To be honest I would much rather you engaged with the substance of the argument which is that UK Rail investment is completely geared towards maximising peak capacity. Nobody is worried about long and pretty empty formations at other times, certainly not to the point of sacrificing precious peak capacity which can only otherwise by replicated by building new lines to generate new paths or extending depots and platforms for longer trains, or going to double deck, which is even less likely. Reading already has a massive crowding problem, and so it seems do places even further from Paddington. Long, lightly used off-peak formations are a common feature on many London TOCs as well as long distance ones.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The decline of GWR...
- Thread starter Schweir
- Start date
- Status
To be honest I would much rather you engaged with the substance of the argument which is that UK Rail investment is completely geared towards maximising peak capacity. Nobody is worried about long and pretty empty formations at other times, certainly not to the point of sacrificing precious peak capacity which can only otherwise by replicated by building new lines to generate new paths or extending depots and platforms for longer trains, or going to double deck, which is even less likely. Reading already has a massive crowding problem, and so it seems do places even further from Paddington. Long, lightly used off-peak formations are a common feature on many London TOCs as well as long distance ones.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Ah, okay - The Westbury - Bristol strengthening unit is very rarely a 2-car 158 so rare find there. I didn’t actually see the unit (though I was due to catch it) but just assumed the booked stock. A 153 turned up on it a couple of weeks ago!
I’ve seen at least 2 158s going around with ‘non-multi’ stickers at one end - one being 158798 unless I read the number wrong.
PHILIPE
Veteran Member
158/9 from Pompey and 150/2 ex Westbury through to Cardiff
iantherev
Member
I suspect that it does depend on what ends up at Westbury the night before.
Long off peak trains do happen, would I call them common? Maybe. Are they they universal? Not by a long way.
The reason for not proving all trains as long trains all the time is down to a number of reasons.
- it costs more in lease costs (fleets, like most lease cars, can have a milage rate associated with them as well as for any given time period)
- it costs more in maintenance, either due to having to do maintenance more frequently and/or by having to do so your maintenance over night (this also includes emptying toilet tanks, which also has the advantage of allowing units to have a deeper clean helping to keep them looking better)
- it costs more in track access charges and fuel costs.
- there is more money to be made from peak services, in that trains have higher occupancy levels and in the morning peak ticket prices the to be significantly higher
- the costs of running peak hour services are lower, for example a lot of passengers are season ticket holders (so less ticket office tube is required), more people are buying tickets (so the cost per ticket in selling those tickets is lower)
As such when TOC's use MU's is worth the while not running full length trains off peak as it costs them more and they get less money.
Long distance services (over 3 hours) are a bit different, in that they are likely to be running at a busy time at some point along their route (as they can serve lots of cities) and with less scope for shunting units into a depot. As such the cost savings tend to be less and so it's not so it's not as clear cut. Also a lot currently still use locos and so splitting of takes of carriages is harder (read more expensive) to do.
Leaving aside the issues with the XC fleet being too short the Voyagers show what units can be like if there's little slack in their usage and they are used a lot during the day. With litter needing to be cleaned whilst in service as well as the insides getting worn and dirty fairly quickly.
Much as I'd love for there to be new lines they are very costly and so the existing network needs to be run as efficiently as possible to ensure that there's the money to invest.
Do you have the first idea of what it costs to run dozens of empty coaches up and down for large parts of the day, just in track access charges and fuel?
Or how far it is from Paddington to Hereford, for example? GWR has not been running off-peak HSTs to Hereford in recent years because it is cost-effective, just that it offers a decent environment for a trip that is three hours end-to-end and nothing smaller was available, as the 180s were few in number. The number of passengers on some of those trains past Oxford would fit in a two-car Turbo, so why would any rational person think a 700-seat train is what's needed?
You are utterly obsessed with Reading-Paddington in the peaks. I repeat, it is not the be-all and end-all of GWR - despite which an enormous effort is going in to increase the number of peak seats available into Paddington generally, as Clarence Yard has shown above, which will have benefits for Reading passengers.
The only point I was trying to make about travel beyond Reading was that there are some very busy trains at the busier times of the day and week, over long distances, as opposed to your "localised commuting" claim, and there have been for years - who'd have though that? At other times of the day, the trains aren't so busy - so you don't need a jumbo-train.
In most cases the boost to capacity from 2x5 and nine-car formations - and increased frequencies such as an hourly Cheltenham IET, or five-car IETs replacing smaller Turbos and 180s to Oxford and the Cotswolds - will help deal with those periods of high demand and better spread out the loads, while also allowing for growth, without needing the expenditure of yet more millions of pounds to cart around even more air for hours on end.
PHILIPE
Veteran Member
[
It's actually formed off 2C06 0648 Bristol TM to Westbury. If there isn't a 150/2 available then something else will work it.
It's actually formed off 2C06 0648 Bristol TM to Westbury. If there isn't a 150/2 available then something else will work it.
Last edited:
Unfortunately exactly the same today, long distance inter city at peak time with 5 cars and totally packed given the additional bonus of a 30 minutes delay due to axel counter failure so two peak trains of customers trying to get on at Bath!
We have gone a long way from rare, to not universal. I have given lots of examples.
With 2x5 there aren't more lease costs as you have got the 10 vehicles already. There are probably lower costs as there are fewer cabs and certainly fewer crew vs coupled in service, and which it sounds like a lot will be.
I wouldn't agree that running a longer train off peak 'gets you less money' and given the sums spent on capacity increases it doesn't seem right to be building 15% short on capacity.
Getting that 15% more capacity through infrastructure will be vastly more expensive, the only rational argument is that the capacity definitely won't be needed for the foreseeable future and I would propose that is certainly not true in this case.
Well I thought GWR ran lots of HSTs to Hereford including at weekends? If you compare the cost of infrastructure costs to get 15% more capacity as well as the cost of running more trains also a hell of a lot. The only rational argument for building under capacity is that you won't need it for the next 25 years and I very much doubt that. The long trains model is well established in many other operations. Then you talk of carting around air while boasting about doubling the off peak frequency to Cheltenham?
I haven't claimed localised commuting, in fact I have explained that selling Reading short also sells Didcot, Bristol and everywhere else short too. Given your own anecdotes there seems to be even less reason to be doing this.
On the 800 thread I remember being told what a good idea it would be to split a 2x5 at Oxford in the peak and send 1x5 back to London for a second peak trip. I am glad this isn't the plan and that you agree with me this would not be a good idea.
The likes of Oxford and Newbury should not be IETs at all off peak. That is what 387s and these Flex trains are for.
Wilts Wanderer
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2016
- Messages
- 3,199
I would not be impressed as a passenger to find a 769 on a Padd-Oxford fast. The 319 interiors are like a poorly laid out 150 Sprinter. The Oxford fasts were historically provided with loco-hauled compartment stock and therefore Turbos were something of a downgrade in terms of facilities. Upgrading to IETs is therefore only putting back what was there before, allowing for modernisation of the rolling stock.
A pair of 387s would be a reasonable proposition, if the wires went far enough!
Wilts Wanderer
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2016
- Messages
- 3,199
In terms of IETs, a very significant cost of running unnecessarily long trains is the additional fuel. Given that diesel operation of some sort or other is going to be with us on GWR for a very long time, this cannot be ignored.
In terms of numbers of peak paths, there seems to be a misconception that the signalling headway is the critical factor. It is not - the critical factor is the number of platforms at Paddington and the throughput capacity of the station throat. The ML planning headway is now 2 mins, previously it was 3 mins, was recently reduced in agreement with Network Rail. The technical headway is as low as 80 seconds in places, at 125mph linespeed. So in theory you could run 30tph (although in practice this would be performance suicide) but in reality the absolute maximum is 18tph, and this can only be sustained temporarily in the evening peak, and requires an absolutely rigid and well-planned platforming sequence, and uses 10 full-length platforms (HEX should be going down to 1-platform operation in the peaks.) The critical point is under Gantry 3 at Royal Oak, where many down departures cross Up arrivals (minimum margin 2-3 mins), defining a minimum platform reoccupation value of 5 mins at Paddington itself. When you add in the minimum turnaround times - generally 20-30 mins depending on inbound route - the real challenge presents itself. Crossrail has certainly not helped matters by removing Line 6, and NR are seriously considering a new pair of crossovers at Portobello Jcn to improve the number of ‘parallel moves’ to give the planners a bit more flexibility and the terminus a bit more robustness.
In terms of numbers of peak paths, there seems to be a misconception that the signalling headway is the critical factor. It is not - the critical factor is the number of platforms at Paddington and the throughput capacity of the station throat. The ML planning headway is now 2 mins, previously it was 3 mins, was recently reduced in agreement with Network Rail. The technical headway is as low as 80 seconds in places, at 125mph linespeed. So in theory you could run 30tph (although in practice this would be performance suicide) but in reality the absolute maximum is 18tph, and this can only be sustained temporarily in the evening peak, and requires an absolutely rigid and well-planned platforming sequence, and uses 10 full-length platforms (HEX should be going down to 1-platform operation in the peaks.) The critical point is under Gantry 3 at Royal Oak, where many down departures cross Up arrivals (minimum margin 2-3 mins), defining a minimum platform reoccupation value of 5 mins at Paddington itself. When you add in the minimum turnaround times - generally 20-30 mins depending on inbound route - the real challenge presents itself. Crossrail has certainly not helped matters by removing Line 6, and NR are seriously considering a new pair of crossovers at Portobello Jcn to improve the number of ‘parallel moves’ to give the planners a bit more flexibility and the terminus a bit more robustness.
The 387s were intended for both routes. If you need to compromise to get a through train to Bedwyn, then some sort of Flex or Battery supported 387 would fit the bill off peak.
tbtc
Veteran Member
My favourite thing on these threads is where people complain about the weight of the diesel engines wasting fuel whilst the train is running under the wires, but also want to take the weight of 260m long trains all the way to Hereford etc all day long 
I would also question the 15% increase. As on any given train that's about right when compared to a HST.
However there's going to be more services and more services run by 80x (including replacing some services run by turbos).
As such the number of seats in any given hour between London and Paddington is increasing and probably by more than 15%.
However there's going to be more services and more services run by 80x (including replacing some services run by turbos).
As such the number of seats in any given hour between London and Paddington is increasing and probably by more than 15%.
Yes, GWR does run several HSTs to and from Hereford on weekdays - but apart from the morning trains towards London and the late afternoon/early evening trains the other way, their use has always represented capacity overkill, as would a nine-coach IET, never mind a 10-coach one. But in the absence of more 180s, the HSTs got used all day.
Once the full IET fleet is available, that will no longer be the case, so outside the peaks the chances are five-cars are what will be seen on Hereford services - as has been the case on several of the Sunday workings since January - unless sending a 1x9 makes sense when it come to diagramming through the day, or a service is covering the London-Oxford leg of its journey at a time of higher demand.
In the case of Cheltenham, one of the reasons there has not been an hourly all-day service until now was the lack of trains with an appropriate capacity, rather than an HST, never mind a 700-seat 1x10 IET. The appropriate trains are about to become available in the shape of five-car 800s, hence the improved service for somewhere other than the centre of the universe, aka Reading.
Clarence Yard has pointed out the huge increase there will be in seats on main line services in the peaks as a result of all these changes, never mind any impact Crossrail has on travel habits.
And all that after a detailed look at traffic trends, long-term forecasts, housing growth plans and all the rest.
That work resulted in what is a compromise in terms of future capacity, train sizes and frequencies - a network-wide solution, not one that is all about Reading commuters and blind to any other factors at all, including common sense.
Neatly illustrated by you being quite happy to wish emus on passengers at Oxford (bit hard when half the Paddington fast service all day, and pretty much all of it in the peaks, is from or to the Cotswold Line anyway) and Newbury/Bedwyn, while still demanding that Reading commuters should all be able to get on an intercity train for their 20-minute dash to or from London.
PHILIPE
Veteran Member
To get back on the topic of "Decline of GWR" 1F05 0730 Cardiff to Portsmouth Harbour this morning was formed of 3 Cars vice 5 between Cardiff Cen and Bristol TM, a not unusual occurrence. When this happens GWR call the 0629 Swansea to Paddington to pick up due to the surplus passengers there and this morning stopped specially as usual but it was embarrassingly formed 5 vice 10 and bursting at the seams already.
I turned up at Cardiff to catch the 15:30 - Cancelled due to the train having broken down. 16:30 Cardiff - Portsmouth formed of 3 vice 5 too and packed. The train this morning was formed of 2 vice 3 too, Frome - Cardiff. Passengers unable to board at Oldfield and Keynsham, and again at Newport. Why is the availability of units so poor at the moment?
387s would be a massive improvement on the Turbos on off peak trains to Oxford. By definition they would also serve Reading. Oxford isn't on the way to Bristol. So unless you propose to non stop Reading and waste capacity or use 387s to Bristol Reading commuters will be using IETs unless someone is going to try and physically stop them.
So when your off peak Cheltenham 5 car arrives in London at 1600 how does it get paired up to work a peak service? What happens to that precious rigid platforming plan and carefully sequenced arrivals? Don't you dare suggest that most of the off peak trains to Cheltenham will actually be 9 cars?
Blind to other factors? Like the selling short of peak capacity west of Reading, the performance impact of inventing new paths that don't exist and the irrational fixation you have on empty off peak seats? Have you told Southeastern, West Coast and others who do this already you think they lack common sense?
There didn't use to be any Turbos on the ML in the peaks although the loss of HSTs and lack of 800s means one or two have appeared since January. Some of this may depend whether a 387 stopping at Twyford and Maidenhead counts as a ML train or not. I doubt more than a handful of Reading to London commuters would use it.
Again you demonstrate how little you seem to know about what services actually operate now and in recent years on much of GWR outside the Reading-London peak bubble that appears to be the only thing you are bothered about - never mind not being willing to grasp the potential impact of the ongoing series of changes to stock and timetables on commuting from Reading.
GWR has been using HSTs and 180s on many of the off-peak fast services that run between Paddington and Oxford only for years, never mind Cotswold Line services - in order to have as many Turbos as possible running all day on the Thames Valley local services. In what way is a 387 with a suburban door and interior layout an improvement on HSTs or 180s, or on an IET? Turbos have been used on as few Oxford fasts as possible since 2004 - usually only when it was not practical to diagram anything else.
Let's see what might happen at Paddington. There is a depot just up the line, where Hitachi might just have been doing servicing work during the day on another five-car set that can run down to the station and couple up, or another five-car set arrives from somewhere else and couples up.
Or the five-car set goes out again on a service for which it is suited - right now there is a five-car IET departure for Great Malvern at 16.22 - that is not crying out to have a 700-seat train provided, by the way - and a nine-car set comes in from the depot to head off to Cheltenham instead.
The IET fleet has been ordered, much of it is already in place. This rest will arrive with a matter of months. They are facts on the ground. Had someone just decided to order 1x10 instead of the mix of five or 9-car, there would be nothing like the sort of new timetables that are going to start next year.
You're the one with an irrational fixation on empty off-peak seats - that is to say running thousands of them up and down much of the time on the irrational basis that what might suit Reading commuters for a couple of hours each weekday morning and evening trumps anything and everything else to do with a rational way of operating the rest of the GWR network to places far away from the Thames Valley.
Last edited:
MarlowDonkey
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 1,877
The slowest run to Paddington from Maidenhead currently takes around 45 minutes. With Crossrail likely to be even more of an all stations service than the current one, I don't see Maidenhead to Liverpool Street in 45 minutes unless the stops are only Slough, West Drayton, Hayes and Ealing. Does the current timetable have slack if it's still scheduled for 165s rather than 345s or 387s?
I think for Maidenhead and Twyford passengers it's going to depend on what sort of service GWR operates into what we may have to think of as Paddington high level. There will be eastbound Crossrail trains starting at Paddington, so taking the first train even if GWR is likely to be quicker than waiting for the next Crossrail. That's going to depend a bit on the routes through Paddington. Passengers using Platform 14 would have to cross the whole station, not that changing to the H&C/Circle is any easier. Against that, even if the Crossrail service calls at every station including Hanwell and Acton, it's not going to be possible for a faster GWR service to overtake it. If it was, you might change at Ealing to Crossrail.
matt_world2004
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 4,581
The acceleration on the 345s will mean that they should be able to make the journey quicker while serving more stops . the agreement with freight operators is that no crossrail service will be timetabled take longer than 18 minutes to travel between hayes & Harlington and London Paddington when the full service launches. To implement this agreement they will still skip some stops between these two stations
cactustwirly
Established Member
It's still 45 minutes from Maidenhead - Paddington with skip stopping and 387s, so those journey times are a tad optimistic IMO
Take it up with Crossrail - that's the journey time stated on their website. They're going to look pretty silly if they have been promoting that timing for several years now, yet fail to deliver it in reality.
As i have explained at length, these peaks that you call bubbles drive most UK rail investment along with trifling increases in long distance speeds that are only beneficial to business travellers with a perceived high value of time.
I really don't care about off peak capacity as long as it is at least enough to carry the numbers. On the other hand, you see this into a major issue even though excess capacity off peak is already a common feature.
You have also been kind enough to point out the need for extra capacity west of Reading / Didcot which can only be delivered by more paths (that don't exist) or higher capacity trains. According to one eyewitness report, 2x5 IET are already full and standing west of Reading?
None of this doubling up of 1x5 IET can be achieved without lots of extra ECS moves in/out an already very congested terminus.
Wilts Wanderer
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2016
- Messages
- 3,199
It is relatively straightforward to plan ECS moves to/from North Pole via Line 1, to and from Paddington P1-5. Most departures to the ML go down Line 2, there are parallel crossovers to all these platforms from lines 1 & 2 and parallel moves to/from the depot itself at Ladbroke Grove.
There will also be various trainsets on daytime maintenance which will come back into play for the evening peak, some in multiple and some for strengthening. These are generally units diagrammed to outstable overnight at Exeter, Worcester etc.
Regarding 2-min headway - bear in mind the planning headway between Ladbroke Grove and Airport Jn has been 2.5 mins since the 1992 resignalling. It is hardly a new thing to have such short values! Most fast lines on the Southern have 2-min headway and that is at considerably lower speeds.
There will also be various trainsets on daytime maintenance which will come back into play for the evening peak, some in multiple and some for strengthening. These are generally units diagrammed to outstable overnight at Exeter, Worcester etc.
Regarding 2-min headway - bear in mind the planning headway between Ladbroke Grove and Airport Jn has been 2.5 mins since the 1992 resignalling. It is hardly a new thing to have such short values! Most fast lines on the Southern have 2-min headway and that is at considerably lower speeds.
The first thing you must realise is that 2min and 2.5min are not the same thing at all. One is 30tph, the other is 24tph.
Looking at Earlsfield to Waterloo, the SWML is planned at 2.5min and Selhurst - Victoria more like 3-4min. You can have the worst planning rules going but they won't harm anyone if you ignore them.
Various combinations of signal spacing, linespeed and a different number of aspects may change the calculations which means that you can't directly compare Paddington and say Liverpool Street.
- Status