The decline of GWR...

[jayah]

Yes it could be possible to run full length trains, but that is likely to require more coaches so that you always have a spare to cover for a unit or of service. With 5+5 working you can have 2 X 5 coach units spare which could sub for a 9 coach unit, could swap with a 5 coach unit (either a single unit or one of a pair), it could even allow a service to be run short firm with a 5 coach unit if one of the spare units had already been used. If you had all long units you would either only have one unit spare and in that last case you would need to cancel the second service or you would need two long units say as spares.

You would probably also find that with long units some locations would have a less frequent service.




Yes 10 coach units would be useful, and given the size of the fleet of 80x's it's likely that the could be a follow on order as part of the next franchise. Which could also extend some of the 5 coach versions to 9 coaches as well.

You do however have to be aware of two things. Firstly is taking then long enough to get the 5 coach units into service, if you halved the rate at which units were available then that does down training of staff and the ability to get then into passenger service. This would make matters worse now, even if once they were delivered on some services things would be better. Even if you delivered some 7 coach units for training first they would still take longer to deliver than a 5 coach unit and would be of no use during the peaks. This would then mean that the total delivery time could have resulted in it running beyond 2020 (which is important given that trains have to be compliant with DDA rules by then).

Secondly, if you run 7 coach and 10 coach units and the only spare units you have in the peak are 7 coach units and a 10 coach unit fails you are stuck with running a 7 coach unit. By making them 5 if you have two of them spare you have a significantly smaller difference in capacity when you need to use them (even when compared to a 10 coach unit). Yes if there's just one is more of a problem, but given the numbers involved chances are you could get turnaround a wrong diagram to run it late as a peak departure to then use the 5 coach on a slightly quieter service a little later.




The DfT didn't allow them to have so the coaches they wanted.



They did get it wrong



Likewise they got it wrong



DfT error



DfT error




... And a lot of then would be down to DfT errors. Especially franchises let as no growth and where there's too many short units.

Given how much that GWR promised as part of its franchise extension and how much they have been crippled by NR taking longer to wire the GWML I would suggest that they aren't doing too badly. Should they have said that ScotRail shouldn't have got their HST's quite so fast, maybe but other than that there's not a lot more that they could do.

However then we would just be having the discussion about why ScotRail was doing badly due to matters beyond their control.

Decisions made 20 years ago, or for that matter 6 years ago, have an impact on the railways now. For instance if Northern had been allowed more units target than a zero growth franchise there would likely be more DMU's to go around now. Likewise if TPE had been allowed their 4 coach 158's and or Southern had been told they could buy new DMU's rather than being left with getting cast offs from the North then there would have been more DMU's to go around.

Likewise if the 2012 franchise for ICWC had gone well there would likely be more 221's for XC to use.

Given the DfT ordered the first lot of IETs I am surprised they are not to blame? I mean almost everything the franchises do seems to be the fault of the DfT. Hitachi are even to blame for the training issues.

Of course with 2x5 you have bought the 10 cars already, you have simply doubled the kitchens, cabs and crew and lost a full carriage of seating.

I am not sure I really follow the point about training and unit length. You should order short trains because they are quicker to build meaning the training starts sooner? Really?

A 1x7 in the event of failure has far more seating than 1x5 but as I have said that is not a choice other TOC using non divisible formations make.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

This time next year, the Bristol / South Wales routes will be predominantly operated by 9-car trains. The 5 car sets will generally be working on their own on such routes as Padd-Bedwyn, Padd-Worcester and Padd-Cheltenham, as well as the extra Padd-Bristol ‘expresses’ calling at Bristol Parkway only.

Remember - we might have 32x 5-car sets, but that is only 16 HST diagrams (out of about 47.) There are 35x 9-car sets coming in the next six months or so, and much of the current work will be taken over by these trains. The initial delivery of 5-car trains rather than 9-cars has caused GWR lots of problems (from planning through to operation) and would not have been done that way had the DfT properly consulted with the end-users, and had electrification not been so delayed and prolonged.

 

[jayah]

This time next year, the Bristol / South Wales routes will be predominantly operated by 9-car trains. The 5 car sets will generally be working on their own on such routes as Padd-Bedwyn, Padd-Worcester and Padd-Cheltenham, as well as the extra Padd-Bristol ‘expresses’ calling at Bristol Parkway only.

Remember - we might have 32x 5-car sets, but that is only 16 HST diagrams (out of about 47.) There are 35x 9-car sets coming in the next six months or so, and much of the current work will be taken over by these trains. The initial delivery of 5-car trains rather than 9-cars has caused GWR lots of problems (from planning through to operation) and would not have been done that way had the DfT properly consulted with the end-users, and had electrification not been so delayed and prolonged.

According to Wiki, it is 36x5 and 22x9 and then 22x5 and 14x9.

You only get 35x9 by adding the 9 car Class 802s while leaving off the 5 car ones. Unless you are coupling the 5s there are far more of them than 9.

I don't have a lot of time either for the idea of coupling them up only in the peaks which will be an invitation for endless short formations or for keeping them coupled all day long which also proves they should have been 1x10 with more seats to begin with, or for trying to split them at Reading, Oxford or Newbury, and hurry them back to London for an attachment.

But I really can't see 48x5 running round on their own in the peaks, but somehow staying outside London for 2-3hr, and 35x9 serving the peak.

As for 5 car units running peak trains non stop to Bristol Parkway, don't get me started on pint sized trains wasting track capacity and clogging up the network.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

According to Wiki, it is 36x5 and 22x9 and then 22x5 and 14x9.

You only get 35x9 by adding the 9 car Class 802s while leaving off the 5 car ones. Unless you are coupling the 5s there are far more of them than 9.

Thanks for this, I didn’t check before posting and got mixed up. Friday night brain

I don't have a lot of time either for the idea of coupling them up only in the peaks which will be an invitation for endless short formations or for keeping them coupled all day long which also proves they should have been 1x10 with more seats to begin with, or for trying to split them at Reading, Oxford or Newbury, and hurry them back to London for an attachment.

This is inevitable, but you either run big trains all day and pay for an unnecessarily large train fleet - at IET prices not a good idea - or you economise by more intelligent diagramming. The pre-peak attachments have been very carefully planned to maximise robustness, fully aligned with the available platform space at Paddington.

But I really can't see 48x5 running round on their own in the peaks, but somehow staying outside London for 2-3hr, and 35x9 serving the peak.

There will be 10-car operation in the peaks, it is unavoidable.

As for 5 car units running peak trains non stop to Bristol Parkway, don't get me started on pint sized trains wasting track capacity and clogging up the network.

This does not happen in the peaks, these trains are off-peak only. In the peaks, they become an additional Bristol via Bath (non-stop London-Chippenham) or additional Cardiff (non-stop to Bristol Parkway) and formed of 9 or 10 car IETs like everything else.

 

[jayah]

Thanks for this, I didn’t check before posting and got mixed up. Friday night brain



This is inevitable, but you either run big trains all day and pay for an unnecessarily large train fleet - at IET prices not a good idea - or you economise by more intelligent diagramming. The pre-peak attachments have been very carefully planned to maximise robustness, fully aligned with the available platform space at Paddington.



There will be 10-car operation in the peaks, it is unavoidable.



This does not happen in the peaks, these trains are off-peak only. In the peaks, they become an additional Bristol via Bath (non-stop London-Chippenham) or additional Cardiff (non-stop to Bristol Parkway) and formed of 9 or 10 car IETs like everything else.

Sounds like a real headache!

Lots at attachments going on in a very congested station. Lots of kitchens, lots of cabs, lots of crews, but not enough seats.

I'm not sure 'optimised for performance' is a phrase normally associated with the Reading to London corridor. Making it even more complicated and congested sounds like asking for trouble.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

There will be more than enough seats, each 10 car set has about 600 of them (only counting Standard.) Remember this has all been about increasing capacity, double kitchens aside.

It also doesn’t take that many attachments to form up the double sets. Some of it will take place on depot.

 

[FenMan]

How frequently will these crowdbuster trains run and how long will they take to get to London?

This morning's Electrostar crowdbuster departures from Reading to Paddington:-
d. 0616 a. 0653
d. 0707 a. 0738
d. 0718 a. 0755
d. 0749 a. 0820
d. 0753 a. 0831
d: 0816 a. 0853
d. 0853 a. 0930

 

[cactustwirly]

This morning's Electrostar crowdbuster departures from Reading to Paddington:-
d. 0616 a. 0653
d. 0707 a. 0738
d. 0718 a. 0755
d. 0749 a. 0820
d. 0753 a. 0831
d: 0816 a. 0853
d. 0853 a. 0930

Are these not the ex Didcot semi fasts?
With intermediate stops at Twyford & Maidenhead

 

[The Ham]

I'm not talking about the TPE kitchens. If there is a huge non passenger space at both ends of a 125 mph unit, that is yet another reason not to be coupling the damn things together, along with the duplication of cabs, cooking equipment and double crewing.

I keep hearing about more services. But where will they go unless HeX are evicted, which would be sensible. The Heathrow - Paddington part of the main lines is already maxed out.

Plenty of 10 car off peak formations out of Waterloo and 11 at Euston. But of course with no kitchens and non-passenger zones, commuter TOCs aren't losing a full carriage of seating when the couple their trains. In fact £££ is spent so that they can make their peak trains longer, something that GWR seem hostile to the very suggestion of.

What TPE kitchens? They don't have any, which is why they have the extra few seats.

The way that the GWML is getting more services is by having a mixture of 110mph and 125mph units on the fast lines rather than a mixture of 90mph and 125mph units.

HEX, although uses up paths to Airport Junction these tuck out of the just as an express catches them up and so isn't as big a problem as sine make out. Also where do the new services go after Airport Junction? Remembering that there's going to be Western Approach services in due course. Reading, there's probably going to be problems there if you turn them around there. Through Didcot (either turning around or beyond) there's a need for grade separation of more services go that way. Through Reading West, you may just be score to turn a unit or two an hour at Reading West but certainly not beyond (unless it takes the path of the Reading- Basingstoke services, for which 80x's wouldn't be suitable). If your can find a place for them to go beyond where they turn off bearing in mind what is proposed then you and others who suggest getting rid of them may be taken more seriously.

I didn't deny that there's quite a lot of 10 coach units in the off peaks, however:
- 2tph to the WofE line 6 or 9 coach trains (a few may even be 3 but that's quite rare)
- 1tph to Portsmouth via Basingstoke 4 coaches
- 2 tph Basingstoke Stoppers 8 coaches
- 2 tph Alton services 8 coaches
- 1 tph to Poole (show-ish) 5 coaches
- 2 tph slower services to Portsmouth or Haselmere 4 or 8 coaches
- 2tph faster services to Portsmouth some 10 and some 5

I don't know about the Southampton and Weymouth services but that's only a few (I think it's about 2 or 3 tph). Whatever it is and however long they are that's still the vast majority of the 10 coach units are the metro services which people don't use to get to Woking or Guildford or Basingstoke because they take too long.

As such the SWML isn't that different in running short trains on the faster longer distance services, much as GWR is going to be doing.

How many seats are there in a 11 coach 390? Do you know and how does this compare to a 5+5 coach 80x?

As by your reconning we should be using them.

Well you may be shocked to learn that an 11 coach 390 had 589 seats this compares to about 630 seats for the full length 80x's (9 or 5+5) which means that they have about half a coach MORE seats. That's before you consider that about 40% of the 390 fleet are 9 coaches long with just 469 seats (or only about 1/3 more than a 5 coach 80x).

However that's not a problem because they are proper length trains and there's no risk of them being run as 5 coach units.

If we assume that it off 10 peak hour services or of Euston the split is 4*9 and 6*11 that would give you a capacity of 5,410 seats.

Compare this to 8*9 or 5+5 coach units and two short formed services of just 5 coaches and that's close to 5,500 seats.

As such even with 20% of services being short formed the new 80x's beat the number of seats on the WCML.

As such which is better the 390's or 80x's for providing capacity?

It was a debate that was argued when the 80x's were being ordered that the cost per coach for the 390's was cheaper, however the cost per seat was about the same because of the extra seats per coach. Many people didn't get it then and I feel that there may still be people that haven't understood it yet.

 

[The Ham]

I am not sure I really follow the point about training and unit length. You should order short trains because they are quicker to build meaning the training starts sooner? Really?

A 1x7 in the event of failure has far more seating than 1x5 but as I have said that is not a choice other TOC using non divisible formations make.

If you can roll one coach a weekday of your production line after 5 days you have a unit you can use to train one drive, and after 10 days you have two units which you can use for driver training. Whilst in the same time you would have just one unit for driver training. Scale that up to about 4 months and you have the choice of 18 units or 10 units.

Given that you could be training more staff more quickly with the more units. Which is likely to be better for getting your staff up to speed?

What other TOC's run units which are over 50% long? The only one I can think of is Thameslink, maybe Virgin with their 9 coach 390's. Most other TOC's use shorter units to make longer trains.

Although a 7 coach unit has more capacity than a 5 coach unit a 5+5 coach unit has more capacity than a 7 coach unit. Given that the majority of services will only need too be run as 5 or 5+5 the only time a 7 coach unit would be of benefit would be on those services run as 5 coach units where they need more capacity or on services where they are short formed. Neither is the norm, mostly 5 coaches will be fine or it will be 5+5, with most services being run with the correct length units as timetabled.

A lot of people see 5 coach units remember Voyagers are short trains and think that there's going to be the same problems as the Voyagers. Forgetting that Voyagers rarely are timetabled to run in pairs, they are mostly 4 coach units and that there were less ordered than the number they were replacing. None of these are things that can be leveled at the 80x's add they are mostly going to be timetabled to run as pairs, they are a mix of 5 and 9 coach units and there's more of them (however you count it) than the units they replace.

 

[Parallel]

There are a lot of short forms today on the Portsmouth - Cardiff route. JourneyCheck reports 3 services in a row from Cardiff Central this evening being formed of 2 coaches vice 3, as well as one from Portsmouth Harbour too. This morning, the 11:00-ish arrival into Weymouth is formed of 3 coaches vice 5. Cardiff - Portsmouth is hideously busy on weekends and with 150s covering, things will probably be very crowded today, especially earlier in the trains’ diagrams. Anyone know why so many 158s are out of action?

 

[jayah]

Are these not the ex Didcot semi fasts?
With intermediate stops at Twyford & Maidenhead

So these are services that used to be HSTs and are now 387s not new trains?

 

[jayah]

What TPE kitchens? They don't have any, which is why they have the extra few seats.

The way that the GWML is getting more services is by having a mixture of 110mph and 125mph units on the fast lines rather than a mixture of 90mph and 125mph units.

HEX, although uses up paths to Airport Junction these tuck out of the just as an express catches them up and so isn't as big a problem as sine make out. Also where do the new services go after Airport Junction? Remembering that there's going to be Western Approach services in due course. Reading, there's probably going to be problems there if you turn them around there. Through Didcot (either turning around or beyond) there's a need for grade separation of more services go that way. Through Reading West, you may just be score to turn a unit or two an hour at Reading West but certainly not beyond (unless it takes the path of the Reading- Basingstoke services, for which 80x's wouldn't be suitable). If your can find a place for them to go beyond where they turn off bearing in mind what is proposed then you and others who suggest getting rid of them may be taken more seriously.

I didn't deny that there's quite a lot of 10 coach units in the off peaks, however:
- 2tph to the WofE line 6 or 9 coach trains (a few may even be 3 but that's quite rare)
- 1tph to Portsmouth via Basingstoke 4 coaches
- 2 tph Basingstoke Stoppers 8 coaches
- 2 tph Alton services 8 coaches
- 1 tph to Poole (show-ish) 5 coaches
- 2 tph slower services to Portsmouth or Haselmere 4 or 8 coaches
- 2tph faster services to Portsmouth some 10 and some 5

I don't know about the Southampton and Weymouth services but that's only a few (I think it's about 2 or 3 tph). Whatever it is and however long they are that's still the vast majority of the 10 coach units are the metro services which people don't use to get to Woking or Guildford or Basingstoke because they take too long.

As such the SWML isn't that different in running short trains on the faster longer distance services, much as GWR is going to be doing.

How many seats are there in a 11 coach 390? Do you know and how does this compare to a 5+5 coach 80x?

As by your reconning we should be using them.

Well you may be shocked to learn that an 11 coach 390 had 589 seats this compares to about 630 seats for the full length 80x's (9 or 5+5) which means that they have about half a coach MORE seats. That's before you consider that about 40% of the 390 fleet are 9 coaches long with just 469 seats (or only about 1/3 more than a 5 coach 80x).

However that's not a problem because they are proper length trains and there's no risk of them being run as 5 coach units.

If we assume that it off 10 peak hour services or of Euston the split is 4*9 and 6*11 that would give you a capacity of 5,410 seats.

Compare this to 8*9 or 5+5 coach units and two short formed services of just 5 coaches and that's close to 5,500 seats.

As such even with 20% of services being short formed the new 80x's beat the number of seats on the WCML.

As such which is better the 390's or 80x's for providing capacity?

It was a debate that was argued when the 80x's were being ordered that the cost per coach for the 390's was cheaper, however the cost per seat was about the same because of the extra seats per coach. Many people didn't get it then and I feel that there may still be people that haven't understood it yet.

The 2x5 option gives perhaps 50-100 extra standard class seats over a HST which is already less than the numbers standing with no growth and no growth from Crossrail shrinking the journey time to the city which most people expect to boost commuting from Reading and further afield.

I am not advocating using Class 390 with hundreds of empty First Class seats as they don't try to serve markets like Reading. It's a big train and this hasn't stopped them carrying lots of unused off peak capacity.

I think you underestimate the difficulty in manufacturing new paths in the peak. The trains are already 2-3min apart almost right through the peaks. 90mph stock isn't or wasn't used on the main lines for exactly that reason - the Oxford and Newbury services all become HSTs. Making the congested railway even more congested to carry around a lot kitchens doesn't sound sensible.

 

[jayah]

If you can roll one coach a weekday of your production line after 5 days you have a unit you can use to train one drive, and after 10 days you have two units which you can use for driver training. Whilst in the same time you would have just one unit for driver training. Scale that up to about 4 months and you have the choice of 18 units or 10 units.

Given that you could be training more staff more quickly with the more units. Which is likely to be better for getting your staff up to speed?

What other TOC's run units which are over 50% long? The only one I can think of is Thameslink, maybe Virgin with their 9 coach 390's. Most other TOC's use shorter units to make longer trains.

Although a 7 coach unit has more capacity than a 5 coach unit a 5+5 coach unit has more capacity than a 7 coach unit. Given that the majority of services will only need too be run as 5 or 5+5 the only time a 7 coach unit would be of benefit would be on those services run as 5 coach units where they need more capacity or on services where they are short formed. Neither is the norm, mostly 5 coaches will be fine or it will be 5+5, with most services being run with the correct length units as timetabled.

A lot of people see 5 coach units remember Voyagers are short trains and think that there's going to be the same problems as the Voyagers. Forgetting that Voyagers rarely are timetabled to run in pairs, they are mostly 4 coach units and that there were less ordered than the number they were replacing. None of these are things that can be leveled at the 80x's add they are mostly going to be timetabled to run as pairs, they are a mix of 5 and 9 coach units and there's more of them (however you count it) than the units they replace.

Nobody seems to know what these 1x5 will be doing. I am hearing here that they will only run on their own, mostly running coupled and run on their own off peak and coupled in the peaks, meaning goodness knows how many attachments and detachments many of which won't happen in reality.

Any 1x5 in the London peak will cause a huge problem unless it runs non-stop for 100 miles.

 

[cactustwirly]

So these are services that used to be HSTs and are now 387s not new trains?

No they were previously turbos. These services have been around for years, but they were increased at the January 2018 timetable change.

This for example

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C40488/2018/06/04

 

[The Ham]

The 2x5 option gives perhaps 50-100 extra standard class seats over a HST which is already less than the numbers standing with no growth and no growth from Crossrail shrinking the journey time to the city which most people expect to boost commuting from Reading and further afield.

I am not advocating using Class 390 with hundreds of empty First Class seats as they don't try to serve markets like Reading. It's a big train and this hasn't stopped them carrying lots of unused off peak capacity.

I think you underestimate the difficulty in manufacturing new paths in the peak. The trains are already 2-3min apart almost right through the peaks. 90mph stock isn't or wasn't used on the main lines for exactly that reason - the Oxford and Newbury services all become HSTs. Making the congested railway even more congested to carry around a lot kitchens doesn't sound sensible.

The point I was making about the kitchens is that even if you had a 10 coach unit with no kitchen at most your gain about 100 seats, in the 5 coach units you hardly gain many seats.

By saying look at the WCML you're advocating using 390's. Even if you changed then so they had less first class seats (let's say zero to price a point) you would have about 637 seats. As such you would still be less seats than the circa 652 (5+5) or 655 (9) seats in the 802's. Just because a train is longer it doesn't mean that it has (or could have) more capacity than a shorter train.

Even if we compare the 80x's with the 444's a 10 coach 444 would have 668 seats and so hardly any capacity difference to a 9 or 5+5 coach 80x. However, as pointed out above, which you may have missed very few off peak services on the SWML are 10/12 coach services on the longer distance routes in the off peaks (which is a more like for like comparison).

In fact a lot of services on the SWML split and join units whilst in service and do so reliably time after time. Often with incuring little extra delay if a service is running late. There's few calls for all services to be run add 10 coach trains all day (even though there some services which could do with being lengthened, but certainly not all).

 

[jimm]

So in April they published diagrams for IETs to work DOO in service to Oxford. These trains are not operating DOO to Oxford in May? And this remarkable turn of events had nothing to do with the RMT?

No, it had something to do with more mundane things, like Hitachi not actually delivering all the five-car IETs as scheduled and the drivers based at Oxford not yet being trained to drive IETs, as GWR and Aslef were talking about harmonising terms and conditions between the Thames Valley crew depots and the High Speed Services depots - a deal has been done and IET training at Oxford is about to get under way.

I'm not talking about the TPE kitchens. If there is a huge non passenger space at both ends of a 125 mph unit, that is yet another reason not to be coupling the damn things together, along with the duplication of cabs, cooking equipment and double crewing.

I keep hearing about more services. But where will they go unless HeX are evicted, which would be sensible. The Heathrow - Paddington part of the main lines is already maxed out.

Plenty of 10 car off peak formations out of Waterloo and 11 at Euston. But of course with no kitchens and non-passenger zones, commuter TOCs aren't losing a full carriage of seating when the couple their trains. In fact £££ is spent so that they can make their peak trains longer, something that GWR seem hostile to the very suggestion of.

What is this fetish you have about long trains? What do you think a 12-car GWR 387 formation is? A nine-car IET is 234 metres long and seats 630 passengers - your favourite 11-car Pendolino is 265 metres long and seats about 600. You seem to think an 11-car Pendolino is the acme of perfection... size isn't everything.

So these are services that used to be HSTs and are now 387s not new trains?

There was the odd HST that started at Didcot (for lack of suburban rolling stock, not because it was the best train for the job), most were Turbos, some are extra services, as noted above - but the 387s can shift more people in considerably better conditions than overloaded Turbos (maximum 2x3 formation) ever could.

I don't have a lot of time either for the idea of coupling them up only in the peaks which will be an invitation for endless short formations or for keeping them coupled all day long which also proves they should have been 1x10 with more seats to begin with, or for trying to split them at Reading, Oxford or Newbury, and hurry them back to London for an attachment.

But I really can't see 48x5 running round on their own in the peaks, but somehow staying outside London for 2-3hr, and 35x9 serving the peak.

As for 5 car units running peak trains non stop to Bristol Parkway, don't get me started on pint sized trains wasting track capacity and clogging up the network.

Nobody seems to know what these 1x5 will be doing. I am hearing here that they will only run on their own, mostly running coupled and run on their own off peak and coupled in the peaks, meaning goodness knows how many attachments and detachments many of which won't happen in reality.

Any 1x5 in the London peak will cause a huge problem unless it runs non-stop for 100 miles.

You seem to be obsessed with coupling and uncoupling, but this will not be happening anywhere and everywhere all the time in day-to-day operation on GWR, as you seem to imply. As much as possible this will, as others have indicated, be done at depots/in carriage sidings before and after the peaks or in the platforms at Paddington - never mind that Turbos have been coupled and uncoupled during the day at Paddington, Reading and Oxford for over 25 years without the sky falling in.

Similarly you still seem to think that the second set in every 2x5 formation breaks down at the drop of a hat. But they don't appear to, or are you still working on some statistics proving to us that short-formed services are "routine"?

There are plenty of things that single five-car sets can do in the peaks, such as trains heading out of London in the mornings that carry nothing like the loads of the inbound trains - GWR was using 180s in exactly this way until the end of last year on the early fast trains from Paddington to Oxford and the Cotswold Line, with single five-car 800s taking over from them in January.

They can also be used on services coming into London during the late afternoon and early evening (again the loads are nothing like those coming out of London) - and they can even be coupled up at Paddington to form a 2x5 to go out again with lots of people on board.

When FGW had all 14 180s, as well as Cotswold Line jobs, they also worked the morning trains to Cheltenham and afternoon/early evening trains back into London. Five-car IETs will do this again from next January.

Perhaps you might try doing a bit of research - reading the very long Class 800 thread might be a start, as most of this stuff was done to death there previously.

 

[jayah]

No, it had something to do with more mundane things, like Hitachi not actually delivering all the five-car IETs as scheduled and the drivers based at Oxford not yet being trained to drive IETs, as GWR and Aslef were talking about harmonising terms and conditions between the Thames Valley crew depots and the High Speed Services depots - a deal has been done and IET training at Oxford is about to get under way.



What is this fetish you have about long trains? What do you think a 12-car GWR 387 formation is? A nine-car IET is 234 metres long and seats 630 passengers - your favourite 11-car Pendolino is 265 metres long and seats about 600. You seem to think an 11-car Pendolino is the acme of perfection... size isn't everything.



There was the odd HST that started at Didcot (for lack of suburban rolling stock, not because it was the best train for the job), most were Turbos, some are extra services, as noted above - but the 387s can shift more people in considerably better conditions than overloaded Turbos (maximum 2x3 formation) ever could.





You seem to be obsessed with coupling and uncoupling, but this will not be happening anywhere and everywhere all the time in day-to-day operation on GWR, as you seem to imply. As much as possible this will, as others have indicated, be done at depots/in carriage sidings before and after the peaks or in the platforms at Paddington - never mind that Turbos have been coupled and uncoupled during the day at Paddington, Reading and Oxford for over 25 years without the sky falling in.

Similarly you still seem to think that the second set in every 2x5 formation breaks down at the drop of a hat. But they don't appear to, or are you still working on some statistics proving to us that short-formed services are "routine"?

There are plenty of things that single five-car sets can do in the peaks, such as trains heading out of London in the mornings that carry nothing like the loads of the inbound trains - GWR was using 180s in exactly this way until the end of last year on the early fast trains from Paddington to Oxford and the Cotswold Line, with single five-car 800s taking over from them in January.

They can also be used on services coming into London during the late afternoon and early evening (again the loads are nothing like those coming out of London) - and they can even be coupled up at Paddington to form a 2x5 to go out again with lots of people on board.

When FGW had all 14 180s, as well as Cotswold Line jobs, they also worked the morning trains to Cheltenham and afternoon/early evening trains back into London. Five-car IETs will do this again from next January.

Perhaps you might try doing a bit of research - reading the very long Class 800 thread might be a start, as most of this stuff was done to death there previously.

Well if the delivery of correctly formed Turbos on the peaks was anything to go by, there is every reason to be doubtful the paired sets will be delivered consistently! The 387s seem to work better largely because the tend to stay joined together.

There has been great contradiction about how these 1x5 will operate in practice. You now seem to be saying they will operate lots of off-peak services arriving into London from here and there, but coupling for peak services takes place in the depot? How exactly does that work? If you are talking about lots of coupling moves at Paddington that is hardly going to help the place run smoothly. And it will be lots of coupling because there are lots of 1x5 sets.

You accuse me of having some fetish about capacity? Bizarre. Have you read the posters? More seats. Why is the government spending £70bn on HS2? Capacity. The vast sums spent on Thameslink, Crossrail, 10 car suburban railways, lengthening of Pendolinos? Capacity, capacity capacity.

It is ALL about capacity! Yet GWR seem to be aiming for zero growth with 1x9 formations that will barely carry the numbers travelling today, let alone when Crossrail actually opens.

 

[jayah]

The point I was making about the kitchens is that even if you had a 10 coach unit with no kitchen at most your gain about 100 seats, in the 5 coach units you hardly gain many seats.

By saying look at the WCML you're advocating using 390's. Even if you changed then so they had less first class seats (let's say zero to price a point) you would have about 637 seats. As such you would still be less seats than the circa 652 (5+5) or 655 (9) seats in the 802's. Just because a train is longer it doesn't mean that it has (or could have) more capacity than a shorter train.

Even if we compare the 80x's with the 444's a 10 coach 444 would have 668 seats and so hardly any capacity difference to a 9 or 5+5 coach 80x. However, as pointed out above, which you may have missed very few off peak services on the SWML are 10/12 coach services on the longer distance routes in the off peaks (which is a more like for like comparison).

In fact a lot of services on the SWML split and join units whilst in service and do so reliably time after time. Often with incuring little extra delay if a service is running late. There's few calls for all services to be run add 10 coach trains all day (even though there some services which could do with being lengthened, but certainly not all).

I have already told you I am not advocating using 390s, I am demonstrating that running long trains that don't divide isn't unusual or something to be frightened of. However you will need to explain how an 11 car 390 with no First Class is about 637 seats because 9 intermediate trailers at a very conservative 70 seats would make 630? 100 seats for the kitchen is far more than the increase for the IET vs HST.

 

[The Ham]

I have already told you I am not advocating using 390s, I am demonstrating that running long trains that don't divide isn't unusual or something to be frightened of. However you will need to explain how an 11 car 390 with no First Class is about 637 seats because 9 intermediate trailers at a very conservative 70 seats would make 630? 100 seats for the kitchen is far more than the increase for the IET vs HST.

I agree long trains dividing isn't something to worry about (I never said it was). However neither is having shorter units that do. See SWR for how this can work.

My 376 was based on just adding 1/3 the nunnery of first class seats to the existing total which probably adds less seats than if it were truly all standard class. However no train company would do so. There's some coaches

46*2 end coaches (assuming no kitchen)
63*3 disabled coaches
50 buffet car
76*5 other coaches

That's 711 if you do an all standard class train. As such it is more than a 80x as a 9 coach but it's still not going to happen and anyway if you are opting for standard class only then to be fair you'll need to compare the 80x as a standard only train which would then put the 80x ahead.

You miss read my point about the extra 100 seats, IF you have a TEN coach 80x unit (not 5+5) with no kitchen you'd gain about 100 seats with a kitchen it's about 85 seats. On a 5+5 it's about 30. However that's not going to go down well with your users of you did that.

As has been said severally times before, unlike the 22x's, it's unlikely that we've seen the last order of 80x's given how many there are and so it could be that we do see 10 coach units and 5 coach units lengthened at some point.

 

[jayah]

I agree long trains dividing isn't something to worry about (I never said it was). However neither is having shorter units that do. See SWR for how this can work.

My 376 was based on just adding 1/3 the nunnery of first class seats to the existing total which probably adds less seats than if it were truly all standard class. However no train company would do so. There's some coaches

46*2 end coaches (assuming no kitchen)
63*3 disabled coaches
50 buffet car
76*5 other coaches

That's 711 if you do an all standard class train. As such it is more than a 80x as a 9 coach but it's still not going to happen and anyway if you are opting for standard class only then to be fair you'll need to compare the 80x as a standard only train which would then put the 80x ahead.

You miss read my point about the extra 100 seats, IF you have a TEN coach 80x unit (not 5+5) with no kitchen you'd gain about 100 seats with a kitchen it's about 85 seats. On a 5+5 it's about 30. However that's not going to go down well with your users of you did that.

As has been said severally times before, unlike the 22x's, it's unlikely that we've seen the last order of 80x's given how many there are and so it could be that we do see 10 coach units and 5 coach units lengthened at some point.

Currently 2x5 have almost identical capacity to 1x9. Hence 1x10 would have far more capacity for the same number of vehicles. More capacity, same vehicles, same paths. Most TOCs with crowding would say yes?

SWR is very different as without non-passenger zones and kitchens their 2x5 would have more seats already than 1x9.

Cross Country are still waiting for that follow on order after about 15 years of pain.

 

[cactustwirly]

Currently 2x5 have almost identical capacity to 1x9. Hence 1x10 would have far more capacity for the same number of vehicles. More capacity, same vehicles, same paths. Most TOCs with crowding would say yes?

SWR is very different as without non-passenger zones and kitchens their 2x5 would have more seats already than 1x9.

Cross Country are still waiting for that follow on order after about 15 years of pain.

But at the end of the day they are intercity trains, not commuter trains.

 

[jayah]

But at the end of the day they are intercity trains, not commuter trains.

They are trains that are crowded. They need more capacity. Does a train going 1hr20 to Bristol need a kitchen? What is the difference between Waterloo to Bournemouth and Paddington to Bristol?

 

[HowardGWR]

They are trains that are crowded. They need more capacity. Does a train going 1hr20 to Bristol need a kitchen? What is the difference between Waterloo to Bournemouth and Paddington to Bristol?

Bristol is up market.

 

[jimm]

Well if the delivery of correctly formed Turbos on the peaks was anything to go by, there is every reason to be doubtful the paired sets will be delivered consistently! The 387s seem to work better largely because the tend to stay joined together.

There has been great contradiction about how these 1x5 will operate in practice. You now seem to be saying they will operate lots of off-peak services arriving into London from here and there, but coupling for peak services takes place in the depot? How exactly does that work? If you are talking about lots of coupling moves at Paddington that is hardly going to help the place run smoothly. And it will be lots of coupling because there are lots of 1x5 sets.

The only person who seems to think there is any sort of contradiction is you. It has always been perfectly clear to others what five-car 800s will be doing, if you would care to read and absorb things noted in posts above or in the Class 800 thread

Do you get that most trains spend the night at depots or in carriage sidings? So they can get coupled up there before moving empty to the stations where they start the day. Some go out of service after the morning peak for stabling or servicing, and then come out again later in the day, which may also require them to be coupled up at a depot or in a siding.

GWR's timetable plans do not include lots of coupling and uncoupling in mid-journey - just a limited amount at limited locations, including some stations, so no different from what has been happening with Turbos for a long time - but that's probably neither here nor there to you, since you don't seem willing to recognise either that GWR's entire operation is not built around the needs of Reading commuters for a few hours each weekday, nor to wait and see what happens as new stock, new timetables and Crossrail all come in over the next couple of years - because apparently you know already that everything will be terrible anyway.

A number of people posting here told us over a number of years that they 'knew' all sorts of things that would be just terrible on 800s but once they appeared, the key complaint was that the seats were a bit hard for some people's tastes...

You accuse me of having some fetish about capacity? Bizarre. Have you read the posters? More seats. Why is the government spending £70bn on HS2? Capacity. The vast sums spent on Thameslink, Crossrail, 10 car suburban railways, lengthening of Pendolinos? Capacity, capacity capacity.

It is ALL about capacity! Yet GWR seem to be aiming for zero growth with 1x9 formations that will barely carry the numbers travelling today, let alone when Crossrail actually opens.

Please have the courtesy to quote me correctly. I said you have a fetish about long trains - not capacity.

There's no getting away from the fact that the IETs do offer extra capacity over HSTs but also allow use of a smaller train with capacity better suited to some services currently worked by HSTs in the absence of any alternatives - and seat more people in nine-car or 2x5 formation than a longer 11-car Pendolino can.

When Crossrail opens, much of the service in the Thames Valley will be nothing to do with GWR anyway and a good few 387s can be redeployed to, er, provide more capacity on GWR services... not my idea of zero growth, same as the full IET timetable will not represent zero growth in capacity over longer distances.

Since when does replacing two HSTs per hour to Bristol with three long IETs in the peaks and two long formations and two five-car services off-peak not increase capacity on that route, to take but one example? And South Wales gets a third long train in the peaks. Or we could try Cheltenham, getting an hourly IET service to and from London all day, instead of an HST every couple of hours. Or 320-seat 800s instead of 250 to 270-seat Turbos on Oxford and Bedwyn fasts, etc, etc

How about you do some research on GWR's plans, instead of coming out with yet more inaccurate, sweeping generalisations?

 

[Deepgreen]

I used the North Downs line again today. Dorking Deepdene now has new platform shelters, having had them removed without explanation before Christmas, BUT, they still cannot be used as they are hoarded off until anyone can be bothered to fit the safety railings at their rear. Being at least three metres from the platform edge, this work could be done at any time, but best not to rush these things - it's only been seven months without shelter at this exposed station!

The trains are still showing up with random stock allocation, with 166201 on the 0943 slow working from Dorking to Reading. 165105 on the return had a '1' on one set of doors at one end of the unit (but not on the other side's set!), and seat anti-macassars, but no cant-rail stripe or window stickers. If some or all of the 165/1s are having first class re-instated, this is a typical GWR half-baked way of doing ti!

 

[Charlie M.]

I have spoken to someone fairly high up within GWR and here is some things that may have planned for the 2018 timetable.

Living in Gloucester the South Cots is something I care about, and by the looks of things, M-F will be allocated 9cars until the 1030(?)ish arrival into Paddington when the last 5 car will enter service, later on at around three-four the 9cars (operated on the Bristol and South Wales services) will move back onto the line.

As said, 9cars will operate off peak and 10cars peak for Bristol and Cardiff.

 

[jayah]

The only person who seems to think there is any sort of contradiction is you. It has always been perfectly clear to others what five-car 800s will be doing, if you would care to read and absorb things noted in posts above or in the Class 800 thread

I don't know if you picked this up, but all these variants of a plan appear from the previous few pages of this thread? A new variant has since appeared whereby there will be 5 car trains entering service after the morning peak. What you haven't explained is with this new off-peak service of 5 car IETs when they all pile up at Paddington at the beginning of the evening peak, potentially 11? off peak services an hour, how you are going to get them all paired up? It sounds like the makings of a real mess. The higher off-peak frequency actually means there will be less opportunity for taking trains to the depot between the peaks and there can't be many more paths in the peak than what is running today?

Do you get that most trains spend the night at depots or in carriage sidings? So they can get coupled up there before moving empty to the stations where they start the day. Some go out of service after the morning peak for stabling or servicing, and then come out again later in the day, which may also require them to be coupled up at a depot or in a siding.

When you talk in vague generalities and borderline insults such as 'do you get trains spend the night at depots' or 'trains can go out of service after the morning peak' I am afraid I just see the same vagueness used by politicians when they don't want to show any detail.

GWR's timetable plans do not include lots of coupling and uncoupling in mid-journey - just a limited amount at limited locations, including some stations, so no different from what has been happening with Turbos for a long time - but that's probably neither here nor there to you, since you don't seem willing to recognise either that GWR's entire operation is not built around the needs of Reading commuters for a few hours each weekday, nor to wait and see what happens as new stock, new timetables and Crossrail all come in over the next couple of years - because apparently you know already that everything will be terrible anyway.

A number of people posting here told us over a number of years that they 'knew' all sorts of things that would be just terrible on 800s but once they appeared, the key complaint was that the seats were a bit hard for some people's tastes...

Wait and see isn't going to wash as an argument. Sadly it will be years before this can be revisited in the real world, despite the confidence of some that a follow on order will be reasonably close behind. I would much rather an operation is built around paying passengers than around avoiding taking a long train somewhere when it isn't busy. And again that doesn't actually seem to be a blocker for other TOCs.

Please have the courtesy to quote me correctly. I said you have a fetish about long trains - not capacity.

I apologise if you are offended by my mixing up long trains and capacity, but you should try not to lapse into cheap insults. I have gone out of my way to stress that this is an issue of capacity, as is most rail investment in the UK.

There's no getting away from the fact that the IETs do offer extra capacity over HSTs but also allow use of a smaller train with capacity better suited to some services currently worked by HSTs in the absence of any alternatives - and seat more people in nine-car or 2x5 formation than a longer 11-car Pendolino can.

When Crossrail opens, much of the service in the Thames Valley will be nothing to do with GWR anyway and a good few 387s can be redeployed to, er, provide more capacity on GWR services... not my idea of zero growth, same as the full IET timetable will not represent zero growth in capacity over longer distances.

Since when does replacing two HSTs per hour to Bristol with three long IETs in the peaks and two long formations and two five-car services off-peak not increase capacity on that route, to take but one example? And South Wales gets a third long train in the peaks. Or we could try Cheltenham, getting an hourly IET service to and from London all day, instead of an HST every couple of hours. Or 320-seat 800s instead of 250 to 270-seat Turbos on Oxford and Bedwyn fasts, etc, etc

How about you do some research on GWR's plans, instead of coming out with yet more inaccurate, sweeping generalisations?

I have repeatedly stressed that is about the Reading market, despite your great enthusiasm to conflate various largely unrelated issues like suburban trains, Maidenhead, Staines etc... Now it seems that you want to talk about 'routes' and even off-peak frequencies to Cheltenham of all things? By virtue of the fact the additional peak seating capacity at Reading will be taken the day this plan comes to life, I think I am perfectly justified to say it is being approached from a point of not thinking of future growth. Phrases like wait and see only reinforce the impression the issue isn't being taken seriously.

 

[The Ham]

Currently 2x5 have almost identical capacity to 1x9. Hence 1x10 would have far more capacity for the same number of vehicles. More capacity, same vehicles, same paths. Most TOCs with crowding would say yes?


SWR is very different as without non-passenger zones and kitchens their 2x5 would have more seats already than 1x9.


Cross Country are still waiting for that follow on order after about 15 years of pain.

Yet as I've pointed out (and you appear to have chosen to ignore) SWR rarely use 10 coach units off peak on their longer distance units. Although the SWR 5 coach units would have a couple more seats than the 5 coach 80x's, however on quite a few services which they do run as 10 coach trains these then split or join on route (Especially those going to Weymouth) which is the very thing you fear on GWR.


As I pointed out there a big difference between the 22x's and the 80x's. For instance there's only 445 coaches in the entire 22x fleet, compare this with the 886 coaches for the IEP contract (i.e. excluding the 802's). Likewise the 22x's are profiled to allow for tilt, the 80x's are not. GWR and LNER are currently broadly contributing to the government unlike XC for much of the time. All are reasons that could mean that further orders are more likely.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I have repeatedly stressed that is about the Reading market, despite your great enthusiasm to conflate various largely unrelated issues like suburban trains, Maidenhead, Staines etc... Now it seems that you want to talk about 'routes' and even off-peak frequencies to Cheltenham of all things? By virtue of the fact the additional peak seating capacity at Reading will be taken the day this plan comes to life, I think I am perfectly justified to say it is being approached from a point of not thinking of future growth. Phrases like wait and see only reinforce the impression the issue isn't being taken seriously.

As the person who, with the late Roger Watkins (166220), put the stock diagrams for the December 2018 timetable together I have tried to not to enter the fray but, really, I have had just about enough of this. I will repeat some of what I said on the 800 thread but I’m not going to get to get into the ideal length debate again - we have done that one to death and beyond on that thread.

Roger and I took all the current loadings, the predictions from the industry revenue system, rebased against those actual loadings and predicted forward, station by station, for the preferred timetable and added growth scenarios for following years. Of course, with some of the trains in a future timetable, punters could go to either of one or two trains so there will always be some degree of inaccuracy here.

Given we have only a fixed amount of 5, 9 and 10 cars to play with (although our work resulted in more 9 car 802 units being ordered), we weren’t going to get everyone from Reading throughout the next few years a seat on the main on an IET in the peak, even with the huge increase in peak seats provided. There just aren’t enough available paths on the main line to achieve this. The 387 units will peak bust to a certain extent but some Reading punters will have to go 345 on the reliefs.

That goes to what the DfT wants for this timetable and that is more peak main line seats into London from west of Reading/Didcot. It also wants to see more all day paths per hour from west of Reading and when that timetable finally gets going (now back to Mid Feb 2019, heading towards May 2019), it won’t see huge amounts of split and join moves on the 5 cars - we have seen to that, provided NR doesn’t mess things up with the paths or platforming.

The current problem with the 10 cars (which all but the 4 ex cl.180 diagrams all 800 sets should be in and out of Pad) is that Agility are not supplying the goods. Their availability target is too onerous for the amount of 5 car sets that have been delivered so far and the reliability hasn’t been stunning. Both are getting better but it isn’t as good for the punters as GWR would wish.

That’s why some currently see GWR in decline. If it is 5 vice 10 or a Cape, then you are going to feel there is a marked decline in intercity service and that is before issues such as seat res or buffet.