Heathrow Express GWR Contract

[jimm]

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 noted this possibility back on page 3 on Wednesday - re subsequent responses to your question, the initial lease with c2c ran to 2019, but was extended to 2021 so the 387s will stay on Fenchurch Street services until the delivery of the Aventras that c2c has on order.

 

[jimm]

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.

How about reading the very first post in this thread then - with the First Group announcement headlined

Heathrow Express service confirmed to 2028

And the following in the text

From December 2019, and the full opening of the Elizabeth line, rail services to Heathrow will increase from 18 trains per hour today to at least 22 trains per hour. A train will depart Central London to Heathrow on average every two-and-a-half minutes, including:

• 12 Piccadilly Line trains per hour – 6 trains serving Terminals 2, 3 and 4 and 6 trains serving Terminals 2, 3 and 5
• 6 Elizabeth line trains per hour – 4 trains serving Terminals 2, 3 and 4 and 2 trains serving Terminals 2, 3 and 5
• 4 Heathrow Express trains per hour – all trains serving Terminals 2, 3 and 5

It's a 10-year contract. How many more clues do you need that the 4tph service will continue for the next decade? And there will probably continue to be a fast Heathrow service of some sort for a very long time after that as well.

 

[TEW]

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.

I was under the impression that Southern Redhill drivers worked more than a few North Downs trains. It certainly seems fairly common to see a Southern driver at the front of one.

 

[Clarence Yard]

It’s relatively few now. Reading have the vast majority of the work on that line.

 

[gwr4090]

It's a 10-year contract. How many more clues do you need that the 4tph service will continue for the next decade? And there will probably continue to be a fast Heathrow service of some sort for a very long time after that as well.

Network RAil have proposed a fast Paddington-(OOC)-Heathrow-Reading=Basingstoke-Southampton service via the Heathrow Western access. I guess this may have to run relief line Slough-Reading ?

 

[edwin_m]

All this depends very much on whether a southern link is built to Heathrow as well as a western one. If so then it would be better to through-route the HEX paths onto the southern link, as sending them to Reading doesn't open up any new journey opportunities other than Heathrow-Reading whereas a southern link connects a significant population to Old Oak and Paddington as well as Heathrow. The southern link would then provide the service to Basingstoke and beyond, directly or by connection, and the western link trains would terminate at Heathrow but could continue beyond Reading to a different destination (Oxford being the obvious one).

 

[387star]

why does heathrow express get a proper first class?
gatwick express first class on 387s is identical to standard

 

[cactustwirly]

I'd like to see the reaction when a rammed 2 car 165 turbo turns up vice a 8 car 387, which leaves you behind...

So you think sending out unreliable, thrashed to death, 319s are the ideal substitute for brand new 387s?

 

[The Ham]

I'd like to see the reaction when a rammed 2 car 165 turbo turns up vice a 8 car 387, which leaves you behind...

So you think sending out unreliable, thrashed to death, 319s are the ideal substitute for brand new 387s?

Given that there's likely to only be just enough 2 coach units to cover the branches that need them (with the rest of the Turbo diet being 3 coach units) I'd be very surprised if one did actually turn up in replacement in the upto 7 months in which this could happen.

Then we don't know what the replacement rate is, it could be that there's going to be 1 Turbo for every electric train, or it could be upto 1.5, meaning that the could be enough for most if not all diagrams to be run with three Turbos, meaning even a short formed set would still be 6 coaches long.

 

[TEW]

So you think sending out unreliable, thrashed to death, 319s are the ideal substitute for brand new 387s?

I'll just leave the latest reliability figures here for you, all are 2017/18 MAA for MTIN:
GWR 387: 9,706
Northern 319: 8,220
LNR 319: 9,262

So basically, not a lot in it at the moment. The 387s figure should improve significantly over the next 12 months, but even so, the current Northern and LNR 319 fleets are achieving better reliability than all other GWR fleets except the 153s.

 

[JN114]

I'd like to see your reaction when a rammed 2 car 165 turbo turns up vice a 8 car 387, which leaves you behind...

I’d be more concerned about the pig flying past the window than not getting on the train.

It’s really quite simple. I’ve spelt it out twice already; but perhaps 3rd time lucky?

769s operate Turbo diagrams. 1 unit for each Turbo diagram on the routes they are going to work on. The vast majority of Turbos replaced will be 3 cars.

Those surplus Turbos operate 12x Electrostar diagrams. 1 unit for each Electrostar diagram. - Note, an 8 car 387 is TWO diagrams. Most of the displaced Turbos will be 3 car units. 2 times 3 is... 6. A 3 car Turbo has broadly the same number of seats as a 4 car 387; thanks to longer vehicles and 2+3 seating. The reduction in capacity will be negligible, if it exists at all. And the clever and highly paid people whose job it is to actually make these decisions will be beavering away assessing how to do this with the minimum impact to the customer. The Turbos will end up paired up; on off/contra/shoulder peak workings to keep the 8 car 387s on the busy peak services that need them. And it’s only 12 out of 40-something 387 diagrams. (6x 8 cars), a fair chunk of which are peak only.

Because an 8 car 387 is TWO diagrams; and would thus be TWO Turbos in the new order; to end up with a 2 car 165 covering for an 8 car 387 you need not only for the diagram to be short-formed of a 2 car instead of a 3 - which I concede happens occasionally - but the other diagram completely uncovered. I can count the number of wholly uncovered diagrams off Reading depot in the past 3 months on the fingers of one hand. There are 9 surplus Turbos based at Reading at the moment; that is unlikely to reduce massively between now and December 2019.

 

[Kite159]

A 3 coach turbo might have a similar number of seats, but as it's 3+2 a good number won't be used as most passengers would prefer to stand rather than taking up the middle seat *

(* Hertfordshire based passengers excluded, a better idea will be to send 319s with their lovely seating to Great Northern to free up the 387s )

 

[cactustwirly]

I’d be more concerned about the pig flying past the window than not getting on the train.

It’s really quite simple. I’ve spelt it out twice already; but perhaps 3rd time lucky?

769s operate Turbo diagrams. 1 unit for each Turbo diagram on the routes they are going to work on. The vast majority of Turbos replaced will be 3 cars.

Those surplus Turbos operate 12x Electrostar diagrams. 1 unit for each Electrostar diagram. - Note, an 8 car 387 is TWO diagrams. Most of the displaced Turbos will be 3 car units. 2 times 3 is... 6. A 3 car Turbo has broadly the same number of seats as a 4 car 387; thanks to longer vehicles and 2+3 seating. The reduction in capacity will be negligible, if it exists at all. And the clever and highly paid people whose job it is to actually make these decisions will be beavering away assessing how to do this with the minimum impact to the customer. The Turbos will end up paired up; on off/contra/shoulder peak workings to keep the 8 car 387s on the busy peak services that need them. And it’s only 12 out of 40-something 387 diagrams. (6x 8 cars), a fair chunk of which are peak only.

Because an 8 car 387 is TWO diagrams; and would thus be TWO Turbos in the new order; to end up with a 2 car 165 covering for an 8 car 387 you need not only for the diagram to be short-formed of a 2 car instead of a 3 - which I concede happens occasionally - but the other diagram completely uncovered. I can count the number of wholly uncovered diagrams off Reading depot in the past 3 months on the fingers of one hand. There are 9 surplus Turbos based at Reading at the moment; that is unlikely to reduce massively between now and December 2019.

I know that, but given the 319s reliability record with LM, I can see multiple diagrams being shortforms.
The 319s used would have been sat at long Marston for a long time.
I just don't see them having near the reliability of the 165s

 

[cactustwirly]

I'll just leave the latest reliability figures here for you, all are 2017/18 MAA for MTIN:
GWR 387: 9,706
Northern 319: 8,220
LNR 319: 9,262

So basically, not a lot in it at the moment. The 387s figure should improve significantly over the next 12 months, but even so, the current Northern and LNR 319 fleets are achieving better reliability than all other GWR fleets except the 153s.

What about the failure rate when they were first introduced with LM

 

[43096]

I'd like to see your reaction when a rammed 2 car 165 turbo turns up vice a 8 car 387, which leaves you behind...

So you think sending out unreliable, thrashed to death, 319s are the ideal substitute for brand new 387s?

Try answering the question. You claimed you were not whining. Maybe you aren't and just like having a rant....

 

[Non Multi]

Considering the inevitable disruption that is likely to occur on the GWML due to infrastructure enhancements during the next decade, having a few Turbos as cover for 387's for a bit isn't really a big issue. Also worth remembering that if their GWR commuter service isn't to their satisfaction some locals can contact "a bloody difficult woman"...

 

[coppercapped]

A 3 coach turbo might have a similar number of seats, but as it's 3+2 a good number won't be used as most passengers would prefer to stand rather than taking up the middle seat *

Rubbish - Thames Valley travellers are not so stuck up that they will not sit between two other people. After all, they've been doing it for the last 25 years.

(* Hertfordshire based passengers excluded, a better idea will be to send 319s with their lovely seating to Great Northern to free up the 387s )

 

[bramling]

(* Hertfordshire based passengers excluded, a better idea will be to send 319s with their lovely seating to Great Northern to free up the 387s )

If you were going to do something involving Great Northern, you might as well take away some 387s and replace them with 365s. No staff training at all required, and many of the 365s aren't even in store yet.

 

[Clarence Yard]

why does heathrow express get a proper first class?
gatwick express first class on 387s is identical to standard

Because they have it at the moment with the 332 sets, they want it for the 387 sets and the money is there to convert the 387 sets to include it.

Other posters talk about getting more 387 sets in from other operators rather than use 769 sets. That doesn’t solve the depot capacity issue or the long term issue regarding moving Turbos west.

 

[jimm]

And a strong flow of business travellers through Heathrow on expense accounts who won't wince about the fares on Heathrow Express, making adapting the GWR 387s well worth the revenue it will generate. For all the extra routes added from Gatwick in recent years, the customer base there is a bit different.

 

[Chester1]

And a strong flow of business travellers through Heathrow on expense accounts who won't wince about the fares on Heathrow Express, making adapting the GWR 387s well worth the revenue it will generate. For all the extra routes added from Gatwick in recent years, the customer base there is a bit different.

There are other ways of encouraging users to pay for a premium service. There are airline check in desks at Hong Kong Central and Kolwoon stations for Airport Express customers only. The ability to check in your big luggage and collect your boarding pass in city centre upto 24 hours before take off is very useful and hopefully will be copied by a UK airport.

 

[swt_passenger]

The ability to check in your big luggage and collect your boarding pass in city centre upto 24 hours before take off is very useful and hopefully will be copied by a UK airport.

They tried remote luggage check in at Paddington and Victoria and gave up after a few years. No doubt someone will know why it didn’t last.

 

[paulravuslante]

They tried remote luggage check in at Paddington and Victoria and gave up after a few years. No doubt someone will know why it didn’t last.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/jul/07/1
This report suggests it wasn’t that well used at Paddington

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/check-in-checked-out-86987.html
This report confirms closure of both Victoria and Paddington following a decision by BA.

 

[paulravuslante]

Been thinking about this merger and the respective staff involved. I know the shift patterns and pay differ between GWR and Hex drivers, so is it likely that Hex staff will remain as a separate unit within GWR? This would seem unfortunate as I understand GWR had been working to harmonise pay grades that been separate since the takeover of Thames Trains / FGW Link. Back to square one?

 

[Class 170101]

To cover the GW branches east of Reading, would either a Stourbridge style People Mover or a Class 230 be a solution to the issues of short platforms on some of them?

 

[Clarence Yard]

To cover the GW branches east of Reading, would either a Stourbridge style People Mover or a Class 230 be a solution to the issues of short platforms on some of them?

In both cases no. Other solutions are being considered, including retention of 2 car Turbos.

 

[MarkyT]

To cover the GW branches east of Reading, would either a Stourbridge style People Mover or a Class 230 be a solution to the issues of short platforms on some of them?

The Stourbridge style Parry People Mover is too small for these branches. There could be larger, multi-vehicle trains built based on the same technology or some other stored energy technique, but small orders of custom trains for these branch lines alone are unlikely to be cheap. The Marlow platform at Bourne End and the Greenford bay can both only take two car turbos currently. A three car cl.230 formation with it's 18m cars might just fit at these locations (54m vs 46m).

 

[Siemens Staines]

In both cases no. Other solutions are being considered, including retention of 2 car Turbos.

But does that have to be GWR 2 car Turbos?

Perhaps I am being too simplistic, but I would have thought that GWR would prefer to have a homogeneous fleet with all of the 2-car 165s RHM and based at Bristol so the only other 165 solution would be a daily lease of Chiltern 165s for Greenford, Marlow, Oxford-Worcs akin to GWRs daily lease of an SWR 158. Chiltern do have some odd turns like 1638 Oxford - Marylebone which is 4-car 165 which I would thought that they would prefer to be 168, but obviously that could ONLY happen if Chiltern can source some additional 168s. Anglia 170s are due for replacement in 2020 which may fit the bill, but I suspect that there is more than one TOC with an eye on that fleet and that I am being too simplistic.

That would still leave the Didcot-Oxford/Banbury shuttles, but the fleet requirements for that service must be subject to whether the deferred Oxford electrification becomes un-deferred or not?

 

[Clarence Yard]

But does that have to be GWR 2 car Turbos?

Perhaps I am being too simplistic, but I would have thought that GWR would prefer to have a homogeneous fleet with all of the 2-car 165s RHM and based at Bristol so the only other 165 solution would be a daily lease of Chiltern 165s for Greenford, Marlow, Oxford-Worcs akin to GWRs daily lease of an SWR 158. Chiltern do have some odd turns like 1638 Oxford - Marylebone which is 4-car 165 which I would thought that they would prefer to be 168, but obviously that could ONLY happen if Chiltern can source some additional 168s. Anglia 170s are due for replacement in 2020 which may fit the bill, but I suspect that there is more than one TOC with an eye on that fleet and that I am being too simplistic.

That would still leave the Didcot-Oxford/Banbury shuttles, but the fleet requirements for that service must be subject to whether the deferred Oxford electrification becomes un-deferred or not?

The options are being worked out now but they don't involve other TOCs operating these services.

There really isn't a problem with 2 car Turbos long term if they are only serviced at RDG but maintained at SPM and cycle accordingly. But other solutions are also being looked at and, for the avoidance of any doubt, these do not involve 230 or 139 type stock. There are better options out there but I can't be more specific at the moment.

 

[jimm]

If it becomes necessary, I'm sure GWR could work out how to diagram a two-car Turbo operating from the Worcester end of the route to work the Cotswold Line halts trains, now that Turbos are being used on Bristol-Worcester duties.