Is GWR too complex?

[Fyldeboy]

Looking at long distance franchises, specifically LNER and Avanti, they concentrate on their core product. The only long-ish distance operator I can see who tries to combine long-distance with regional services is EMR and we know how well that's going (honourable mention perhaps to Greater Anglia).

Back in the day when I worked for GW we had 3 main intercity routes for the directors to focus on and, although every franchise can always be knocked, imho they ran a good railway and seemed committed in my occassional dealings with them. As I've moved away from the railway, I do not have the same insight but this and other forums suggests that Gods Wonderful Railway is now Late Western Failway (or your favourite backronym).

Is this because expansion of the franchise to include Wessex and Thames Trains? I know they have had decades to get to grips with it, but is it just too big (or complex) for Firstgroup to handle? Has the money committed to IET held back regional services?

 

[Bletchleyite]

GWR seems to work fairly well in my observation, other than slightly sloppy timekeeping on the long distance services and the random nature of catering. The benefit of having the Cornish branches as part of it is that they mostly exist to serve the mainline, just as the Thames Valley branches do, which is different from say the Northern branches into Manchester, for instance, which primarily exist to get people into Manchester, with connections secondary.

It seems to me that the sloppy timekeeping on the 80x services has to do with those units (and in particular engine failures resulting in an underpowered unit attempting to get up the Devon banks, and overheating) and not to do with the complexity or otherwise of the TOC.

Thames Valley slow line services have ALWAYS suffered sloppy timekeeping due to the number of trains crammed in, a bit like the south WCML in the peaks, if anything they're better now with EMUs than they were with sluggish DMUs.

 

[43066]

Looking at long distance franchises, specifically LNER and Avanti, they concentrate on their core product. The only long-ish distance operator I can see who tries to combine long-distance with regional services is EMR and we know how well that's going (honourable mention perhaps to Greater Anglia).

EMR Intercity/Connect (ie the bits that go to London) are a largely separate animal to EMR regional, at least in operational terms.

 

[Fyldeboy]

EMR Intercity/Connect (ie the bits that go to London) are a largely separate animal to EMR regional, at least in operational terms.

And I suspect GWR intercity has it's own 'top team' but those management teams will all fall under a franchise management team - perhaps they need to 'manage' better

 

[nw1]

I personally prefer the idea of minimising the number of TOCs (but I guess this is an academic point anyway).

Larger TOCs can integrate their network better, as all the trains are being planned by one organisation to all work together, rather than multiple companies all coming up with their own timetables and then having to try and fit them together. (I realise with GBR this is becoming increasingly irrelevant, though).

 

[LowLevel]

EMR Intercity/Connect (ie the bits that go to London) are a largely separate animal to EMR regional, at least in operational terms.

They are - though of course the links have been exploited in the past to provide cover for events and shortages, to fairly good effect. The management and control teams are unified too even if the staff themselves don't cross borders, with the exception of the Derby mixed link drivers and a handful of Derby/Nottingham conductors that sign 222s/180s and Derby train managers who sign/signed Crewe (don't know if they're still current).

I think developing the Regional/Intercity services together to provide connections is a good move.

 

[ScottGallagher]

The SRA at the time were perusing a one London Terminus one operator policy, which only got as far as Liverpool Street and Paddington, i would assume Virgin would have lobbied against having the former Silverlink County routes under their wing and maybe similar with GNER and WAGN, perhaps why it didn't get further than that (at least in part) Of course thats me speculating!!

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

And I suspect GWR intercity has it's own 'top team' but those management teams will all fall under a franchise management team - perhaps they need to 'manage' better

Nope. GWR’s management team is divided up under Regional Managers, rather than by service group.

 

[Horizon22]

The SRA at the time were perusing a one London Terminus one operator policy, which only got as far as Liverpool Street and Paddington, i would assume Virgin would have lobbied against having the former Silverlink County routes under their wing and maybe similar with GNER and WAGN, perhaps why it didn't get further than that (at least in part) Of course thats me
speculating!!

Some have naturally occurred of course (Waterloo) whilst some terminals are naturally somewhat split (Victoria). Liverpool St has also now broken up further since.

GWR seems to work fairly well in my observation, other than slightly sloppy timekeeping on the long distance services and the random nature of catering. The benefit of having the Cornish branches as part of it is that they mostly exist to serve the mainline, just as the Thames Valley branches do, which is different from say the Northern branches into Manchester, for instance, which primarily exist to get people into Manchester, with connections secondary.

It seems to me that the sloppy timekeeping on the 80x services has to do with those units (and in particular engine failures resulting in an underpowered unit attempting to get up the Devon banks, and overheating) and not to do with the complexity or otherwise of the TOC.

Thames Valley slow line services have ALWAYS suffered sloppy timekeeping due to the number of trains crammed in, a bit like the south WCML in the peaks, if anything they're better now with EMUs than they were with sluggish DMUs.

It is good to have branch and mainlines operating together and with stated connectivity aims. We’ve seen far too often at other branches where it simply doesn’t work but the other operator doesn’t want to tolerate the delay.

As for Thames Valley, the presence of the Elizabeth Line and TfL branding will probable emphasise better timekeeping too, as well as the aforementioned EMUs & the lack of through running of the branches now.

For the OP, is there anything specific you had in mind other than a random rhyming slogan? GWR seems to be overall decently run, even it’s not amazing. The 80x fleet is perhaps less reliable than LNER but then again they've been locked into some fairly oppressive contracts. And perhaps it now is more noticable that the multiple routes are hamstrung somewhat by an excessive amount of 5-cars. Their offering in the West Country is generally fairly decent, although they could certainly do with a better regional stock for those mid-distance routes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2022 ==

Nope. GWR’s management team is divided up under Regional Managers, rather than by service group.

However their control is not (currently). Geographic station management is however much more sensible.

 

[JN114]

Nope. GWR’s management team is divided up under Regional Managers, rather than by service group.

I'd humbly suggest it's how control is organised that contributes to how the company is perceived externally; than any influences that the regional managers may have - who are only really responsible for traincrew/stations, rather than how the service is run at all.

From a control perspective they are still effectively 3 different operators; although both crews and now units do cross the lines between the "operators" more and more frequently – control is still (for now) organised around the 3 divisions: High Speed, West and Thames, with Thames also looking after Heathrow Express and a small number of the Thames Valley IET services.

That is (some may say finally) going to change in the not too distant future; where control will be divvyed up purely into geographical areas. I can't comment if that will "improve" things for the OP or not, maybe come back in 12-18 months once the new structure is finally in and had a year to bed in?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2022 ==

It is good to have branch and mainlines operating together and with stated connectivity aims. We’ve seen far too often at other branches where it simply doesn’t work but the other operator doesn’t want to tolerate the delay.

As for Thames Valley, the presence of the Elizabeth Line and TfL branding will probable emphasise better timekeeping too, as well as the aforementioned EMUs & the lack of through running of the branches now.

It is very evident that Elizabeth Line is having a huge impact on the Inner Thames Valley, and is clearly a massive priority for NR and the DfT. The proposed "weave" service in lieu of the Didcot Class 2s is a big departure from where we are at present; and will leave the Relief Lines in the Inner Thames Valley exclusively for Elizabeth Line and Freight.

 

[Grecian 1998]

GWR generally offer a considerably better service on the branch lines than Wessex ever did e.g.

Barnstaple branch - hourly service with 3 coaches generally
Falmouth - half hourly thanks to Penryn loop
Exmouth - Paignton - half hourly with 4 x 20m or 3 x 23m coaches (albeit this is almost more of a suburban service running through fine scenery - it doesn't feel at all rural)
Looe - roughly hourly

Another recent welcome improvement for me is the increased number of GWR Bristol - Exeter - points west services, given XC still have multiple 2 hour gaps post-COVID. It takes longer than XC but they're fairly reliable despite the age of the Castle HSTs and with a far better chance of a seat than a 220. Also gives Dawlish, Teignmouth and Ivybridge a more regular service north of Exeter.

Timekeeping is fairly good in my experience. Obviously it could be argued much of this might have happened anyway, but it didn't under Wessex.

An exception is the Heart of Wessex line which has the same number of trains with the same number of stops as 30 years ago, but with extended journey times (although possibly more connections). Time keeping is pretty iffy in my experience.

I've never found timekeeping on GWR mainline services to be too bad, although when I do use them, it's mainly Paddington - Bristol services and west of Exeter, so can't speak for other areas. Same goes for Thames Valley.

It seems to me that the sloppy timekeeping on the 80x services has to do with those units (and in particular engine failures resulting in an underpowered unit attempting to get up the Devon banks, and overheating) and not to do with the complexity or otherwise of the TOC.

Given that electrification no longer needs to be continuous, the Devon banks would be an obvious candidate if the relative isolation doesn't cause too many problems. Not only should it increase reliability, but if there's no plan to ever improve the fairly pathetic 60mph maximum between Newton Abbot and Hemerdon, it's an obvious way of speeding up journey times.

I assume it's still standard practice to cut out the Totnes stop on trains with reduced engines in any case.

 

[cactustwirly]

GWR seem one of the better run TOCs.

The regional services are a lot better run, I have no real complaints about the intercity services.

The Thames Valley is decent too, much better than the service offered by TfL Rail

 

[Purple Train]

I think it is too complex in the sense that their Thames Valley spine services are fighting with Elizabeth Line services, but they're still trying to run a token service to all stations (perhaps - I'm not sure whether they usually serve Iver, Langley, and Taplow). While, diagrammatically, their network is similar to Greater Anglia's, all the separate arms are very long and need far more units to serve when things all go wrong. In that sense I would agree - it is too complex. But that didn't stop Brunel, and, after all, GWR like their heritage

 

[swt_passenger]

I think it is too complex in the sense that their Thames Valley spine services are fighting with Elizabeth Line services, but they're still trying to run a token service to all stations (perhaps - I'm not sure whether they usually serve Iver, Langley, and Taplow). While, diagrammatically, their network is similar to Greater Anglia's, all the separate arms are very long and need far more units to serve when things all go wrong. In that sense I would agree - it is too complex. But that didn't stop Brunel, and, after all, GWR like their heritage

That’s all in the process of being altered. As a result of a current track access application GWR won’t normally be stopping anywhere between Slough and Paddington from next May, (except for overnight services), but it’s probably best to avoid duplicate discussion as it’s already being covered in other threads.

 

[Purple Train]

That’s all in the process of being altered. As a result of a current track access application GWR won’t normally be stopping anywhere between Slough and Paddington from next May, (except for overnight services), but it’s probably best to avoid duplicate discussion as it’s already being covered in other threads.

Good, I'll get home much quicker then.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

GWR looks like a great TOC on first glance, but I just think GWR looks good because of the brand new fleet on Intercity services and 387s on London - Didcot/Newbury.

The rest of the fleet, however, is compiled from 150, 158, 165, 166 and Castle trains - the youngest train being pre-privatisation and fast approaching 30 years old, with almost all routes seeing a big mixture of trains and very little standardisation. If the Regional services formed a standalone TOC as they used to, said TOC would be rather embarrassing if you ask me, service improvements aside. Imagine Northern without the 170s and CAFs.

 

[Horizon22]

GWR seem one of the better run TOCs.

The regional services are a lot better run, I have no real complaints about the intercity services.

The Thames Valley is decent too, much better than the service offered by TfL Rail

It would be considering they are really for different aims.

 

[gingertom]

It seems to me that the sloppy timekeeping on the 80x services has to do with those units (and in particular engine failures resulting in an underpowered unit attempting to get up the Devon banks, and overheating) and not to do with the complexity or otherwise of the TOC.

I'd be interested to see how an 810 copes with the Devon banks with that extra engine....

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Is this because expansion of the franchise to include Wessex and Thames Trains?

The passage of time has possibly obscured how massive an improvement FGW/GWR were over Thames Trains.

In Thames days, Oxford and Cotswold trains were two- or three-coach Turbos: slow, cramped and uncomfortable. FGW introduced 180s and HSTs to the route[1], which in turn were replaced by IETs. The difference is night and day.

[1] There were, of course, a very few GW-operated HSTs on the Cotswolds before the amalgamation: two up, two down, and occasionally another one of some description.

 

[Craig1122]

The passage of time has possibly obscured how massive an improvement FGW/GWR were over Thames Trains.

In Thames days, Oxford and Cotswold trains were two- or three-coach Turbos: slow, cramped and uncomfortable. FGW introduced 180s and HSTs to the route[1], which in turn were replaced by IETs. The difference is night and day.

[1] There were, of course, a very few GW-operated HSTs on the Cotswolds before the amalgamation: two up, two down, and occasionally another one of some description.

In turn it's easy to forget now how much the Thames modernisation by NSE improved services at the time. Other than the 2 HST's Oxford - Worcester was operated by Regional Railways with quite often poor connections at Oxford. The turbos saw it operated as an extension of Oxford expresses, generally air conditioned 166's

There was also a general speeding up of Thames Valley services and improvements like the hourly service Paddington to Bedwyn replacing a poorly timed shuttle from Newbury.

 

[Irascible]

GWR generally offer a considerably better service on the branch lines than Wessex ever did.

Yes. Much like the tube network & people's continual threads about shuffling things around, something that might feel intelectually offensive might actually be working pretty well.

The only problem I have is First's growing monopoly in the south-west, but at this point in the evolution of the control of the railways it hardly matters for that side of things.

If you went back to pre-grouping days GWR wouldn't look any different either ( barring not haviing half of what's now Chiltern ), unless you went a *really* long way back

 

[RedPostJunc]

There was also a general speeding up of Thames Valley services and improvements like the hourly service Paddington to Bedwyn replacing a poorly timed shuttle from Newbury.

Which was replaced in May 2022 by a poorly timed shuttle from Newbury.

 

[irish_rail]

They looked at breaking up GWR 4 or 5 years ago but on reflection decided it was best to stick as it was, and rightly so.
Regarding poor timekeeping on long distance, this generally affects the b and h , and is caused by two things, infrastructure faults, plus the abysmal timekeeping of the stone train traffic to and from the Mendip quarries. Neither of these problems would be aliveated where GWR to be broken up.
The cost savings , in having staff at say Plymouth who can be called upon either to drive the branch to Gunnislake, or an IET up to London is also considerable, whereas at say Avanti, a driver at Liverpool can't cover a 195 trip to say Warrington if he's sat spare with nothing else to do.

All in all the larger franchises for me have multiple benefits and show that BR had it right with the old "Regions" that got phased out in the 90s....

 

[nw1]

Which was replaced in May 2022 by a poorly timed shuttle from Newbury.

To be fair, the Reading-Newbury section is still considerably better than in the immediate pre-NSE days, in which there was an irregular, about every 2 hours Reading-Bedwyn shuttle. Newbury got a few calls from HSTs but nothing like a regular service direct to London.

When you consider the third-rail SR was running frequent clockface services at this time (indeed better than now in some cases), and had been for many, many years, it's amazing how basic the Kennet line service was back in 1984 or so.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jul 2022 ==

They looked at breaking up GWR 4 or 5 years ago but on reflection decided it was best to stick as it was, and rightly so.
Regarding poor timekeeping on long distance, this generally affects the b and h , and is caused by two things, infrastructure faults, plus the abysmal timekeeping of the stone train traffic to and from the Mendip quarries. Neither of these problems would be aliveated where GWR to be broken up.
The cost savings , in having staff at say Plymouth who can be called upon either to drive the branch to Gunnislake, or an IET up to London is also considerable, whereas at say Avanti, a driver at Liverpool can't cover a 195 trip to say Warrington if he's sat spare with nothing else to do.

All in all the larger franchises for me have multiple benefits and show that BR had it right with the old "Regions" that got phased out in the 90s....

I think the Regions made much more sense.
Larger, region-based franchises make for an integrated system in that part of the country.

The only "awkward" one is XC, but that could be part of the "London Midland" franchise as it's centred on Birmingham.

Certainly if the Southern Region had become a single franchise (why, oh why, did they not do that?) the whole SR franchise could have had just one fleet of compatible units to replace the slam-door stock, which could work throughout the whole network. Just like the 41x and 42x fleet was and (to some extent, as I understand not all of them were inter-compatible) the pre-war EMUs too.

Maybe that (what they did with the Southern) is a subject for a separate thread. (EDIT, now created: https://railforums.co.uk/threads/should-the-southern-region-have-become-one-franchise.234938/)

 

[irish_rail]

Certainly if the Southern Region had become a single franchise (why, oh why, did they not do that?) the whole SR franchise could have had just one fleet of compatible units to replace the slam-door stock, which could work throughout the whole network. Just like the 41x and 42x fleet was and (to some extent, as I understand not all of them were inter-compatible) the pre-war EMUs too.

Now your talking way too much sense.

 

[Mikey C]

In turn it's easy to forget now how much the Thames modernisation by NSE improved services at the time. Other than the 2 HST's Oxford - Worcester was operated by Regional Railways with quite often poor connections at Oxford. The turbos saw it operated as an extension of Oxford expresses, generally air conditioned 166's

There was also a general speeding up of Thames Valley services and improvements like the hourly service Paddington to Bedwyn replacing a poorly timed shuttle from Newbury.

If Thames trains had remained separate, maybe they've brought in Turbostars as an upgrade on the 166s, akin to how Chiltern brought in 168s for the longer distance routes.

As it is, GWR does seem to have a slight gap in its fleet, with 166s operating routes which really would have suited Turbostars

 

[Doctor Fegg]

If Thames trains had remained separate, maybe they've brought in Turbostars as an upgrade on the 166s, akin to how Chiltern brought in 168s for the longer distance routes.

Towards the end of their franchise they did issue an OJEU notice for up to 20 new higher-speed DMUs, but that was overtaken by events.

 

[Clarence Yard]

If Thames trains had remained separate, maybe they've brought in Turbostars as an upgrade on the 166s, akin to how Chiltern brought in 168s for the longer distance routes.

As it is, GWR does seem to have a slight gap in its fleet, with 166s operating routes which really would have suited Turbostars

Just before Go-Ahead took the over the Thames management were looking at 5 car 180’s (12 for 10 diagrams, iirc.), to be maintained by GW at Old Oak HST. Go-Ahead then canned any thought of increasing the fleet and that idea died.

3 car 170’s, maintained at Reading was another idea at that time. If Thames went for 4 cars (another thought) it would have involved GW or Adtranz maintenance at OOC.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

If Thames trains had remained separate, maybe they've brought in Turbostars as an upgrade on the 166s, akin to how Chiltern brought in 168s for the longer distance routes.

As it is, GWR does seem to have a slight gap in its fleet, with 166s operating routes which really would have suited Turbostars

Is there really much difference between Turbostars and 166s other than one is a bit newer and generally (but not exclusively) fitted with 2+2 seating and tables and the other has 2+3 seating and coffee tables? An interior can be changed!

 

[JohnRegular]

Is there really much difference between Turbostars and 166s other than one is a bit newer and generally (but not exclusively) fitted with 2+2 seating and tables and the other has 2+3 seating and coffee tables? An interior can be changed!

There is some immovable above-floor equipment on the turbos which means some of the 3+2 can't be altered.

In any case, GWR have not taken the opportunity to change the layout at all during the current refurbishment.