GWR West Fleet IEP Cascade Update

[Rhydgaled]

we could run 250m coaches all the way to Hereford/ Penzance etc at all times but the fuel costs would be considerably more than the minor inconvenience of dragging diesel tanks under the wires when trains are on electric mode).

You do have good point there, both options have their disadvantages. My response to that is providing longer trains will always benifit passengers, although as you rightly point out it is expensive and potentially unjustifyable. On the other hand, the single engine on the 'electric' IEP sets (although GW now isn't getting any of those, so it matters less) provides no benifit to anyone at all most of the time (indeed in an ideal world will never be needed at all).

Seriously, what's your better alternative?

I seem to recall Ian W's 'Pan Up' column in modern railways stating one of the bidder's early proposals for what became IEP was a loco-hauled solution, before they were told to offer a multiple unit instead. The way the column put it, he thought that would have been a good idea. In hindsight however, given where we are now with electrification delays, my own opinion is that the bi-mode concept for class 800/802 is starting to look like a good idea (a loco-hauled solution might not have been convertible to bi-mode at the last minute as the GW-801 order has been). However, as I've made clear above I think the mix of train lengths is perhaps not optimal and I still feel the plan for Intercity services prior to the current direct award (keeping IC125s for PAD-PLY/PNZ services, and IEP elsewhere) was the better option. I also think the full IC225 fleet should have been retained, somewhere where they can do at least 125mph if not 140mph (which now the mark 4T retro-fit is off the table means GWML or ECML).

Any 5-car units in my 'different mix of lengths' would either be diagrammed solely on services which somehow managed to dodge any busy times (as I'm told the class 180s do), or would be used in pairs at busy times (but, importantly, only uncoupled while out-of-service after terminating). If that's not possible, the 'mix' would have to include only fairly-long rakes.

 

[The Ham]

It seems pretty clear that the first class market is long-distance passengers - and the 802s will still serve that, plus anyone making a local trip who absolutely must have first class who would have to pick out HST services right now anyway - so I can't see what the point would be on short HSTs, where most passengers will be making local trips and the trains will empty out and refill at Exeter and Plymouth in particular.

Similarly, with catering, buffet cars mean extra overheads to maintain the equipment, whereas if it was felt there were some trains/times of the year when a refreshment service might be worthwhile, trolleys would be far more flexible and allow one person to cover different trains by hopping on and off.

After all, if the 158 transfer happens at some point, trolleys would be the only option anyway. Remember the 180s have buffets fitted, but they have never been used by FGW/GWR since the current five sets returned in 2012, with trolleys used instead.

I was thinking that catering facilities was less likely to happen (i.e. probably not, or if something is provided then a trolley would probably be all), however just because there are no people who use first class on the services it doesn't mean that there wouldn't in the future.

Mostly people with a first class ticket are going to travel on the current HST's for the simple reason that the current DMU's don't have first class and so why pay (a lot) for something that you will not benefit from? However if you had coach of first class seats, then although the cost to provide this would be higher than just having all standard class seating I could see that the cost of doing so would be covered by the few people who use it.

In fact if you took the current seating layout of coaches of three of the existing standard class coaches and one of the first class coaches then the new incarnation of the HST's would have about 232 standard class seats and 24 first class seats. In doing so it would require little work to the seating configuration, which would help in keeping the costs down.

Also, depending on what happens with the 16x's when they head west, the DMU's around Bristol may have first class seating anyway. Therefore, it could be that a lot more services will be getting first class seats and so it would make sense for the new incarnation of the the HST's to also have first class seats.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

However, as I've made clear above I think the mix of train lengths is perhaps not optimal and I still feel the plan for Intercity services prior to the current direct award (keeping IC125s for PAD-PLY/PNZ services, and IEP elsewhere) was the better option. I also think the full IC225 fleet should have been retained, somewhere (which now the mark 4T retro-fit is off the table means GWML or ECML).

Any 5-car units in my 'different mix of lengths' would either be diagrammed solely on services which somehow managed to dodge any busy times (as I'm told the class 180s do), or would be used in pairs at busy times (but, importantly, only uncoupled while out-of-service after terminating). If that's not possible, the 'mix' would have to include only fairly-long rakes.

The industry as a whole disagrees with you on this, there was a reason GWR pursued AT300 stock rather than HST stock, and it's simply that HST sets do not path well around IEP stock, and cannot be pathed easily if 140mph running is to be pursued.

The related Class 395 fleet does 100mph under 3 minutes and 125mph under 4 minutes with 140mph just shortly after. HST in 2+8 formation is around 9 minutes and won't go on to 140mph. IEP won't be quite as fast as the Class 395 but 125mph under 5 minutes should be achievable on electric, around 4-5 minutes quicker than an HST to 125mph. That, put into perspective, can only be matched by an IC225 set being reduced from 9 to 6 coaches and that's with a 4.8MW locomotive. IEP is fast, properly fast.

HSTs are basically not viable to operate out of Paddington now, and really, with IEP's acceleration, they never really were. The whole plan was a bit of a shambles, the industry spoke and AT300 units were ordered. They're also 40 years old and won't last forever. Stop-gap use for a decade on 100mph services is fine, 20+ years on 125mph expresses isn't.

Class 91s are getting too ropey to re-deploy elsewhere without significant expenditure too - it's unlikely all of them will be rebuilt (again) but some will (for ECML work) and the remaining coaches will likely find use elsewhere, maybe with a new build Class 88 locomotive, maybe with Class 68 diesels.

It's easy to sit and play trains on a web forum, but when people explain why your ideas are wrong, please don't keep insisting they're wrong or that various other solutions would work.

Train paths, train lengths and various formations may seem really counter-intuitive, but sometimes trying to create lots of capacity with one or two really long trains actually sucks up capacity elsewhere, and the best option is to run more frequent, faster but shorter trains. It would be utterly impossible to plug Class 47s on rakes of Mark 2 stock back into the CrossCountry network today, it would need dozens of local paths to be removed. Just as long as the lessons of Voyagers and Operation Princess have been learned, there's nothing at all wrong with running 5 car IEP sets.

The lessons do appear to have been learned, where IEP 5 car sets will provide greater frequencies, they're providing more seats per day, not the same spread over more services, and more than enough sets have been procured to allow peak time operation to be double sets (where and when needed, of course).

 

[Kentish Paul]

Good evening everyone.
A few points.
Travelled back today on my latest trip from Castle Cary (CLC) to Ashford International (AFK).
I know HSTs are slow to get going from a standstill but by the time i'd settle my bits we were moving up Bruton bank at a fair rate of knots. Once ubove 70mph an HST seems to really shift as was proved after Reading when due to a track circuit failure we were sent on the slow/relief (please tell me which is right as i know this has caused consternation before as to the correct terminology.)
Once back on the fast after Ruscombe Junction we flew. Went through Slough with people on the down fast platform staring as if they have never seen anything as fast.
Nothing to suggest any overspeeds,(as cannot happen today) just leaving Reading late made running at line speed (once past Twyford) made us only 6 mins late at Paddington. The faces of the people at Slough tell a tale !

 

[gsnedders]

Class 91s are getting too ropey to re-deploy elsewhere without significant expenditure too - it's unlikely all of them will be rebuilt (again) but some will (for ECML work) and the remaining coaches will likely find use elsewhere, maybe with a new build Class 88 locomotive, maybe with Class 68 diesels.

If it's likely that most of the stock will move over to new build locomotives, what's the motivation for the 91s to remain at all?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

If it's likely that most of the stock will move over to new build locomotives, what's the motivation for the 91s to remain at all?

It's unlikely that any new build locomotives will be 125mph capable - Class 88s are 100mph (or 160kmh, 99mph) stock and share bogies/motors/gearing with the Class 68.

The track access hit on a 125mph locomotive is eye watering, with a 100mph loco it's lower so you can almost recoup the loco track access cost with lighter passenger vehicles, though that too is starting to change with light weight bogies on EMU stock, as per the Siemens Desiro City, Bombardier Aventra and the unpowered Hitachi IEP vehicles.

 

[thelem]

Sorry if this has already come up (I realise it's a bit of a recurring theme on these forums), but if the problem is lack of coaching stock with fast opening doors, then wouldn't it be easier to use the 442 with the HST power cars for a few years than butcher a load of HST carriages?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Sorry if this has already come up (I realise it's a bit of a recurring theme on these forums), but if the problem is lack of coaching stock with fast opening doors, then wouldn't it be easier to use the 442 with the HST power cars for a few years than butcher a load of HST carriages?

No, the Class 442 coaches and the HST power cars are electrically incompatible, the Class 442 coaches would need to be re-wired to work with either HST power cars or conventional locomotives (Class 68s etc).

They're Southern region specification, and were designed to work with the 750V DC ETS system rather than BR's more normal 1000V system. The Class 442s had the ability to work with a locomotive removed years ago anyway.

 

[gsnedders]

Sorry if this has already come up (I realise it's a bit of a recurring theme on these forums), but if the problem is lack of coaching stock with fast opening doors, then wouldn't it be easier to use the 442 with the HST power cars for a few years than butcher a load of HST carriages?

You'd have to butcher all of the 442s to get them to work with the ETS from the HST power cars. (They currently have no ETS input *at all*, to complicate matters.)

 

[Harbornite]

Sorry if this has already come up (I realise it's a bit of a recurring theme on these forums), but if the problem is lack of coaching stock with fast opening doors, then wouldn't it be easier to use the 442 with the HST power cars for a few years than butcher a load of HST carriages?

Jesus Christ, not this old chestnut again.:roll:

Why would you bother going to the expense of converting 442s for this purpose when the new stock will have more suitable doors and the mark 3 door conversion project is more realistic. I'm afraid your suggestion is pointless and you won't be seeing GWR 442s.

 

[thelem]

Jesus Christ, not this old chestnut again.:roll:

Why would you bother going to the expense of converting 442s for this purpose when the new stock will have more suitable doors and the mark 3 door conversion project is more realistic. I'm afraid your suggestion is pointless and you won't be seeing GWR 442s.

I'm no lover of 442s, it just seemed from a lay person's point of view that coupling a couple of locos to the end of some spare carriages would be easier than cutting off lots of carriage ends.

Obviously a complete rewire is a lot of work, and it would presumably be similarly difficult to get an existing loco to output 750V.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the 442 question has been asked and answered so lets move on

Nothing wrong with asking it but there's no need to then go off on a multi-page tangent.

Thanks!

 

[Harbornite]

It's unlikely that any new build locomotives will be 125mph capable - Class 88s are 100mph (or 160kmh, 99mph) stock and share bogies/motors/gearing with the Class 68.

The track access hit on a 125mph locomotive is eye watering, with a 100mph loco it's lower so you can almost recoup the loco track access cost with lighter passenger vehicles, though that too is starting to change with light weight bogies on EMU stock, as per the Siemens Desiro City, Bombardier Aventra and the unpowered Hitachi IEP vehicles.

From an enthusiast's point of view, I wouldn't mind seeing the Traxx UK Locomotive that was suggested by Bombardier as recently as 2013 for ECML and GEML work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's easy to sit and play trains on a web forum, but when people explain why your ideas are wrong, please don't keep insisting they're wrong or that various other solutions would work.

Train paths, train lengths and various formations may seem really counter-intuitive, but sometimes trying to create lots of capacity with one or two really long trains actually sucks up capacity elsewhere, and the best option is to run more frequent, faster but shorter trains. It would be utterly impossible to plug Class 47s on rakes of Mark 2 stock back into the CrossCountry network today, it would need dozens of local paths to be removed. Just as long as the lessons of Voyagers and Operation Princess have been learned, there's nothing at all wrong with running 5 car IEP sets.

At least there are a mix of 9 car and 5 car sets on order for IEP. I think Operation Princess could have been better if 9 and 5 car Voyager units had been ordered, although this is only speculation and there may be reasons (other than cost) as to why this was unfeasible. Had this been pursued, the you would have had more frequent trains that weren't too short.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

At least there are a mix of 9 car and 5 car sets on order for IEP. I think Operation Princess could have been better if 9 and 5 car Voyager units had been ordered, although this is only speculation and there may be reasons (other than cost) as to why this was unfeasible. Had this been pursued, the you would have had more frequent trains that weren't too short.

Operation Princess was a product of the time, when the thinking was managed decline of routes and Amtrak style niche services on others. Their idiotic layout was from the aborted plan to have a three class layout. The scary thing is Operation Princess would have worked, if passengers deserted the railways.

We're now as far from that time and that thinking as it's possible to get. We're managing growth, demand and service frequency. We know really quite well how passenger behaviour changed with Operation Princess, and can work out reasonably accurately how many additional 4 and 5 car units CrossCountry would need to meet demand and upgrade capacity in the right direction.

That has fed into planning and calculations for IEP and the particular style of operation we're going to see out of Paddington, it certainly has led to the correct number and length of units being ordered to met projected demand.

And yes, I do think another 12 or 18 9 car Voyagers would have been enormously helpful. The entire EMT Meridian fleet going to CrossCountry in 2022-2023 (or earlier, if extra bi-mode IEP units can move things around on the MML) will be necessary, though whether it can be afforded is less clear cut.

It's also worth remembering that 8 car IEP units were on the drawing board at one point, they were axed too so that 2 x 5 car and 1 x 9 car have comparable capacity and one in lieu of the other doesn't cause overcrowding. There has been (and almost certainly will be) changes to IEP to ensure capacity, pathing and frequency demands can be met.

 

[Xavi]

In conversation the other day with a normally reliable source, I picked up on some aspects of the outline Dec-18 Devon & Cornwall timetable, most of which has featured in press releases etc. A colleague who was with me at the time put the attached outline timetable together following the discussion and shared it with me.

Nothing official whatsoever, but it does give some idea of the level of service that may be on offer with the flexibility of 5-car and 9-car AT-300s. And good it looks too! I hope the attachment has worked - never posted one before.

 

[jimm]

I was thinking that catering facilities was less likely to happen (i.e. probably not, or if something is provided then a trolley would probably be all), however just because there are no people who use first class on the services it doesn't mean that there wouldn't in the future.

Mostly people with a first class ticket are going to travel on the current HST's for the simple reason that the current DMU's don't have first class and so why pay (a lot) for something that you will not benefit from? However if you had coach of first class seats, then although the cost to provide this would be higher than just having all standard class seating I could see that the cost of doing so would be covered by the few people who use it.

In fact if you took the current seating layout of coaches of three of the existing standard class coaches and one of the first class coaches then the new incarnation of the HST's would have about 232 standard class seats and 24 first class seats. In doing so it would require little work to the seating configuration, which would help in keeping the costs down.

Also, depending on what happens with the 16x's when they head west, the DMU's around Bristol may have first class seating anyway. Therefore, it could be that a lot more services will be getting first class seats and so it would make sense for the new incarnation of the the HST's to also have first class seats.

As the saying goes, I'll believe it when I see it. BR removed first class from pretty much everything except InterCity and Network South East three decades ago. The amount of first class seating on GWR and Virgin West Coast expresses has recently been reduced as a result of falling demand.

So what on earth makes you think anyone will reintroduce it on local services in the South West? Cornwall is pretty much the poorest region in the UK, so an unlikely source of first class custom - nor are Bristol commuters gagging for first class seats - all they want is lots more standard class seats.

 

[Clarence Yard]

When the turbos move west they are not currently planned to have first class, neither are the HST GTI sets.

As has been stated, the pressing need is for standard class seats.

 

[jimm]

You do have good point there, both options have their disadvantages. My response to that is providing longer trains will always benifit passengers, although as you rightly point out it is expensive and potentially unjustifyable. On the other hand, the single engine on the 'electric' IEP sets (although GW now isn't getting any of those, so it matters less) provides no benifit to anyone at all most of the time (indeed in an ideal world will never be needed at all).

A good point that has been made to you many times previously...

The single engine will be needed - to help shift the electric sets around parts of depots where there is no overhead wiring. And if you ever find yourself on one when the wires come down - and the train can be moved to a live section of catenary to carry on its journey - you most certainly will benefit from one. Just ask anyone who has ever been stuck on the ECML when headspans have got messed up whether they think such an engine would be beneficial on a Class 91.

 

[Class 170101]

Provided of course the OLE isn't wrapped around the train then it won't be going anywhere - donkey engine or not.

 

[jimm]

Provided of course the OLE isn't wrapped around the train then it won't be going anywhere - donkey engine or not.

Yes, but on many occasions on the ECML other trains have ended up being stuck for long periods as well, because of the wider loss of overhead power. In future, 801s in such a situation will be able to extricate themselves.

 

[LowLevel]

Operation Princess was a product of the time, when the thinking was managed decline of routes and Amtrak style niche services on others. Their idiotic layout was from the aborted plan to have a three class layout. The scary thing is Operation Princess would have worked, if passengers deserted the railways.

We're now as far from that time and that thinking as it's possible to get. We're managing growth, demand and service frequency. We know really quite well how passenger behaviour changed with Operation Princess, and can work out reasonably accurately how many additional 4 and 5 car units CrossCountry would need to meet demand and upgrade capacity in the right direction.

That has fed into planning and calculations for IEP and the particular style of operation we're going to see out of Paddington, it certainly has led to the correct number and length of units being ordered to met projected demand.

And yes, I do think another 12 or 18 9 car Voyagers would have been enormously helpful. The entire EMT Meridian fleet going to CrossCountry in 2022-2023 (or earlier, if extra bi-mode IEP units can move things around on the MML) will be necessary, though whether it can be afforded is less clear cut.

It's also worth remembering that 8 car IEP units were on the drawing board at one point, they were axed too so that 2 x 5 car and 1 x 9 car have comparable capacity and one in lieu of the other doesn't cause overcrowding. There has been (and almost certainly will be) changes to IEP to ensure capacity, pathing and frequency demands can be met.

I understand the EMT HSTs are having a refurb with a possible derogation over the door issue beyond 2020 due to the electrification delays and indeed may still be in service on the MML after the 222s have moved on!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Yes, but on many occasions on the ECML other trains have ended up being stuck for long periods as well, because of the wider loss of overhead power. In future, 801s in such a situation will be able to extricate themselves.

The problem with the ECML (for the time being) is headspans - it's not possible to keep the route open with three of four lines available to electric traction; when a dewirement occurs it normally stops all lines being available to electric traction.

That's where IEP sets with the single engine come into their own, the single engine is just under three times more powerful than the engine in a Class 08 shunter and slightly more powerful than the diesel engine in the Class 88.

I'd guess 20mph will be achievable on the single engine, which is fine for passing through a dewired electrical section where electrification engineers and possibly rolling stock engineers will be working to remove the set involved in the dewirement.

The single engine would have been less of a benefit on the GWML, where the mechanically independent OLE will normally allow two or three of four lines to be kept open to electric traction during a dewirement, but would still have been a benefit nonetheless, allowing catenary damaged by fallen trees or blown debris to be safely navigated around without the worry of having to coast and getting stuck in an isolated section.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I understand the EMT HSTs are having a refurb with a possible derogation over the door issue beyond 2020 due to the electrification delays and indeed may still be in service on the MML after the 222s have moved on!

Yeah, that's been the rumour for a while. There were mutterings about power doors if a use could be found for the vehicles after MML electrification but I've no idea if that has come to anything.

There's still the possibility of IEP or other new-build AT300 stock being procured to replace EMT and XC HST sets prior to 2020, maybe making use of the Great Western sets which have been converted from electric to bi-mode.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The industry as a whole disagrees with you on this, there was a reason GWR pursued AT300 stock rather than HST stock, and it's simply that HST sets do not path well around IEP stock, and cannot be pathed easily if 140mph running is to be pursued.

The industry didn't seem to mind for the 4 years that IC125 retention was the official plan (it sounded like IC125s were the prefered option for PAD-PLY/PNZ in 2011, and that didn't change until the GWR direct award). I thought the last-minute decision to go for more AT300s instead was that GWR had balked at the cost of Chiltern-style door mods for mrk3s.

Just as long as the lessons of Voyagers and Operation Princess have been learned, there's nothing at all wrong with running 5 car IEP sets.

The lessons do appear to have been learned

I might be proved wrong, but I'm not sure some of the lessons of Voyagers have been learned, because of the rather large number of 5-car sets ordered for GW compared to (for example) the ECML where 5-car sets are additional to an almost 1-for-1 replacement of 2+9 existing trains with 9-car IEPs. Nothing wrong with a few 5-car IEPs used appropriately, but it remains to be seen whether they will be.

Sorry if this has already come up (I realise it's a bit of a recurring theme on these forums), but if the problem is lack of coaching stock with fast opening doors, then wouldn't it be easier to use the 442 with the HST power cars for a few years than butcher a load of HST carriages?

I seem to recall that a ROSCO proposed exactly that, but the option wasn't selected so modifying the mrk3s must be cheaper/easier.

 

[47802]

The industry didn't seem to mind for the 4 years that IC125 retention was the official plan (it sounded like IC125s were the prefered option for PAD-PLY/PNZ in 2011, and that didn't change until the GWR direct award). I thought the last-minute decision to go for more AT300s instead was that GWR had balked at the cost of Chiltern-style door mods for mrk3s.
I might be proved wrong, but I'm not sure some of the lessons of Voyagers have been learned, because of the rather large number of 5-car sets ordered for GW compared to (for example) the ECML where 5-car sets are additional to an almost 1-for-1 replacement of 2+9 existing trains with 9-car IEPs. Nothing wrong with a few 5-car IEPs used appropriately, but it remains to be seen whether they will be.

I seem to recall that a ROSCO proposed exactly that, but the option wasn't selected so modifying the mrk3s must be cheaper/easier.

Why do you continue to persist with HST's on the South West route.

As has been pointed out by many others there were clearly a number of good reasons why 802's were opted for including easier pathing between Paddington and Reading, Fuel/Maintenance/Environmental savings and benefits of running on Electric between Paddington and Newbury and replacing a life expired train, ok it would appear some HST's will now be retained for the time being, but retaining these trains in short formation on Secondary Service's is one thing retaining them long term on front rank Intercity services is another.

While you may keep complaining about it, the decision has been made and that's an end to it really.

Yes hopefully you will be proved wrong with regard to Voyagers, it always seemed to that the problems with the Voyagers were 2 fold, one the ridiculously poor capacity of the 4 car Voyagers which doesn't apply to IEP, and the fact that some sections of the route didn't get double the frequency and had less seats at peak time than previously. I'm sure that the people involved with this project have looked at the numbers to ensure there is sufficient capacity where required.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The industry didn't seem to mind for the 4 years that IC125 retention was the official plan (it sounded like IC125s were the prefered option for PAD-PLY/PNZ in 2011, and that didn't change until the GWR direct award). I thought the last-minute decision to go for more AT300s instead was that GWR had balked at the cost of Chiltern-style door mods for mrk3s.

I might be proved wrong, but I'm not sure some of the lessons of Voyagers have been learned, because of the rather large number of 5-car sets ordered for GW compared to (for example) the ECML where 5-car sets are additional to an almost 1-for-1 replacement of 2+9 existing trains with 9-car IEPs. Nothing wrong with a few 5-car IEPs used appropriately, but it remains to be seen whether they will be.

Demand changes and responses are needed from the industry, but HSTs out of Paddington wasn't really viable 4 years ago, it could have been done but it was going to be a diagramming and timetabling nightmare with all sorts of knock on effects for retaining traction knowledge for drivers and guards, retaining engineering knowledge, using additional depot capacity and ultimately preventing the maximum number of paths per hour from Paddington being made available.

HST taking around twice the time to reach 125mph and not being 140mph capable was unworkable - we all knew the IEP TTS acceleration requirements and how HST is no where near able to keep up with those demands, it was only ever going to suck capacity out of the route.

The industry complained about running HST sets on the GWML for pretty much every day of those 4 years as a result, just as it's complaining about the decision to retain 5 IC225 (6 vehicle) sets for the ECML because nobody has yet managed to reach agreement on 5 additional 5 car IEP sets. That's how fast IEP is on electric - a 4.8MW LHCS trainset can't keep up with IEP with 9 carriages and the DVT, it needs to drop 3 carriages to meet IEP timings on the ECML, and IC225 is significantly faster than HST on the ECML (and always was, even before GNER lengthened the HST sets to 2+9).

To put this into an absolutely crystal clear context, IEP if following an HST on the GWML will be hitting double yellows and yellows, and will be slowing down to follow behind HST sets, IEP sets would be catching up with HST sets immediately, maybe managing 125mph before having to slow down and then match the acceleration profile of the HST set to avoid running into yellow signals.

And your claim that the lessons of Operation Princess haven't been learned are fanciful - the seats IEP and AT300 provide are significantly greater than HST. Full stop. End of.

IEP provides GWR with

30,118 (32,548) standard seats (+ option)
5,393 (5,798) first seats (+ option)

HST could provide GWR with

24,894 standard seats
5,184 first seats

If all the sets were made high density. The actual number of standard seats GWR has is significantly lower in standard and slightly higher in first.

The Class 180 adds 1410 seats in total (can't be bothered with 1st/Std mix) but at this stage, we're looking at a 20-25% seat capacity uplift. That's before considering Class 387 capacity uplift over the Turbo units and then CrossRail Class 345 GWML capacity uplift out to Reading too.

And all of that is before increased frequency of service increasing seats per day on each route.

And the industry hasn't learned from Operation Princess. We're starting with more capacity and adding more capacity through frequency every day. That's the opposite to Operation Princess where the same capacity was split to provide the same number of seats per day on each route.

 

[Clarence Yard]

There were two reasons why the HST sets were not retained in the DA for the W of E services.

The first was the number of paths they took up between Paddington and Reading and the knock on effect to the 387 and IEP timetables. This was something SDG also had to grapple with in their initial timetable work. Using HST sets between Paddington and Reading would always compromise other services on the Mains in the brave new world.

The second was cost. The cost of new rolling stock was coming down and the cost of converting the HST stock was going up. The balance shifted.

All options were presented to the DfT with a recommendation and as a result of this work the 29 sets were ordered. But 2 of the 9 car sets are actually for core GWML work as the loadings analysis had shown the original IEP order to be insufficient to meet the revised loadings predictions.

So what the industry thought it would have to be suffer changed dramatically as a result of the costs changing and the opportunity was seized. It also allowed the provision of stock to be better tailored to demand in the far South West.

 

[The Ham]

There were two reasons why the HST sets were not retained in the DA for the W of E services.

The first was the number of paths they took up between Paddington and Reading and the knock on effect to the 387 and IEP timetables. This was something SDG also had to grapple with in their initial timetable work. Using HST sets between Paddington and Reading would always compromise other services on the Mains in the brave new world.

The second was cost. The cost of new rolling stock was coming down and the cost of converting the HST stock was going up. The balance shifted.

All options were presented to the DfT with a recommendation and as a result of this work the 29 sets were ordered. But 2 of the 9 car sets are actually for core GWML work as the loadings analysis had shown the original IEP order to be insufficient to meet the revised loadings predictions.

So what the industry thought it would have to be suffer changed dramatically as a result of the costs changing and the opportunity was seized. It also allowed the provision of stock to be better tailored to demand in the far South West.

...so one outcome of HST's being kept could have lead to the Cornwall services starting/finishing at Reading to cater for demand (or at least calls for the services to do so).

 

[jimm]

The industry didn't seem to mind for the 4 years that IC125 retention was the official plan (it sounded like IC125s were the prefered option for PAD-PLY/PNZ in 2011, and that didn't change until the GWR direct award). I thought the last-minute decision to go for more AT300s instead was that GWR had balked at the cost of Chiltern-style door mods for mrk3s.

There wasn't any official plan. Rather there was an absence of a plan - ie, DfT never approved an HST overhaul, nor did it take steps to order more IEP-type trains.

As Clarence Yard has indicated, when the opportunity was there to get something decisive done, one way or the other, GWR acted on it.

 

[D1009]

In conversation the other day with a normally reliable source, I picked up on some aspects of the outline Dec-18 Devon & Cornwall timetable, most of which has featured in press releases etc. A colleague who was with me at the time put the attached outline timetable together following the discussion and shared it with me.

Nothing official whatsoever, but it does give some idea of the level of service that may be on offer with the flexibility of 5-car and 9-car AT-300s. And good it looks too! I hope the attachment has worked - never posted one before.

At first glance it looks like there is a large gap between fast services in the down direction in the early morning compared with the level of service provided after the 09.03 ex Padd.

 

[Xavi]

At first glance it looks like there is a large gap between fast services in the down direction in the early morning compared with the level of service provided after the 09.03 ex Padd.

Yes, I thought the same. Perhaps the priority of providing an early arrival into Plymouth (0633* Paddington) and retaining a morning service from B&H stations through to Plymouth (0733 Paddington) then results in the gap to 0903.

* I seem to recall this departure being 0637 in a press release.

One thing for sure, if all those fast Tiv Pkwy - Taunton - Reading - Paddington services are to be provided, the expansion of Tiv Pkway car parking is a must - some of the double parking there yesterday was interesting to say the least!