• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

GWR short train lengths

Status
Not open for further replies.

irish_rail

On Moderation
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
4,511
Location
Plymouth
And yet profitability is far higher than would be expected on LNER. For various reasons, but it isn’t about passenger reciepts and vehicle kilometres with the current, or likely any future government.

Not to mention LNER has its fair share of problems, and pretty much every LNER train I’ve been on has been quite full, and certainly they couldn’t deal with shorter trains any more than GWR can.
But I suspect the LNeR trains you go on are the ones to Scotland or Leeds??? LNER seem to have quite a lot of peripheral stuff like Lincoln and stoppers to York or extensions to Bradford and what not, which id argue are more deserving of 5 car short forms than the only route between London and South Wales or the South west.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,784
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Would a supply contract for say 20yrs end this obselescence and guarantee parts for that period?
Would it not be better for one of the world's largest manufacturers to have proper documentation regarding the function of and interfaces of their manufactured parts that are contracted out?

These are industry standard documents...(!)
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,341
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
But I suspect the LNeR trains you go on are the ones to Scotland or Leeds??? LNER seem to have quite a lot of peripheral stuff like Lincoln and stoppers to York or extensions to Bradford and what not, which id argue are more deserving of 5 car short forms than the only route between London and South Wales or the South west.

The Lincoln services are already all booked 5-car so there’s no scope for shortforming there. As regards York these can be quite busy as these essentially are the main service serving most of the intermediate stations. I guess it might be possible to replace these with an EMU, though being stuck at 110mph might cause pathing issues.
 

Topological

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2023
Messages
4,266
Location
Swansea
The Lincoln services are already all booked 5-car so there’s no scope for shortforming there. As regards York these can be quite busy as these essentially are the main service serving most of the intermediate stations. I guess it might be possible to replace these with an EMU, though being stuck at 110mph might cause pathing issues.
I believe it is also the case that 5-car can turn up on the Leeds service.

Off topic, but it might also be worth looking at whether 1 of the 2 Leeds trains could be run with an EMU as well.

The problem with comparing IET use on LNER with GWR is that many of the LNER ones are not able to run long distances off the wires. IF it was possible for York and Leeds EMU to free suitable IET to support GWR then that is great. I suspect the allocations would not quite work as well though.

At least replacing the hourly Cardiff to London with EMUs frees IET that can run off the wires (See the separate thread in speculative discussions where options are discussed at length, rather than the usual "the diagrams won't work").

Meanwhile only 1 5-car from Swansea today according to RTT. Yes it is Sunday, but that is a big improvement.
 

Bluejays

Member
Joined
19 Sep 2017
Messages
570
I really don't accept that the correct response for problems on the western is to take units from another line. It's almost a politicians attitude, of let's 'blame the other' rather than really looking at what's going wrong.
 

irish_rail

On Moderation
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
4,511
Location
Plymouth
I really don't accept that the correct response for problems on the western is to take units from another line. It's almost a politicians attitude, of let's 'blame the other' rather than really looking at what's going wrong.
True. I'm more highlighting the ridiculousness of the situation where one line is flush with proper length trains , whilst an equivalent is made to make do with "scraps". I know in reality ECML will never be made to surrender trains to Western.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,280
I'm more highlighting the ridiculousness of the situation where one line is flush with proper length trains , whilst an equivalent is made to make do with "scraps".
But LNER isn't flush with "proper length trains", and GWR isn't made to make do with "scraps".

There are at least three short formations on the Leeds route today. There don't seem to be any 5-car trains from London to Cornwall today.

Hitachi / Agility Trains are failing to provide the right number of units on both routes. Neither route has insufficient units, just a supplier who is not delivering. 'Clarence Yard' has pointed out that the issue isn't solved by bringing in more stock, it is solved by better management of train maintenance.
 
Last edited:

Wilts Wanderer

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2016
Messages
3,199
But LNER isn't flush with "proper length trains", and GWR isn't made to make do with "scraps".

There are at least three short formations on the Leeds route today. There don't seem to be any 5-car trains from London to Cornwall today.

Hitachi / Agility Trains are failing to provide the right number of units on both routes. Neither route has insufficient units, just a supplier who is not delivering. 'Clarence Yard' has pointed out that the issue isn't solved by bringing in more stock, it is solved by better management of train maintenance.

Its more than that, the problem is just as much that the contractual relationship between supplier and customer is so weak that poor supplier performance is not being punished in a manner that can force change/improvement. And the DfT mandarins must take the full blame for that, as they negotiated and signed the TARA contract.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
11,056
Location
West Wiltshire
True. I'm more highlighting the ridiculousness of the situation where one line is flush with proper length trains , whilst an equivalent is made to make do with "scraps". I know in reality ECML will never be made to surrender trains to Western.
It is not about transferring trains, it is about being able to utilise the fleet they have. On Friday evening I was on a short formed (5 instead of 9) and at about 17:35 so height of evening peak, at Old Oak passed a number of parked 9car trains (parked in open sidings, not in the maintenance buildings being worked on, which I couldn't see inside).

The obvious question is if the 5car versions can be made serviceable, and used, then why can't more of the 9car versions be fixed when they are timetabled. OK they are longer so more to go wrong, but that shouldn't automatically put them at back of queue.

Sort of feels that GWR are not putting enough effort into getting their legal team to walk around the maintenance depot, throwing their toys out of the pram to enforce maintenance contract to nth degree. If they are getting comeback about trains arriving below standard then they need to sharpen the routine servicing, so comebacks can't happen, to back up their legal team, so they can get tough.

No good moaning about bad maintenance contract, stuck with it just need to accept it and fit around it to utilise it even if that means people walking around with clipboards demanding timescales of fixes, rather than half heartedly sending general email moans. I have worked in companies where things have drifted and a new manager shakes up the client, by going through contract clause by clause. Sometimes find staff on the ground don't even know the detail of what their organisation has committed to.

If LNER are suffering fewer trains with delayed repair, suggests they are putting more pressure on Hitachi, possibly to point were Hitachi would rather send spare parts to East Coast depots.
 
Last edited:

JN114

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Messages
3,523
True. I'm more highlighting the ridiculousness of the situation where one line is flush with proper length trains , whilst an equivalent is made to make do with "scraps". I know in reality ECML will never be made to surrender trains to Western.

The grass is always greener…
 

CptCharlee

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2018
Messages
123
So when does this 'hitachi contract' end? Wasn't it some awfully long agreement of 25 years or something.

Is there any get out clause for DfT?
 

Benjwri

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2022
Messages
3,277
Location
Bath
If LNER are suffering fewer trains with delayed repair, suggests they are putting more pressure on Hitachi, possibly to point were Hitachi would rather send spare parts to East Coast depots.
Probably also better track condition on the ECML, but also the LNER trains spend far less time on diesel and run under wires most of their life. A large issue with GWR’s units is the delay on new GUs.
 

irish_rail

On Moderation
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
4,511
Location
Plymouth
It is not about transferring trains, it is about being able to utilise the fleet they have. On Friday evening I was on a short formed (5 instead of 9) and at about 17:35 so height of evening peak, at Old Oak passed a number of parked 9car trains (parked in open sidings, not in the maintenance buildings being worked on, which I couldn't see inside).

The obvious question is if the 5car versions can be made serviceable, and used, then why can't more of the 9car versions be fixed when they are timetabled. OK they are longer so more to go wrong, but that shouldn't automatically put them at back of queue.

Sort of feels that GWR are not putting enough effort into getting their legal team to walk around the maintenance depot, throwing their toys out of the pram to enforce maintenance contract to nth degree. If they are getting comeback about trains arriving below standard then they need to sharpen the routine servicing, so comebacks can't happen, to back up their legal team, so they can get tough.

No good moaning about bad maintenance contract, stuck with it just need to accept it and fit around it to utilise it even if that means people walking around with clipboards demanding timescales of fixes, rather than half heartedly sending general email moans. I have worked in companies where things have drifted and a new manager shakes up the client, by going through contract clause by clause. Sometimes find staff on the ground don't even know the detail of what their organisation has committed to.

If LNER are suffering fewer trains with delayed repair, suggests they are putting more pressure on Hitachi, possibly to point were Hitachi would rather send spare parts to East Coast depots.
Agree with most of this. For example, to my knowledge all of the "banned" DSD pedals that can't be used on longer distance workings are all on the 9 car sets, thus precluding there use on longer services to South Wales and thr South west. This is perhaps why lots of 9 cars seem parked up at North Pole . It surely can't be difficult to move the dodgy DSD pedals from 9 car sets into 5 car sets so it is the 5 car sets restricted to shorter workings and minimum use.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

The grass is always greener…
Well its a fact, LNER has way more full length trains than GWR, its not really open to debate is it? LNER on the whole replaced HSTs and 225s with similar length replacements . The Western did not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

But LNER isn't flush with "proper length trains", and GWR isn't made to make do with "scraps".

There are at least three short formations on the Leeds route today. There don't seem to be any 5-car trains from London to Cornwall today.

Hitachi / Agility Trains are failing to provide the right number of units on both routes. Neither route has insufficient units, just a supplier who is not delivering. 'Clarence Yard' has pointed out that the issue isn't solved by bringing in more stock, it is solved by better management of train maintenance.
I wouldn't compare London to Leeds with London to Cornwall, especially in July at a weekend! London to Edinburgh or Inverness is a more realistic comparison. Perhaps Leeds would be comparable with Bristol or Cardiff services.
 

3RDGEN

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2023
Messages
589
Location
Hull
If LNER are suffering fewer trains with delayed repair, suggests they are putting more pressure on Hitachi, possibly to point were Hitachi would rather send spare parts to East Coast depots
LNER are diagraming at just 75% availability, if they were at the same level as GWR then I guess they would be suffering too. LNER should be in the high 80% given they have some electric sets and not just hybrids as per GWR.

The LNER fleet was also spec'd on the basis of the enhanced timetable that's still not been implemented, so no Huddersfield services and only once a day to Middlesborough.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,276
And then they wonder why people prefer to drive! Overcrowding and unsuitable rolling stock is the reason why I and my colleagues have almost completely given-up travelling by train entirely in this country. I have made precisely two return trips by train over the last 20 months in the UK, whereas at one time it would have been dozens. The only route I now use on a regular basis is Sørlandsbanen between Oslo and Skien, where the service remains punctual, clean, inexpensive and excellent. And anyone can get a seat at any time of day without even thinking of having to make a reservation.

What with short-formed services, shuddering, smoky clapped-out ancient suburban diesel units on regional express services, graffiti, stations with peeling paint and muck everywhere, lack of on-board catering and constant strike action the entire network is a complete shambles.
Ah yes, Norway - where all is just fine and dandy on the railways. Try using some other routes in that country. Both articles below are from June this year and you could also do a Google search for Follobanen.
Issues with train punctuality in Norway have continued to persist since last autumn, with arrivals below official targets set by state-owned rail network operator Bane Nor.

In June, 83.6 percent of passenger trains were on schedule. So far this year, 87.4 percent of trains have arrived on time. Bane Nor has a punctuality target of 90 percent, which it failed to meet last year.

Several of Norway’s railway lines are completely full, leading to traffic jams on the tracks and train delays, Bane NOR said in a statement last week. Norway’s mostly single track rails have almost no capacity left, and the rail infrastructure manager already has to say no to railway operators who want to run more trains. How can a modal shift to rail to reduce transport emissions be realised when there is no space?

But I suspect the LNeR trains you go on are the ones to Scotland or Leeds??? LNER seem to have quite a lot of peripheral stuff like Lincoln and stoppers to York or extensions to Bradford and what not, which id argue are more deserving of 5 car short forms than the only route between London and South Wales or the South west.
In order for trains to extend to Bradford, they have to get to some place called Leeds first - city population 510,000 - before reaching the peripheral place called Bradford, with its population of 360,000 - and which is currently served by, er, two LNER trains a day each way. Is 'what not' a new name for Harrogate, or perhaps Aberdeen on Inverness?

LNER Leeds services of course also provide the main London rail link for Wakefield and Harrogate/what not and, with a change in Leeds, Huddersfield and Halifax, etc. But which are all presumably just peripheral. Unlike, of course, the City of Truro, population 20,000 or so.

True. I'm more highlighting the ridiculousness of the situation where one line is flush with proper length trains , whilst an equivalent is made to make do with "scraps". I know in reality ECML will never be made to surrender trains to Western.
I'm confused.

So the GWR operation between London and the West Country is the equivalent of the LNER services on the ECML?

Which it surely must be, given that for years now on this forum you have dismissed the GWR services to Bristol, South Wales, Gloucestershire and Worcestershire as mere suburban operations - so they can't have anything to do with whatever case it is you are trying to make in this thread.

The bottom line here is that, as umpteen people have noted already, that Hitachi is not doing the things that it is being very well paid to do. And unless they sort out the DSD issue, once the devices fitted on LNER sets start to play up as well, they are going to have a problem there too.
 
Last edited:

Krokodil

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2023
Messages
6,531
Location
Wales
Not to mention LNER has its fair share of problems, and pretty much every LNER train I’ve been on has been quite full, and certainly they couldn’t deal with shorter trains any more than GWR can.
It's almost as if forming Intercity trains out of five coach units isn't such a good idea. Funny that, it's exactly what everyone warned about following the experience with Operation Pumpkin.
 

Benjwri

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2022
Messages
3,277
Location
Bath
It's almost as if forming Intercity trains out of five coach units isn't such a good idea. Funny that, it's exactly what everyone warned about following the experience with Operation Pumpkin.
I was actually talking about their 9 car trains, which to Edinburgh and Leeds can be incredibly busy. But this is true too.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,280
It's almost as if forming Intercity trains out of five coach units isn't such a good idea.
The contract is expensive enough without every unit having nine coaches. There are places where five 26m coaches is enough.
 

Krokodil

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2023
Messages
6,531
Location
Wales
The contract is expensive enough without every unit having nine coaches. There are places where five 26m coaches is enough.
The contract is expensive primarily because it is poorly written. By "places where five 26m coaches is enough" what exactly did you have in mind? Just the last few stops of a route (e.g. Swansea to Carmarthen)? Are there many full diagrams where a five car can work solo for the whole day?

Are the savings that result from portion-working the Carmarthens and Oxfords (though the latter didn't work in practice) worth the loss in seats that result from having 18m or so of non-passenger space in the middle of the train, with duplicate 1st class provision? Not to mention the cost of fitting out the two-middle cabs, the extra galley, providing duplicate staff...

The above post is being sent from the vestibule of a full & standing 10 car IET, which has just passed another full & standing 10 car.
 

Topological

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2023
Messages
4,266
Location
Swansea
You know things are bad when a GWR from Swansea to London has less carriages than the TfW to Manchester.

6 Carriages in the platform for the TfW as the 5 car Paddington set off.
 

Master29

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
1,970
In order for trains to extend to Bradford, they have to get to some place called Leeds first - city population 510,000 - before reaching the peripheral place called Bradford, with its population of 360,000 - and which is currently served by, er, two LNER trains a day each way. Is 'what not' a new name for Harrogate, or perhaps Aberdeen on Inverness?

LNER Leeds services of course also provide the main London rail link for Wakefield and Harrogate/what not and, with a change in Leeds, Huddersfield and Halifax, etc. But which are all presumably just peripheral. Unlike, of course, the City of Truro, population 20,000 or so.
Once again Jimm you ignore the fact of the population of Devon and Cornwall swelling by many times during the summer months not to mention all year round visiting as more the case than perhaps 20 years or so ago so you 20k population quip about Truro vanishes into thin air.
 

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
3,263
It is not about transferring trains, it is about being able to utilise the fleet they have. On Friday evening I was on a short formed (5 instead of 9) and at about 17:35 so height of evening peak, at Old Oak passed a number of parked 9car trains (parked in open sidings, not in the maintenance buildings being worked on, which I couldn't see inside).

The obvious question is if the 5car versions can be made serviceable, and used, then why can't more of the 9car versions be fixed when they are timetabled. OK they are longer so more to go wrong, but that shouldn't automatically put them at back of queue.

Sort of feels that GWR are not putting enough effort into getting their legal team to walk around the maintenance depot, throwing their toys out of the pram to enforce maintenance contract to nth degree. If they are getting comeback about trains arriving below standard then they need to sharpen the routine servicing, so comebacks can't happen, to back up their legal team, so they can get tough.

No good moaning about bad maintenance contract, stuck with it just need to accept it and fit around it to utilise it even if that means people walking around with clipboards demanding timescales of fixes, rather than half heartedly sending general email moans. I have worked in companies where things have drifted and a new manager shakes up the client, by going through contract clause by clause. Sometimes find staff on the ground don't even know the detail of what their organisation has committed to.

If LNER are suffering fewer trains with delayed repair, suggests they are putting more pressure on Hitachi, possibly to point were Hitachi would rather send spare parts to East Coast depots.

It’s not a maintenance contract, it’s a train supply contract so GWR have no right whatsoever to start to enter Hitachi’s depot and start throwing their weight around.

GWR, under the contract, are obliged to accept units with certain faults and there is a rebate regime for that. Hitachi also are excused from providing units if they are stopped for “damage and vandalism”. On GWR today, 11 units are stopped for “D & V”. A lot of those are 9 cars.
 

dciuk

Member
Joined
1 May 2018
Messages
163
GWR, under the contract, are obliged to accept units with certain faults and there is a rebate regime for that. Hitachi also are excused from providing units if they are stopped for “damage and vandalism”. On GWR today, 11 units are stopped for “D & V”. A lot of those are 9 cars.
Does that mean Hitachi have no incentive to get the units stopped for "damage and vandalism" back into service, or is it GWR's responsibilty to fix those?
 

Sly Old Fox

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2008
Messages
448
Location
England
As I understand it all of the DSD pedals are being replaced with the new ones over time so I’m not sure swapping them around is a particularly worthwhile use of time.
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
19,827
Location
East Anglia
The Lincoln services are already all booked 5-car so there’s no scope for shortforming there. As regards York these can be quite busy as these essentially are the main service serving most of the intermediate stations. I guess it might be possible to replace these with an EMU, though being stuck at 110mph might cause pathing issues.

It always amazes me how busy the York starters can get. Fifteen minutes before departure there’s no more than a dozen in each carriage then the Kings Cross non-stopper arrives super conveniently alongside in platform 5 disgorging up to another 100 for intermediate stations. By the time it’s called at Doncaster, Retford, Newark & Grantham they can be very well loaded trains indeed. I alight at Peterborough with many others but they are replaced by another decent crowd on the platform here.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,341
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
But LNER isn't flush with "proper length trains", and GWR isn't made to make do with "scraps".

There are at least three short formations on the Leeds route today. There don't seem to be any 5-car trains from London to Cornwall today.

Hitachi / Agility Trains are failing to provide the right number of units on both routes. Neither route has insufficient units, just a supplier who is not delivering. 'Clarence Yard' has pointed out that the issue isn't solved by bringing in more stock, it is solved by better management of train maintenance.

There does come a point where it’s legitimate to question whether those train maintenance arrangements are fit for purpose. Obviously the cracks issue won’t have been helping, but really the fleet are at the point where they should have settled down now. If they can’t get the right number of trains out now then it doesn’t bode well for the future.

One presumes the contractual nature of all this gives a lot of scope for wrangling over who is responsible, for example if trains aren’t returned to depot at the right time etc. It does seem to be a case study in how *not* to procure trains!

I tend to agree that putting GWR against LNER isn’t helpful. As you say, there are 5-car trains running about on LNER too, both booked and non-booked. LNER passengers seem to be fortunate that 5-cars don’t seem to go to Scotland, but Leeds is certainly getting them. I’d say 5-cars to Leeds is just as unsatisfactory as South Wales or Cornwall.
 
Joined
26 Jun 2019
Messages
210
I tend to agree that putting GWR against LNER isn’t helpful. As you say, there are 5-car trains running about on LNER too, both booked and non-booked. LNER passengers seem to be fortunate that 5-cars don’t seem to go to Scotland, but Leeds is certainly getting them. I’d say 5-cars to Leeds is just as unsatisfactory as South Wales or Cornwall.
5 cars are unsatisfactory on most routes but especially the Cornwall services especially at the moment in the summer.
 

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
3,263
Well, when the fleet was introduced the timetable was the HST one but the contracted maintenance arrangements reflected the final DfT timetable that GWR had already re-jigged to eliminate the majority of DfT planned split and joins with the 800 fleet.

The DfT have steadfastly refused to renegotiate the maintenance arrangements to match that final timetable that GWR planned to operate or any other since, because that fixed requirement is how Hitachi makes its money. That final GWR timetable and the diagrams that accompanied it were the work of two people who matched it to the maintenance arrangements perfectly, with step downs and step ups into the diagrams to allow for some degree of change.

The transition diagrams from the HST fleet were similarly restrictive and, as I have said before, it was like doing killer sudoku to get them right. It helped that the timetable expert for the IET timetable was outstanding and the diagram expert was an experienced ex-M&EE man who could produce compliant Hitachi depot friendly diagrams.

COVID gave Hitachi a bit of cover but now that all 80 diagrams are required, they are struggling as the kit isn’t reliable enough and the depots don’t seem to be resourced to cope with the level of repairs arising. GWR isn’t helping because the diagrams are now having to be less maintenance or operationally friendly as they were.

To save everyone trying to find the post, I would just say that just Leeds and Wakefield to London takes more money than Swansea, Cardiff, Bristol TM and Bristol Parkway to London combined. There is far more inter city money in the ECML than the GWML, which is why Stuart Baker had more 9 cars ordered for the ECML.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top