Heathrow Express GWR Contract

[MarkyT]

I think some turbos back exclusively on all stations Thames Valley main line and branch services until 769s and 345s arrive in sufficient numbers is a sensible move while Reading depot retains the capabilities to maintain and service them. Overall there will still be a significant increase in capacity provided. Apart from the Old Oak depot closure issues, I think with their super acceleration the 387s will be a much better fit than 332s for sharing the Main lines with 80xs rather than HSTs out to Heathrow Airport Junctions. It also means that Hex will no longer have to be a tiny but fully competent independent TOC with all the overheads that entails.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Regarding the HEx changes, I may have missed it above, but it was well understood that the 25 year contract for the 4 per hour on the Mains expires in 2023. I have not seen anything abouth this being altered. That has long been in the sights of both GW and Crossrail.

I think the next few years are basically an experiment to see if it still washes its face in the light of Crossrail opening. If it doesn't, best get rid of it and run 12-car Reading fasts instead, finally properly solving the overcrowding issue.

 

[Non Multi]

I think the next few years are basically an experiment to see if it still washes its face in the light of Crossrail opening. If it doesn't, best get rid of it and run 12-car Reading fasts instead, finally properly solving the overcrowding issue.

Trains will still be required for the Heathrow Western Access services if, or (more likely) when it opens sometime in the next decade.

 

[adc82140]

I may have missed this back through the thread so apologies if I'm repeating something...

Are the 387/3s a long term fixture with c2c? Is there any chance of them being added to the GWR fleet in the medium term?

 

[cactustwirly]

Regarding the HEx changes, I may have missed it above, but it was well understood that the 25 year contract for the 4 per hour on the Mains expires in 2023. I have not seen anything abouth this being altered. That has long been in the sights of both GW and Crossrail.

It was extended to 2028

 

[Mikey C]

I may have missed this back through the thread so apologies if I'm repeating something...

Are the 387/3s a long term fixture with c2c? Is there any chance of them being added to the GWR fleet in the medium term?

I think C2C 387s will become available in 2021 when their Aventras arrive

 

[JonathanH]

I think the next few years are basically an experiment to see if it still washes its face in the light of Crossrail opening. If it doesn't, best get rid of it and run 12-car Reading fasts instead, finally properly solving the overcrowding issue.

If you run 12-car Reading fasts at 110mph using the Heathrow Express paths you lose the ability to run services to Maidenhead and Twyford using 110mph stock and you hold up 125mph services. It doesn't work.

And actually, you would be better off with something that has a 700-like interior than 387s if you really want to do that.

 

[Mordac]

Given how unreliable they are in adverse weather, perhaps not. Any hint of a snowflake and they just don't work.

Fits nicely with the rest of Heathrow's operations, though!

 

[cactustwirly]

I think the next few years are basically an experiment to see if it still washes its face in the light of Crossrail opening. If it doesn't, best get rid of it and run 12-car Reading fasts instead, finally properly solving the overcrowding issue.

But they can't do that, there isn't the line capacity nor the platform capacity at Reading to do that.

 

[coppercapped]

I think the next few years are basically an experiment to see if it still washes its face in the light of Crossrail opening. If it doesn't, best get rid of it and run 12-car Reading fasts instead, finally properly solving the overcrowding issue.

The DfT urgently needed HAL's acceptance of the closure by December 2019 of the OOC HEx depot. To get this it offered HAL what is effectively a five year long extension to the original BR/BAA deal - HAL continues to set the fares and market the HEx service and it keeps a non-stop service to Paddington - something which its market surveys says is worth about 3% in modal split for its airline passengers between road and rail. As HAL is aiming for a 50% modal split in the next few years this 3% is important. The DfT also avoids a long and potentially acrimonious argument - this deal is no experiment but is the cost of keeping HS2 on schedule.

In any event the future HEx service is more likely to wash its face under the new arrangements than it would be likely to do under the existing situation. The overheads of running a mini-TOC including a specialised maintenance depot fall away as all the operational costs will be shared with other GWR services - so the cost base will be less.

The other part of the deal is that the proposals for the western and southern approaches to Heathrow will be 'progressed' by the DfT. After years of procrastination these are now likely to see the light of day thanks to - of all things - HS2. With the dual voltage capability of the the 387s it is entirely likely that in the next five or six years HEx will run through Heathrow to one or more of Reading, Guildford and Basingstoke. The economics by then will look very different.

 

[Kite159]

Get rid of HEX and all the business people who currently use it won't go for the cheap & cheerful stopping 345 services with an interior designed for metro rather than airport traffic (oh where should I put my suitcase, there isn't any luggage racks, not even overhead racks), they will simply switch to using taxis from the airport direct to their destination.

Likewise when it comes to boarding, they will have a choice of a nice taxi to Heathrow or standing around Paddington low level, waiting for the correct Crossrail service to roll in, no doubt already busy, having little dwell time to load said luggage (which they can't place in any racks as they don't exist), so standing when the 345 calls at the likes of Ealing & Southall. I know if I was claiming back travel costs as a business expense the taxi would win outright, I know if I was going on a £3000 holiday so I could make use of the existing HEX "90 day" advances, the extra cost isn't really a deal breaker. It's like someone treating themselves to 1st class on a long-ish train trip.

Just look at the current Heathrow Connect services, rolling from the airport into Hayes they are mostly empty, filling up at every stop. Any Heathrow travellers on a strict budget a: wouldn't necessary be using Heathrow in the first place (not really a large hub for the low-cost carriers), b: would be using either the Piccadilly line, or even paying £1.50 for a bus trip back to London.

 

[The Ham]

The DfT urgently needed HAL's acceptance of the closure by December 2019 of the OOC HEx depot. To get this it offered HAL what is effectively a five year long extension to the original BR/BAA deal - HAL continues to set the fares and market the HEx service and it keeps a non-stop service to Paddington - something which its market surveys says is worth about 3% in modal split for its airline passengers between road and rail. As HAL is aiming for a 50% modal split in the next few years this 3% is important. The DfT also avoids a long and potentially acrimonious argument - this deal is no experiment but is the cost of keeping HS2 on schedule.

In any event the future HEx service is more likely to wash its face under the new arrangements than it would be likely to do under the existing situation. The overheads of running a mini-TOC including a specialised maintenance depot fall away as all the operational costs will be shared with other GWR services - so the cost base will be less.

The other part of the deal is that the proposals for the western and southern approaches to Heathrow will be 'progressed' by the DfT. After years of procrastination these are now likely to see the light of day thanks to - of all things - HS2. With the dual voltage capability of the the 387s it is entirely likely that in the next five or six years HEx will run through Heathrow to one or more of Reading, Guildford and Basingstoke. The economics by then will look very different.

I think that both the Western and Southern Approach to Heathrow have the potential to be very useful to the railway.

First off you could run longer units between Basingstoke and Reading (calling all stops) as there's a big draw beyond Reading as well as to Reading making such units worth running.

Next up you can increase the frequency of services between Woking and Guildford, possibly showing extra services to Worplesdon, and maybe to an extra Guildford station.

If it served all the stations between Woking and Basingstoke it could free a path on the current Basingstoke stoppers to be used for another service (to Guildford via Farnham) whilst increasing frequenties at places like Fleet and Hook without changing journey times to London for the latter, although it would require a change.

That's quite a significant area that sees an improvement to their services (an area that has a lot of rail travel but could do with more services) without really impacting on journey times for those who want a fast and frequent journey between Guildford/Basingstoke to Heathrow (in that many would get the first train to Woking and change if required rather than wait for the direct services).

 

[MatthewRead]

I think C2C 387s will become available in 2021 when their Aventras arrive

I thought their lease expired in 2019.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Trains will still be required for the Heathrow Western Access services if, or (more likely) when it opens sometime in the next decade.

Continuation of Crossrail may make more sense than anything HEx related.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But they can't do that, there isn't the line capacity nor the platform capacity at Reading to do that.

Removing HEx will free up a load of paths, at least. Platform capacity could be added by extending the station if necessary, but I'd expect it would be doable even if they have to have all their layover at Paddington by stepping drivers up at Reading (i.e. having one waiting to take the train south again minutes after it arrives).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Get rid of HEX and all the business people who currently use it won't go for the cheap & cheerful stopping 345 services with an interior designed for metro rather than airport traffic (oh where should I put my suitcase, there isn't any luggage racks, not even overhead racks), they will simply switch to using taxis from the airport direct to their destination.

They really won't. They are the same type of business people who will use Crossrail (or who presently use the very similar Thameslink) to get to work. They will appreciate the direct service to the City which will be faster than any taxi or pratting about at Paddington. (Taxis in London are really very slow - the Tube and Thameslink are the fastest way to get around by far).

Just look at the current Heathrow Connect services, rolling from the airport into Hayes they are mostly empty, filling up at every stop. Any Heathrow travellers on a strict budget a: wouldn't necessary be using Heathrow in the first place (not really a large hub for the low-cost carriers), b: would be using either the Piccadilly line, or even paying £1.50 for a bus trip back to London.

Heathrow Connect does not go beyond Paddington. That's why it's different.

 

[Kite159]

They really won't. They are the same type of business people who will use Crossrail (or who presently use the very similar Thameslink) to get to work. They will appreciate the direct service to the City which will be faster than any taxi or pratting about at Paddington. (Taxis in London are really very slow - the Tube and Thameslink are the fastest way to get around by far).

Heathrow Connect does not go beyond Paddington. That's why it's different.

And for those not heading to destinations served by the direct metro 345s with absolutely no luggage racks? I.e. ones which would be changing at Paddington anyway (maybe onto the Bakerloo for stations towards Harrow & Wealdstone)

For example Bill & Doris from Kent, who currently travel into Charing Cross, changing onto the Bakerloo to Paddington to be able to board a train upto 15 minutes before departure, a very high chance of a seat, being able to place their luggage on a luggage rack, maybe something on the overhead luggage racks (such luxuries, like toilets, plug sockets & even tables!).

If HEX disappears and the only option is either the slow Piccadilly line or the Metro 345s, then it will be changing at Tottenham Court Road or Paddington, fighting through the crowds to ensure they board the correct 345, with minimal dwell time, most likely standing room only (due to the seating layout having less seats), stopping at multiple stations being unable to relax as they need to keep an eye on their luggage (in case a dodgy character decides to steal the suitcase).

Go around the world, most of the major airports will have dedicated limited stop fast services, apart from Heathrow, which will have a metro stopping service (which after a few months will change to calling at every station between Hayes & Paddington Low Level)

 

[JonathanH]

Removing HEx will free up a load of paths, at least. Platform capacity could be added by extending the station if necessary, but I'd expect it would be doable even if they have to have all their layover at Paddington by stepping drivers up at Reading (i.e. having one waiting to take the train south again minutes after it arrives).

Heathrow Express uses four paths between Paddington and Airport Junction. Those paths aren't available beyond some point short of Reading because of Slough stops off-peak and Maidenhead / Twyford stops in the peak.

What do you propose they do to serve Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford? You could, of course, run flighted trains but putting those stops (or crossing moves) in 110mph paths loses 125mph paths on the main line and that further cuts capacity to Reading.

Heathrow Express is actually quite a good use of the paths it has.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And for those not heading to destinations served by the direct metro 345s with absolutely no luggage racks? I.e. ones which would be changing at Paddington anyway (maybe onto the Bakerloo for stations towards Harrow & Wealdstone)

Who are these business people travelling with loads of luggage? Most likely they are travelling hand luggage only with a small trolley case which can go by their feet for the short journey into London.

For example Bill & Doris from Kent, who currently travel into Charing Cross, changing onto the Bakerloo to Paddington to be able to board a train upto 15 minutes before departure, a very high chance of a seat, being able to place their luggage on a luggage rack, maybe something on the overhead luggage racks (such luxuries, like toilets, plug sockets & even tables!).

HEx is hardly aimed at tourists with the pricing. Bill and Doris from Kent will most likely drive or take a National Express coach.

 

[cactustwirly]

Removing HEx will free up a load of paths, at least. Platform capacity could be added by extending the station if necessary, but I'd expect it would be doable even if they have to have all their layover at Paddington by stepping drivers up at Reading (i.e. having one waiting to take the train south again minutes after it arrives).

It frees up 4tph to Airport junction not Reading.
But that requires a load of extra drivers, and the platform would be occupied for a few minutes which would mean that high speed services waiting outside Reading.
Also your service would have to cross over the mains on flat crossings outside Reading, eating up a shed load of capacity.
Basically undoing all the benefits of the Reading station rebuild, even if there was the line capacity.

 

[Non Multi]

For Bill & Doris from Kent, there's another option: getting off at Waterloo East, going across the footbridge into Waterloo Station for a Windsor or Reading bound train, and taking a black cab or the bus from Feltham into nearby Heathrow. This route avoids the Underground, Thameslink, Crossrail/HC and HEX.

 

[Reliablebeam]

Thanks all for your replies to my feedback!! I do appreciate hearing others views. I think most of us here are railfans of some description, but this thread, and the one on the Heath fare incident show the collision of staff, hardcore fans who love or want to sign weird traction, and people who need to get places.

I notice First great western coffee shop has picked up the Turbo substitutions, I'm not a member but keep an eye on things. I hope the railway pros and hardcore spotters don't feel insulted, but those of us what live down these parts and need to use the Iron Horseless carriage cast a weary eye of cynicism over hare brained schemes FGW or GWR (insert latest name here) come up with, as you will have seen. I don't object to innovative working and think the 319's or whatever name they go by now could deliver some superb possibilities on some lines in their new disguise as bimodes. But I'm sorry, I do object to turbos bumbling down a route that is 100% electrified, and when the two carriage turbo shows up vice the 8 car 387, the backlash from the irate customer will make this thread look like a tea party. GWR is like the Christian faith - they promise us New Jerusalem at some indeterminate point in the future. Stand and deliver please!

HEX out to the West would garner a lot of use, with Oxford Uni, Harwell campus and Milton Park businesses. This should be a priority!

 

[FGW_DID]

But 12 X 3 car Turbos would need to be released to provide the same amount of capacity as the 387s.
Given the shortages at Reading atm, I can just see a lone 2 car 165 appearing on a busy peak time service.

I'm not whining, I'm stating my opinion of why this whole thing is a really bad idea.

The 319s aren't particularly reliable and Reading barely has enough Turbo's to cover its diagrams (with daily shortforms)
I just know the 8 car 387s will be replaced with 2 car 165s on busy peak time services.
One of the reasons why they were replaced with 387s was because they didn't have enough capacity.
The diagrams will have to be rewritten to keep the turbos off the mains, since the peak time Didcot services are timed for 110mph.

Where do you get this idea of a shortage of Turbos at Reading?

Currently there are 30 diagrams for a fleet of 39. Out of the 9 “spare” units, 5 are away at either Long Marston or Wolverton. That’s leaves 4 to enable routine maintenance (exams, component changes etc) and repairs to failures in traffic.
The reason for shortforms is there is usually an imbalance in the stop list with more 3 cars stopped so unfortunately a 2 car will have to cover.

 

[cactustwirly]

Where do you get this idea of a shortage of Turbos at Reading?

Currently there are 30 diagrams for a fleet of 39. Out of the 9 “spare” units, 5 are away at either Long Marston or Wolverton. That’s leaves 4 to enable routine maintenance (exams, component changes etc) and repairs to failures in traffic.
The reason for shortforms is there is usually an imbalance in the stop list with more 3 cars stopped so unfortunately a 2 car will have to cover.

The daily list of shortforms gives the impression of a shortage of units.

 

[Mikey C]

I thought their lease expired in 2019.

I believe they've been extended

 

[JN114]

The daily list of shortforms gives the impression of a shortage of units.

Impressions are one thing. The facts are I genuinely don’t remember the last time Reading failed to turn out the requisite number of units for service. Yes, there are mis-matches (2 vice 3, 3 vice 2, 165 vice 166 and so on), but that’s just an imbalance in fleet utilisation between the 2 cars and 3 cars. The 3 cars are (rightly) pushed to the absolute limit of what is practical diagram-wise. Thus there isn’t spare capacity in the 3 car fleet to make up when units are on exam; or works visits. A 2 car has to substitute. If you’d prefer I’m sure we could ban short forms and mismatches and just cancel trains instead?

As Clarence Yard says up thread, the intention is to keep the 769s operated by a single driver depot - to reduce the problems we’ve had with the 387 and IET introductions whereby we’re struggling to get all the depots that need to sign the traction trained up quickly enough. There are only 2 training schools which could do the classroom training - if all 3 LTV driver depots have to learn them; you have to split the places on the training courses between those 3 depots. It takes 3 times as long to train up enough drivers at each depot before we have enough drivers at each depot for the units to become productive. Mainline work is split over all 3 depots, so by putting 769s on mainline duties you need all 3 depots to learn the traction. Reading depot has a significant amount of work that it can call it’s own though - North Downs, Basingstoke, Henley, Bourne End, Windsor. All (currently) Reading Drivers only. All suitable, in some degree or other, for 769 operation. As all LTV drivers sign 16x as core traction, it is logical to use the 769s on depot-specific routes they will end up working long-term to displace Turbos that can be driven by anyone onto Mainline work that can be covered by anyone - depending on what day of the week it is or whether the month starts with a ‘J’. This temporarily frees up Turbos; in the quieter part of the year; to allow 387s to go away for mods. Those Turbos are backfilled towards the end of 2019 by 387s made redundant by Crossrail introduction.

12 diagrams Turbo vice Electrostar sounds like a lot. It isn’t. Many 387 diagrams are peak only. With some careful re-shuffling of the allocations, I think the impact will be minimal. Perhaps a couple of contra/shoulder-peak Reading stoppers become 6 vice 8. Off-peak 3 vice 8 would be ample in places; the only reason they’re 8s now is the ball-ache that is splitting and coupling the damn things.

 

[Sebastian O]

First off you could run longer units between Basingstoke and Reading (calling all stops) as there's a big draw beyond Reading as well as to Reading making such units worth running.

Going to nitpick here but quite a lot wrong with this post.

On this point - there is already plenty of unused capacity already available on the Basingstoke to Reading services with XC hourly (I believe, may be more) and GWR half hourly. They could put doubled up 165s but they have even downgraded this to a 150 service as of late. Is there a draw beyond Reading? Maybe so but even with Western access this is one change at Reading rather than up to Hayes and back down.

I don’t think they would want to run via Reading services as Basingstoke has limited links. It’s either back up towards Woking, down to Salisbury (most towns have much better access with GWR stations back to Reading and faster) or down the long long winding road via Winchester.

Next up you can increase the frequency of services between Woking and Guildford, possibly showing extra services to Worplesdon, and maybe to an extra Guildford station.

That’s a complete not sequitur. Why would this free up paths?

If it served all the stations between Woking and Basingstoke it could free a path on the current Basingstoke stoppers to be used for another service (to Guildford via Farnham) whilst increasing frequenties at places like Fleet and Hook without changing journey times to London for the latter, although it would require a change.

Again I’m lost. Another non sequitur. Surely this would add another two paths an hour if on a 2tph timetable? And if hypothetically you ran the Southern access as effectively a Basingstoke stopper that then turned into a Waterloo via Virginia Water service then who would you fill the train with? It’s a slower service via Chertsey especially when commuters would simply get off at Byfleet and NH or Egham to change?

Adding frequencies for everyone to simply leave halfway through at the same two predictable bottlenecks would be stupid and a waste of timings on the network.

That's quite a significant area that sees an improvement to their services (an area that has a lot of rail travel but could do with more services) without really impacting on journey times for those who want a fast and frequent journey between Guildford/Basingstoke to Heathrow (in that many would get the first train to Woking and change if required rather than wait for the direct services).

The SWML is already chockablock and is built and run in a way where there are more Jesus Nut failure points than I care to count. The services (if built because that means removal of more than ten level crossings, some that will be considerably challenging technically) would probably be a simple stopping pattern as below.

• Paddington - Heathrow - Slough - Reading
• Paddington - Heathrow - Staines High Street - Woking - Guildford

Anything more is pure crayonista.

 

[The Ham]

Going to nitpick here but quite a lot wrong with this post.

On this point - there is already plenty of unused capacity already available on the Basingstoke to Reading services with XC hourly (I believe, may be more) and GWR half hourly. They could put doubled up 165s but they have even downgraded this to a 150 service as of late. Is there a draw beyond Reading? Maybe so but even with Western access this is one change at Reading rather than up to Hayes and back down.

I don’t think they would want to run via Reading services as Basingstoke has limited links. It’s either back up towards Woking, down to Salisbury (most towns have much better access with GWR stations back to Reading and faster) or down the long long winding road via Winchester.



That’s a complete not sequitur. Why would this free up paths?



Again I’m lost. Another non sequitur. Surely this would add another two paths an hour if on a 2tph timetable? And if hypothetically you ran the Southern access as effectively a Basingstoke stopper that then turned into a Waterloo via Virginia Water service then who would you fill the train with? It’s a slower service via Chertsey especially when commuters would simply get off at Byfleet and NH or Egham to change?

Adding frequencies for everyone to simply leave halfway through at the same two predictable bottlenecks would be stupid and a waste of timings on the network.



The SWML is already chockablock and is built and run in a way where there are more Jesus Nut failure points than I care to count. The services (if built because that means removal of more than ten level crossings, some that will be considerably challenging technically) would probably be a simple stopping pattern as below.

• Paddington - Heathrow - Slough - Reading
• Paddington - Heathrow - Staines High Street - Woking - Guildford

Anything more is pure crayonista.

By linking Basingstoke/Reading with Reading/Heathrow/Paddington (Western Approach) it removes changes and those changes that you do have can be done at Basingstoke rather than Reading. This has the advantage that someone unfamiliar with the railways only had 5 platforms to pick from with what appears to be better staff visibility.

You so have to bear in mind that we are probably talking about at least 5 years away as probably realistically planning for10 years and so what is currently served by a 3 coach unit may need more than 4 coaches (it certainly does now in the peaks).

XC services help with keeping some people off the local services, however they may not help with getting to Heathrow depending on timings.

I've not brought such an idea from no where:

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/2015/09/24/network-rail-predicts-new-route-requirements

Destination boards at London Paddington could be displaying services for Southampton via Heathrow Airport in future years, Network Rail suggests in one of it latest route studies.

There's quite a lot of people who travel through Basingstoke at present, as there's services (ignoring Salisbury and West as you point out that they would probably go via the GWML anyway, but they may not; as someone from Honiton may be just as quick to go to Basingstoke and change than change at Salisbury and then change again to get to Reading to change for a third time) to Andover, Winchester, Portsmouth, Southampton, Bournemouth, Poole and Weymouth. That's a lot of people that could benefit from travel to Heathrow who currently all would most likely drive at it would be quicker than using public transport, after the Western Approach is built public transport should start to be much more of an option.

That's before you consider the large numbers of businesses that there's in Basingstoke.

Given the capacity issues that there currently are between Basingstoke and Reading a good first step would, in my mind, to be to replace the local services and then when capacity improves happen look to bring in the faster/longer distance services looked to above.

The Southern Approach is quoted as providing 2tph to Guildford and Basingstoke (so again not me with my crayons). As such the will be extra services between Woking and Guildford, the paths are probably due to the fact that Woking's junction would also need to be grade separated (again a project often quoted in NR documents) and from the fact that the capacity constraints on the SWML are more to do with all the services that join it rather than on the 4 tracks through Woking.

There's also been discussions about Guildford gaining an extra station, so to serve that without showing down the Portsmouth services it could be served by the Heathrow services.

The suggestion for the Southern Approach services was to add them between Woking and Basingstoke as stoppers. Yes this would mean 4tph for the likes of Hook and Winchfield, which although could do with a more frequent service wouldn't justify that level. The reason for this would be because Basingstoke would have services via the Western Approach route to Heathrow (which I'm lead to believe should be quicker) and so there's unlikely to be many that would wish to use the Southern Approach services to go to Heathrow and so you're more likely to generate more passengers by running it as a stopping service than trying to run it fast or semi fast.

As 4tph wood be too much I was proposing moving one of the existing services to/from London to serve Farnham, with it then forming a second service an hour between the and Guildford. Those from Farnborough have fast services and so the to use those to get to Waterloo, the other stations could either use the other Waterloo service(s) or could change at Farnborough or Woking to carry onto Waterloo with little or no time penalty. With 1 direct service to Waterloo and then two other services which would get you the equally quickly as the direct service most people would see that as an improvement over the existing 2tph, especially as you'd also gain a more frequent service westbound AND services to Heathrow.

All I've done is suggest calling patterns for services which have been suggested by others, including those well known crayonists NR, in a way that could bring larger benefits than just running the services fast.

 

[JonathanH]

As Clarence Yard says up thread, the intention is to keep the 769s operated by a single driver depot - to reduce the problems we’ve had with the 387 and IET introductions whereby we’re struggling to get all the depots that need to sign the traction trained up quickly enough.

How complicated is the involvement of Redhill Southern drivers on North Downs Line diagrams? They obviously do the last eastbound and first westbound workings - presumably they do enough work during the day that they have to be trained on 769s as well.

 

[Clarence Yard]

How complicated is the involvement of Redhill Southern drivers on North Downs Line diagrams? They obviously do the last eastbound and first westbound workings - presumably they do enough work during the day that they have to be trained on 769s as well.

They don’t so the current plan is that they won’t.

Longer term I think there is an aspiration between both companies for the work to go to GWR (to free up the Redhill men for Southern work) but whether this happens in May 2019, I don’t know. Until that eventually happens, there will have to be one Turbo working left on the ND.