a 9/10 and almost always is.

There is 1tph Cardiff to London which is under the wires all the way and could be an EMU given the country has spare EMU.

The only variations come in the morning when all trains start in Swansea and Swansea gets a half hourly service to London. This feels excessive, and presumably is entirely because of the depot being in Swansea.

What I am saying is those early 80x could go to the South West instead of London. The paths from Cardiff that those London trains did run in being operated by EMU from the outset.

The result would be the same capacity between Swansea and Newport, additional opportunities between Swansea and Bristol (in those early slots, reverse at night) and then the saved 80x from not using 80x on the Cardiff to London could be used for strengthening the 5s that need to be 9/10.

I do not think anyone would advocate reducing frequency, or capacity between South Wales and London.

 

[david1212]

... One does wonder how many more generations of multiple units which cannot multiple up effectively will be introduced. The old Southern used to join up slam door units in less than 60 seconds, every hour at various points, without issue. Is it not part of the specification?

For however long politicians keep ordering trains…
There’s nothing stopping them coupling in 30 seconds other than the software and HF design of the cab.
Turning on one of them cabs even from “warm” is a corigographed dance on the controls.
Compared with the 90s kit it’s ridiculous.

Yet what does all this software achieve? Other than electronic seat reservations operationally what gain is there in an 80x over a HST to current specification with GWR ATP or TWPS. As never HST as sets of 2+5 with the option to couple as pairs of course no direct comparision but functionally as I see it ought not to be different from coupling say 165/6 sets.

Across the board now even if DMU and EMU can physically join without any adapter they can not be operated beyond an emergeny recovery due to software. If only 14x/15x compatibility still was the standard.

No. Have one length unless there’s locations where that won’t fit and would exceed the capabilities of SDO.
One standard fleet, carry some fresh air and get over it.

Carrying fresh air is not just masses of spare seats but wasted energy and vehicle miles. The latter also means the vehicles are not available for maintenance.

Or, use LHCS or easily reconfigurable multiple units that can be demand responsive in a meaningful manner

.... is the correct answer.

 

[Benjwri]

Yet what does all this software achieve? Other than electronic seat reservations operationally what gain is there in an 80x over a HST to current specification with GWR ATP or TWPS. As never HST as sets of 2+5 with the option to couple as pairs of course no direct comparision but functionally as I see it ought not to be different from coupling say 165/6 sets.

The issue with coupling is because ETCS along the GWML was dropped at some point in design or production, so GWR ATP had to be fitted onto the 80X at a late stage, and unfortunately that causes issues with the systems interfacing when coupling.

Speaking of stock issues a rather ridiculous service to Oxford today. 09:22 was cancelled earlier in the day, 11:22 has been swapped to a 387 and cancelled past Didcot and 12:22 cancelled. Fortunately they’ve dug out a 9 car for the inbetween Hereford (probably the short formed Bristol), but that is going to be an unbelievably busy train.

Has there been some kind of issue today at Stoke Gifford? We just went past North Pole and there was only 1 set parked up not inside, so all these short forms are odd.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2023 ==

It also seems GWR are refusing to acknowledge short forms on JourneyCheck, as I am sat on the 1118 London to Swansea, which the staff themselves are admitting has been short formed for a 9 vice a 10, but this doesn’t appear on JourneyCheck.

 

[Master29]

Ah the days of the relief train. Not going to happen though.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

It also seems GWR are refusing to acknowledge short forms on JourneyCheck, as I am sat on the 1118 London to Swansea, which the staff themselves are admitting has been short formed for a 9 vice a 10, but this doesn’t appear on JourneyCheck.

9 v 10 is not a regarded as a short form as the seating capacity is near on identical - 9s and 10s are treated as interchangeable on GWR.

On LNER with the buffets a 10 car actually has less capacity than a 9 car.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2023 ==

Yet what does all this software achieve?

Most modern vehicles have vast amounts of electronics instead of moving parts for their control systems. Look at ‘glass cockpits’ on aeroplanes etc versus traditional cockpits with flight engineers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2023 ==

The issue with coupling is because ETCS along the GWML was dropped at some point in design or production, so GWR ATP had to be fitted onto the 80X at a late stage, and unfortunately that causes issues with the systems interfacing when coupling.

Indeed, changing the specification at a late stage was not helpful.

 

[Siemens Staines]

It looks from journeycheck that an entire Oxford diagram, to and from Didcot, is 8-car 387 vice 9-car IET today although not all of them appear to have run.

08:20 London Paddington to Oxford due 09:15 will be terminated at Didcot Parkway.
10:00 Oxford to London Paddington due 10:54 will be started from Didcot Parkway.
11:22 London Paddington to Oxford due 12:16 will be terminated at Didcot Parkway.
13:00 Oxford to London Paddington due 13:55 will be started from Didcot Parkway.
14:22 London Paddington to Oxford due 15:16 will be terminated at Didcot Parkway.
16:00 Oxford to London Paddington due 16:52 will be started from Didcot Parkway.
17:22 London Paddington to Oxford due 18:16 will be terminated at Didcot Parkway.
19:00 Oxford to London Paddington due 19:54 will be started from Didcot Parkway.
20:22 London Paddington to Oxford due 21:21 will be terminated at Didcot Parkway.
22:00 Oxford to London Paddington due 23:09 will be started from Didcot Parkway.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

It looks from journeycheck that an entire Oxford diagram, to and from Didcot, is 8-car 387 vice 9-car IET today although not all of them appear to have run.

08:20 London Paddington to Oxford due 09:15 will be terminated at Didcot Parkway.
10:00 Oxford to London Paddington due 10:54 will be started from Didcot Parkway.
11:22 London Paddington to Oxford due 12:16 will be terminated at Didcot Parkway.
13:00 Oxford to London Paddington due 13:55 will be started from Didcot Parkway.
14:22 London Paddington to Oxford due 15:16 will be terminated at Didcot Parkway.
16:00 Oxford to London Paddington due 16:52 will be started from Didcot Parkway.
17:22 London Paddington to Oxford due 18:16 will be terminated at Didcot Parkway.
19:00 Oxford to London Paddington due 19:54 will be started from Didcot Parkway.
20:22 London Paddington to Oxford due 21:21 will be terminated at Didcot Parkway.
22:00 Oxford to London Paddington due 23:09 will be started from Didcot Parkway.

To a degree, although not good for passengers, this has to happen to bring the situation with Hitachi to a head and try and tackle the availability issues.

 

[Benjwri]

9 v 10 is not a regarded as a short form as the seating capacity is near on identical - 9s and 10s are treated as interchangeable on GWR.

On LNER with the buffets a 10 car actually has less capacity than a 9 car.

I'm aware it isn't contractually, but it should still be reported as so by JourneyCheck shouldn't it because out causes issues with reservations? I've certainly seen it happen before for both a 10 instead of 9 and 9 instead of 10. Regardless they also aren't reporting the short forms of the Oxfords to 8 car 387s, so something is wrong.

 

[3RDGEN]

To a degree, although not good for passengers, this has to happen to bring the situation with Hitachi to a head and try and tackle the availability issues.

In a recent Modern Railways article about LNER its mentioned that from May they diagram 49 of 65 80X's so 75% availability which is pathetic, is GWR diagraming/achieving a similar level then?