Great Western Coffee Shop

Having had a few free hours to play with over the last few weeks, I wanted to satisfy my own curiosity about the likely seating totals when the IEP trains are introduced in the coming years.  I^d be interested to hear people^s thoughts.

Taking on board comments from other forum members predicting severe overcrowding, ^Rhydgaled^ and ^Broadgage^ to name but two, and my own concerns which are mostly on the South Wales services and the Cotswold Line, I^ve dissected the draft IEP diagrams ^Rhydaled^ kindly re-uploaded and compared them with the current timetable and stock.

Firstly I should point out that there are some massive caveats that have to be added to the figures, but in each case I^ve used the latest actual and proposed timetables, and the latest seating layouts.  For example, the HST seating is based on an average of what the situation will be after the current modifications have been completed (490 standard class seats and 70 first class).  The IEP seating is based on the draft seating plans released by the DfT in 2012.

So, the massive caveats I referred to:

• The provisional timetables are just that.  There will have to be some changes in order for them to work anyway, and I^m sure the final versions will be significantly different on many of the routes.
• The provisional seating layouts for the IEP are just that.  It may well be that, in keeping with current ratios of First and Standard Class, there will be more Standard Class seats in the final layout of the trains.
• The ^whole of the day^ picture can be misleading as the number of passengers travelling varies quite considerably throughout the day.  This can work in both ways ^ for example having the 06:23 Carmarthen to Paddington train running as a 5-car bi-mode will doubtless cause issues if it stayed like that given the time of day and the calling patterns, but at the same time large decreases in seating provision on the Cotswold Line are made to look worse as currently the last two trains of the day are worked by HST^s with massive over-provision of seating.
• The figures I^ve done only apply on journeys towards London on weekdays.  The weekend details, and indeed weekdays from London might be significantly different, and of course it's not just about seating when it arrives at London as there are significant commuter flows to and from other stations, so if the current full 8-car HST on a chose commute, say to Bristol Temple Meads, is replaced by a 5-car Bi-Mode then problems will arise.
• Calling patterns and frequency can alter the number of passengers on board trains quite considerably, say for example, if there was a 5tph service from Swindon to London it^s not a good use of capacity if there^s a 5-car train followed in quick succession by 10-car trains and then a large gap to the next service which is another 5-car.  I^ve attempted to point out such potential benefits and negatives where possible.
• I would love to have included stations such as Oxford, Didcot and Reading in the statistics, but sadly the number of trains and their type and formation is pure speculation at the moment.

What is the approximate situation ^ number of trains?
The chart below shows the current and provisional number of services operating from key stations on the HST and IEP network.   Some stations, such as Swansea, Cardiff, Bath, Worcester and Swindon see little improvement in the number of trains operating, and some stations see an increase such as Gloucester, Cheltenham, Bristol Parkway and Hereford.  The increase from Bristol Parkway is partly tempered with two trains of the three per hour departing within two minutes of each other.  Bristol Temple Meads sees a massive increase from 32 to 59 trains per day.  All routes and stations see improvements in journey times, some of them quite impressive (Bristol Parkway to London in 72 minutes rather than 91, Swansea in 2h 43m compared with 3h 05m), others more modest ^ Bath is only 1-7 minutes quicker for example.

Aside from the North and South Cotswold routes, claims that most trains will be in the hands of 5-car sets prove to be largely false based on these proposed diagrams, with only 13 out of 59 trains from Bristol Temple Meads and 4 out of 31 trains from Bath/Chippenham.  Those trains feature more significantly on the Swansea route though with 8 out of 20 from Swansea, 11 out of 31 from Cardiff, and 16 out of 44 from Bristol Parkway.

A large increase in through from Cheltenham/Gloucester and Hereford is most welcome, but Moreton-In-Marsh sees less services than are currently available.  Swindon remains with the same number of trains, but there has been talk of extra EMU Swindon to Paddington services.

Here is the spreadsheet showing the number of trains:

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3956/15571508550_331b4dc192_o.jpg)



What is the approximate situation ^ number of seats?
This is where it gets interesting!  Firstly, a general observation:  The first class/standard class ratio appears to swing a little bit back in the favour of more first class seats if the provisional seating plans are to be believed.  As it stands, all routes (except the Cotswold Line) feature a healthy increase in first class seating over what is currently provided.  The provisional seating layouts were produced before the current first class reduction programme was planned, so I wonder whether a few of the first class seats will be replaced by standard class in the final layouts?
I^ll do a summary for each of the stations I^ve chosen:

Swansea & Cardiff:
Both stations would see a reduction in the number of seats provided throughout the day ^ a very small reduction for Cardiff, but over 10% in the case of Swansea.  This isn^t quite as bad as it sounds as 12 trains a day will run fast from Newport to Reading, so they will not be picking up further passengers at Bristol Parkway and Swindon, however I remain concerned that there will not be enough accommodation as the reduced journey times to London are bound to attract new passengers, and certain key trains (07:19 and 08:02 from Swansea for example) have been rostered as a single 5-car Bi-Mode set.

Bristol Temple Meads:
The introduction of a 4tph service, two of which are routed via Bristol Parkway to give a journey time of just 84 minutes, means a huge increase in the number of daily seats to London, which isn^t far off doubling from just under 18000 to just under 33000 ^ an increase of 84%!

Bristol Parkway:
Those extra Bristol Temple Meads to London trains also mean healthy increases at Parkway, despite losing some of its current trains on the South Wales route.  Seating is up by a healthy 28.6% over the day, and with some of the trains coming from Bristol Temple Meads rather than Swansea it is likely there will be more seats available on those trains.

Chippenham/Bath Spa:
A modest increase of 12% throughout the day with the likelihood of a further boost of seat availability given that many Bristol Temple Meads to London passengers will be on the trains routed via Parkway instead.  Will that be enough to cater for increased demand?

Gloucester/Cheltenham:
The route sees a healthy 25% increase in London seats, due to the direct train service frequency increasing to hourly from one every two hours, though this is partly tempered by the removal of the shuttle service to Swindon which also carries plenty of London passengers.

Swindon:
Swindon sees almost a 10% reduction in seating as a result of the proposed changes.  There^s a possibility of an EMU operated shuttle service operating between Swindon and Paddington to address any crowding as a result of this reduction.

Cotswold Line:
My main worry is capacity on this route and the figures reveal a substantial reduction in seats at all stations, with Worcester losing 10% of what^s currently provided and Moreton-In-Marsh a whopping 20% reduction ^ though perhaps some other extra trains will be provided by Turbos?  Even Hereford, which sees an increase in trains from 6 to 9 per day, sees a decrease in the total number of seats available.  Partly offset by the removal of Slough calls, but I can see demand outstripping supply quite easily.

Here is the spreadsheet showing the number of seats:

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7541/15756324455_43c30740d2_o_d.jpg)



Conclusion:
The situation is probably slightly worse that I thought especially with regard to the South Wales routes and the Cotswold Line.  Swindon also suffers, and whilst on all of these routes there are reasons why the trains won^t be as heavily loaded as there are now, I can see the extra custom that the reduced journey times and increased frequencies will have soon presenting problems if extra capacity isn^t provided.

On the brighter side, the Bristol stations and Bath Spa/Chippenham will probably have enough seating (especially from Temple Meads) to cater for quite a large amount of growth.

Good work, but certainly some assumptions/omission on the North Cotswolds....

I am informed that the current idea is to run at least two 10car bi-modes along the Cotswolds in the AM peak. Yes, I guess that could easily be superceded by running a 5car to Oxford & joining another one there, which might happen in the PM peak in the reverse.. It's almost guaranteed to be a delay inducer too, so I,m hopeful they'll be 10car all the way. There is certainly talk of extending Cotswold stations to 6car, being two/three of each 5car unit on the platform, for SDO to work.

You've also forgotten the AM stopper, which will still be a turbo unit.

Yes, there's assumption and omissions across the whole data sadly, given the speculative nature of the details we have so far. 

The data does include two 10-car Bi-modes along the Cotswold Line in the AM peak (the two that were listed - the 05:12 Worcester Foregate Street to Paddington, and 05:26 Hereford to Paddington), and there will indeed be the stopper to Oxford as per now, but because I've only included through trains to London, so that doesn't figure in either the 'now' or 'then' columns.  I suspect the odd extra Turbo shuttle to Oxford (to connect with a London EMU) could also be provided from at least Moreton-In-Marsh at peak times.  That would certainly help massage the Cotswold Line figures a little.

Swindon to Paddington via Oxford (up to Oxford and back avoiding Didcot Parkway) please.  ;D

More likely to be London-Reading-Didcot with a peak time extension to Swindon, but who knows.

Please don't cut out too many stops at Didcot or Swindon- everyone seems determined to make our connections to the West worse!

I seriously question whether Bristol needs 4 trains an hour to London. Not even Birmingham and Manchester have more than 3 an hour. Could find the two limited stops trains every hour between Bristol and London end up carrying a lot of fresh air whilst other stopping services end up crowded.

Depending on the exact timings, isn't the reality going to be a 2 tph main service via Parkway, and a secondary slower service via Bath, that provides the Bath to Paddington service, (and the Bristol to Bath fast service).   What it won't be is a clock face 'same every 15 minute' service, I'd expect half the services to be caught up by Paddington, and the faster ones to be far more attractive to through passengers.

I guess there's a slight analogy with the situation at Southampton, where every hour there are theoretically four trains to London, but no one would intentionally take the SWT service that gets overtaken on route, and very few would take the SN service to Victoria, an hour slower even though its much cheaper...

Paul

Yes, I would certainly expect that to be the case, at least partially, which is where a 12% seating increase from Bath and Chippenham on paper would actually be much more given that the trains would be a lot less full from Bristol Temple Meads.

Has anyone done the comparison with the 2019 ITSS - at least as quoted in the Western Route Study? The information from that source (as well as demand predictions for 2023 and 2043) is scattered throughout the document, but the one place that looks most relevant is table 3.10 (p.54).

Figure 3.10 : Main Line arrivals into London Paddington, 2019 baseline capacity and estimated 2023  and 2043 demand over the three hour peak (07:00 ^ 09:59)

Service group into London Paddington	2019 Indicative Train Service Specification	Rolling stock assumption	Total capacity assumed (standard class seats)	2023 expected demand	2043 expected demand
Via Oxford	6 suburban stopping services 6 fast from Oxford 3 from Hereford	8-car EMU 12-car EMU 10-car bi-mode SET	2,880 2,160 1,890	2,000 1,300 1,600	3,000 2,000 2,400
From Newbury (stopping at stations on route to Reading)	3	8-car EMU	1,440	1,300	1,900
Cheltenham via Kemble	3	10-car bi-mode SET	1,890	1,700	2,600
Bristol Temple Meads via Bath Spa	6	9-car electric SET	3,762	4,000	5,300
Bristol Temple Meads via Bristol Parkway	5	10-car bi-mode SET	3,150	2,500	5,000
From Swansea	6	9-car electric SET	3,762	3,900	5,700
West of England (Exeter/Plymouth /Penzance)	6	8-car HST	2,970	2,600	4,000

The projected demand is allocated according to 2019 ITSS + additional high peak stops assumed at Reading  to manage demand across the services for modelling purposes (as per Choice A3 in Chapter 5).
Please see Appendix B for the rolling stock capacity assumptions.
(Sorry if this doesn't format right on your screen - there's always the original.)

While that is for the peak, on these long-distance services there are few (in most cases no) extra peak-only trains - so this is just three times the all-day tph assumed for 2019. It does correspond pretty closely to the IEP working assumption, down to showing only five BRI via BPW as there is no 5:02. Note that, on these assumptions, in 2023 it is BRI via BTH and SWA that overload first.

One important divergence from the IEP plan is that all the peak bi-modes are 10-car - not just two out of three (in some cases). That leads right back to the crunch question: are there enough bi-modes to run them at 10-car length on every service that warrants it, as advertised.

Nice to see somebody else having a good crack at analysing the information available.
The Carmarthen-PAD is one, but what about other non-London peak services away from the wires? For example Weston-Super-Mare to Bristol (can't remember how many were double formations, but there were alot of fives through the day), Swindon into Gloucester/Cheltenham, Cotswolds into Oxford and Hereford etc. I've not analysed all of those in detail, but peak time is the same everywhere and the strengthening units (or most of them) will all be in London.

I'm also worried about the capacity between Cardiff and Swansea. They are big places and Bridgend, Port Talbot and Neath are not to be sniffed at either.

There^s probably six fairly easy ways that the provisional diagrams and stock utilisation can be improved upon:

• Different stock ^ use of HSTs on some services (retaining a few more sets than will be retained for the Cornish routes), or the use of 110mph EMUs out as far as at least Swindon.
• Tweaking the provisional diagrams ^ More use of the 9-car Electric sets on the Swansea diagrams would help redress the balance.
• Extra IEP trains - An increase in the number of train sets would obviously help.  Either more 9-car sets to enable more 5-car sets to run as 10-car formations, or just more 5-car sets, or new longer Bi-mode sets (8 or 9-car).
• Alteration to the interiors of the train - Either the reduction in the number of first class seats to provide a similar first/standard ratio to now, or turning the trains into high-density sets by removal of the tables and squeezing in a handful more seats per carriage.
• Lengthening the existing 9-car trains ^ Given that all routes see 10-car Bi-mode formations at least once per day, you could lengthen all of the 9-car Electric sets to 10-cars giving an extra 88 seats and two more toilets.  Or approximately 60-70 extra seats and the buffet module we^ve been discussing!
• Lengthen the existing 5-car trains ^ Not all of the 5-car trains in the provisional diagrams couple to another set during the day, so it might be possible to lengthen some of the 5-car trains to either 8 or 9 car trains to boost capacity by 250-330 seats per train.

Taking options 5 and 6 above, I^ve re-jigged the seats per day spreadsheet so that it reflects what would happen to those provisional diagrams should those options be taken up:

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5612/15740352646_b4e8aaa91b_o_d.jpg)

If all 9-car Electric sets are extended to 10-cars - something I can definitely see happening:

That's enough to turn Cardiff's slight deficit into a 9% increase and virtually eliminate Swansea and Swindon's deficit.  The Bristol stations benefit even more, but more importantly, Chippenham and Bath Spa see a 12% increase more than doubled to 25%.

Rhydgaled has suggested longer Bi-Mode trains as a capacity solution, so the second table is what it looks like if the five daily Bi-mode diagrams that are not booked to couple to anything during the day were extended to 8-car formations (as well as the Electric trains getting an additional vehicle):

I've only done this as an example, as the Bi-mode diagrams would need to be altered so that trains of different lengths were stabled in the correct locations overnight for the next morning's diagram, but it has a marked difference on both the North and South Cotswold routes, as well as giving slight improvements to the other routes.

All stations on the North Cotswold Line (except Great Malvern) see their deficits turn into increases, -10% to +16 in the case of Worcester Foregate Street for example.  The busier morning trains 06:26 and 09:26 services from Hereford to London would have plenty more seats, especially useful for the 06:26 which would massively struggle as a 5-car set as planned.

The South Cotswold Line sees healthy increases at Cheltenham and Gloucester from 25% up to 40% and again two key busy morning trains would get plenty of extra seats (07:52 and 08:48 from Cheltenham).

All other stations on the route also see a slight boost as well with it being enough to put both Swansea and Swindon into positive territory!

Just suggestions, but food for thought!

But off-peak, the HSTs drag around many coach-equivalent s of thin air! Hence the 5car bi-modes - to reduce the amount of thin air....

Yes, I know, hence a targeted lengthening of some of the fleet - the example below is just 5 units (diagrams 1402/3/11/22/26) out of the 32 units required to cover the daily service in the provisional 5-car diagrams (although 1431 diagram is effectively a hot spare at London throughout much of the day).

If only a 5-car unit ends up working, for example, the 06:26 & 07:26 HFD-PAD and the 07:52 & 08:52 CMN-PAD and the 07:19 and 08:02 SWA-PAD (the former having come from Carmarthen), as they have been allocated in those provisional diagrams then they will be literally swamped.  Extension of some of the fleet would be one way of getting around that.

Interesting analysis, but I think we can get too bogged down in the details of the figures.  My concern is that the improved service will drive extra demand and that if and when that happens the complicated financing system will mean that adding an extra coach to cope will not be simple or cost effective.

Maybe I am wrong and once the Western IEPs are finished the production line will be kept busy with the ECML and other work for it to remain open for a number of years so that it can return to GWML lengthening a few years after the trains are initially launched.

Its not the initial specification that worries me - that is probably more or less right.  It is the effects of 3 to 7 % cumulative growth over the next 10 years. 

I've taken a different approach though, leaving the 9-car 'electric' order as-is and aiming to remove doubled-diagrams altogether by lengthening a larger proportion of the bi-modes and leaving a smaller number of 5-car units for workings where 315 seats is enough. That avoids the wasted duplicate kitchens and cabs, and the problems with platforming a pair of fives at a short platform. The result is slightly fewer diagrams overall, but more diagrammed vehicles (at least if the lengthening is to 9-car).

Also, I'm not altogether encouraged by your tactic of lengthening the 'electrics' to 10-car but leaving the bi-modes (or the vast majority) as 5-car. Assuming the provisional DfT diagrams, while helping with loadings over the whole day it would do nothing to help the three-in-a-row 5-car units from PAD to CDF (2 extending to Swansea). Tweaking the diagrams to swap the longer 'electrics' from the Bristol routes to Swansea services would certainly help, but then what happens when the Severn Tunnel is shut? Diversionary route not electrified, so bi-modes needed, and 5-car won't do. Of course you could put pax on a 9-car 'electric' to Swindon, then make them change onto a 2x5-car bi-mode from Swindon to Cardiff and have 9-car 'electric' units doing a Swansea-Cardiff shuttle but that's two changes where there would normally be none. Given that the only other ICGW routes being entirely electrified are PAD-BRI, there's not much scope for electrics removed from Wales services releasing enough bi-modes to run them as 2x5-car throughout from London to Wales when the Severn Tunnel is shut.

As an aside, has anyone here used the 07:30 Carmarthen service into Swansea? If so, what are the loadings like, would its loss to Swansea commuters (by moving it an hour earlier as proposed in the draft timetables) be painful?

Yes, I suppose it's swings and roundabouts as there's many a way to increase capacity.

I guess I've went for the extension to 10-cars in my example for several reasons (including the easy maths!), but mostly the fact that since the IEP order was confirmed, FGW has increased seating on the HSTs which now bring them much closer in line with a 9-car IEP.  Extending them to 10-cars would be an easy way of building extra capacity into the trains, and would probably be fairly easy to build into the maintenance contract in a similar vein to the Pendolino extensions.

The same with the 5-car bi-modes in that I took the 'easy' option of working out which units didn't couple during the day and extended them.  Like I say, it was just a quick example of what kind of impact a modest fleet extension could have.  Your point about the Severn Tunnel is relevant, though it is likely it will only be out of use (unplanned disruption excepted) at weekends when there will likely be extra cover available.

We'll see which way the DfT and FGW go with this one over the years, but I believe something will have to change from those proposals on the South Wales routes and North Cotswold Line to avoid daily capacity problems.

I expect significant overcrowding on the new shorter trains, and some overcrowding even on the full length ones.
I base this view not on detailed analysis, but on previous experience of other new shorter trains.

I recall Waterloo to Exeter services being shortened from full length loco hauled trains to 3 car DMUs, standing became the norm on services that previously had enough seating.

I remember 8 car slam door EMUs being replaced by a mixture of 4 car and 6 car networkers on the Catford loop line, I used to get a seat on the full length trains but had to stand on the new shorter trains.

I remember HSTs and full length loco hauled trains being replaced by 4 car DMUs on cross country services, again standing became the norm on services that previously had ample seating.

Whilst we are reassured that this time it will be different, I have my doubts, based on experience of other "improvements" and consequent increased standing.

Whilst it is true that the new trains can be lengthened, they said that about the 159s on the Exeter route ! and indeed they WERE eventually run in multiple, but only after years of standing.
The new shorter networkers used to replace slam door EMUs had "flexible train length" but for about 20 years this flexibility was only used to shorten trains, never to make them full length.
The new shorter trains used for cross country services were forecast to be adequate due to increased frequency and the ability to run in multiple, does not seem to have worked in practice though.
And of course Pendolinos were designed to be lengthened, and some eventually were lengthened, but this was found to be hugely costly and complicated and not the simple matter that it sounds.

I fear a repeat. There is still time to tweak the design of the new trains by removing tables and reducing leg room in order to provide "thousands of extra seats"

I too feared a repeat - of your usual statements that is.  Shame you didn't at least try to analyse and debate the detail in the thread I started, rather than just do a cut-and-paste job on your previous posts.

You're right about the internal design though, Rail Gazette reports today that:


http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/passenger/single-view/view/first-class-800-trainset-unveiled.html

Of course, that could mean no tables and reduced legroom, or it could mean slightly less first class and more standard class, or it could even mean a nice big buffet counter.  ;)  Either way, I was correct in what I said a month or so ago about a 'finished train' probably not being fitted out internally yet, and agree with you that the fact FGW are going to be operating the trains for the first few years means they will have to carefully tweak the internal layout if they so wish with the mindset of them having to deal with any consequences, rather than running away and letting a new operator deal with any flak.

How long ought I give Mark Webber, Customer Relations Senior Officer at First Great Western, to respond to my most recent e-mail (sent 30/10/2014) before I try again?

The start of my message goes as follows:
To: Mark.Webber@firstgroup.com

Dear Mr Webber,
I am pleased that First Great Western is expected to continue until at least March 2019, as this permits your experienced team to manage the electrification project. It also gives you the opportunity to tailor the new Intercity Express Programme trains in order to maximise the benefits for passengers. It is however very disappointing that you do not appear to have made any attempt to address the shortcomings, one very serious, present in the DfT's draft plans for the Great Western IEP fleet.

And continues, much more to this e-mail available on request. Or maybe Mr Webber isn't the person I should have written to?

If you simply send it to the Customer Relations address, it will get logged & thus you should get a response.

If you send it to a named individual, it doesn't get logged & if Mark can't answer it, he'll simply try & send it to someone else he thinks might be able to assist you.

Which would I choose?.....I think I know.

Always seems to be a large flow of passengers connecting at Swindon for Cheltenham Spa. Always a rush for the 13:38 where passengers are connecting from (I assume) is the arrival on platform 4 from Paddington just before.  ::)

Yes, I believe there is good demand for an hourly through service - as there is on the North Cotswold Line, too.  So for me the doubling of direct trains from nine per weekday to eighteen per weekday is most welcome.

A stark reminder of how far we've come in terms of direct trains to London from Cheltenham and Gloucester over the years is that in 1990 there were four, and in 1983 (during the golden age of HST travel according to some) there were just two!

Correct II - and when they were loco-hauled they were slow too. I lived near Dursley in the late 70s and it was much quicker to drive to Bristol Parkway and take a new shiny HST to Paddington than travel the shorter distance to Stroud and get one of the two through trains. Also the contrast between changing from a HST at Swindon onto a first generation DMU couldn't have been greater.

Anyway, to get back on topic. Yesterday Hitachi rolled out the first of the pre-production class 800 IEPs at their Kasado Works in Japan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30042801

Of the initial three units, the first two are five car and the third apparently a nine-car. This one is the bi-mode version and is due to be shipped to Southampton in March next year. Whatever one's views of the IEP, I do think that this looks rather smart, though for how long it will remain white in UK conditions remains to be seen.

or even before the TOCs put their logos all over it...

At around 1'20 in the South Today piece, I found myself thinking 'Blimey, it's got inside cylinders!'

And here's a fine example of a company handout reprocessed by getReading (http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/hitachis-new-reading-paddington-high-8109342).

While it shouldn't affect the links that get posted here, Trinity Mirror have announced they will stop printing many of their local titles, including the Reading Post and Wokingham Times, and continue as online only. And they'd only just restarted my mysterious free delivered copy two weeks ago!

Paul Clifton referred to the unveiled train as 'electric'.

What was unveiled was a Class 800, which is the electro-diesel version of the IEP.

I also noted that the carriage side display showed '0955 Bridgwater'. I wonder why that particular location was chosen to showcase the displays?

Perhaps to show that the Japanese can spell 'Bridgwater' even if many Brits can't.   :D

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-31846301):

Faster?  ;)

They will be faster yes (at accelerating out of a station anyway), but longer? The majority of the GWML fleet still isn't planned to be, as far as we know.

140mph as opposed to 125mph....it's in the article

Though I reckon at least ten years before that might be utilised in service.

ERTMS is needed first....

How much network mileage is currently cleared for >125mph running? Presumably there must be some, otherwise the recorded speeds in excess of 140mph could not have happened (even though these were under very controlled circumstances)?

Currently there are no sections authorised for over 125mph under normal operating, except on HS1.  It is now considered that in-cab signalling is required (although the ECML did have 140mph running with a flashing green aspect in years gone by).  As ChrisB says ERTMS is required first and with ETCS Level 2 being installed on the GWML over the coming years that will become possible, but with lineside signals not being scheduled to be removed until 2025 that is the earliest that speeds could be increased - hence my ten years comment.

The current GWML isn't universally 125mph.  It did strike me that with better acceleration of electric stock the case for easing up the speed on sections which previously would have been considered too short to be worth it might now be viable?  On some sections maybe you wouldn't even need to do any engineering work on the ground (although I am sure there would be engineers doing paperwork) to increase the speed limits other than putting up new signs.

There must be some bits of track where you have a straight bit capable of supporting a higher speed but it is sandwiched between two tight corners such that the straight is currently too short to have a higher speed limit.  But with better acceleration it might be worth raising the limit on the straight bit.  Regenerative braking would mitigate the energy lost by speeding up and slowing down too often.

Ready to be corrected if that is a non-starter. 

Some of the reports I've read suggest that passenger services have been run at 140mph on the ECML, but I cannot confirm this for certain. My best evidence for this is the fact there is a 140mph linespeed board from the ECML in the National Railway Museum (https://www.flickr.com/photos/47309173@N06/9704377762/) and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't put up special linespeed boards for trains with special permission to overspeed, such as when 91110 did over 160mph.

traintesting.com (http://www.traintesting.com/ic225_5.htm) reports that:I think that's probably the only section of UK 'conventional' railway ever officially given a linespeed above 125mph although special arangments allow non-public workings above the official linespeed at times, as suggested at the same link as above:
Not sure how it works, but you might not have to remove the lineside signals. If the in-cab system is overlaid with the existing signals and the on-board kit is guaranteed to always agree with the signal aspects...

Just out of interest the Flashing Green signals on the ECML are still working to this day so perhaps they might just let IEP show what it could do elsewhere 8)

You would want to remove the lineside signals though as the additional paths (and possibly 140mph speeds) you can gain from in-cab signalling couldn't be realised if the old signalling was still in place.  Not to mention maintenance and renewal costs of track side signalling.  ERTMS will be basically tested live with the back up of conventional signalling before that conventional signalling is removed, paving the way for improvements - a process which will take many years.

As far as I know there were never any services for paying passengers run at 140mph on the ECML. The signals were put in for trials and test runs were made, and one high speed blast from Kings Cross to Edinburgh which was reported on at the time by Roger Ford of Modern Railways.

Reportedly the Railway Inspectorate did not approve 140mph for general use because of the reduced signal sighting times. However the signalling hardware was left in place as it served no purpose to remove it.

One has to wonder what sort of trains don't age.

Class 57s? aka Ship of Theseus, aka Trigger's Broom.  ;D

I now expect that overcrowding will not only worsen, but will worsen to a greater extent than I previously expected.
It seems that services to the far west are to be downgraded mainly to 5 car DMUs, this despite previous statements that underfloor engines were not suited to long intercity trips.

With increasing numbers of half length DMUs, even on the longer distance routes, I expect crowding to worsen.

And yes I DO know that the new shorter units can be run in multiple, just like the (then) virgin voyagers ! Most voyagers still run as single units on routes previously worked by full length trains, and combined with rising passenger numbers this has led to appalling overcrowding.

At the risk of coming in on something that I'm not fully informed about ... a comment.

At present, HSTs head out of Paddington in the peak filled to the gunwales - but then at Reading the loads drop and they carry on to other destinations - a considerably longer journey than that from London to Reading - with capacity to spare.   Now if a half of the train carried on and the other half headed back to London for another load ...   (Yes, I do know that lack of intermediate cabs, lack of line capacity, time taken to divide trains makes my wonderful idea become impossible ... but ...)

That could indeed take place somewhere like Exeter or Plymouth though.

Not sure what you mean by 'lack of intermediate cabs' though - there will be a cab at either end of each 5car.

I was musing about the possibility with current HST stock (and a Reading split!) ... looking at my current experience and not at a potential future which isn't a part of my personal expertise

ahh, ok, just re-read it. Thanks

GOing forward, I think it's quite possible that a 2x5car bi-mode or AT300 could split at intermediate stations & go forward/reverse. The Javelins on SouthEastern do at Ashford & it's quick & easy.

One problem is, while there may be free seats west of Reading, I very much doubt there is half a train worth of free seats (although I'm only a very occasional user of the line, like two or three times in the past many years). What if the loadings on a service require around 6 or 7 coaches, particular on off-wire routes? With the planned fleet there probably aren't nearly enough units to ensure everything that needs anything more than 5 coaches is a 9-car (or 10-car) train. And there is a lot of investment and publicity associated with new trains, more frequent PAD-Bristol and PAD-Cheltenham through services, electrification and reduced journey times which will only attract more passengers. Plus the 10-car (2x5) formations would only have the same number of seats as a 9-car, so you are effectively paying for an extra coach doing no good to anyone while the sets are coupled. Then there's the matter of the split itself...

Oh, it could do it, and it might well be quick and easy operationally, but in my opinion it should be a no-no on Intercity services because it isn't great for passengers. The Birmingham - Aberystwyth/Pwllheli services do it but that's ok because the class 158 units on the run have UEGs so passengers can move to the correct unit between stops when the guard points out they are in the wrong portion.

If the rear portion is terminating, they'll have to alight anyway. Moving forward to the other set isn't exactly onerous after alighting. It isn't as if the rear set will be going somewhere

You know how I love tinkering with timetables and diagrams, so I've done a very rough estimate of what the West Of England timetable might look like with the known facts and some assumptions, which are:

1)  It is likely that seven 9-car and twenty-two 5-car Bi-mode IEP's will be ordered for the WoE services.
2)  From those twenty-nine sets, you'd probably be looking at six diagrams for the 9-car trains and 19 or 20 diagrams for the 5-car trains.
3)  We know that the aspiration is to run an hourly service between London and Plymouth/Penzance reducing the journey time to Penzance by around 15 minutes on the current timings.
4)  We know that the aspiration is to run an hourly stopping service between London and Exeter (which will presumably be extensions of an original Paddington to Westbury suggested service), and that there will be the odd train extending to/from Paignton as they do now.
5)  We know that some of the original order of 5-car IEPs had already been allocated to some of the Paddington/Westbury/Exeter/Paignton services as per the IEP Draft Specification we've often referred to on here.

So, armed with those facts I've done a quick sample timetable which takes into account all of the above, with some assumptions on journey times, and some very rough diagramming of the units that will become available.  Attached is what it looks like.

I've not gone down the route of complex splitting and joining of services en-route which might make further efficiencies, but still managed with little effort to cover all of the Penzance to Paddington hourlies with either 9-car or 2x5 car Bi-modes throughout.  I've also covered all of the peak Paignton/Exeter services with 2x5 car Bi-modes, and just a few off-peak Paddington<>Exeter services are only operated with 5-car sets - the 5-car trains are marked in yellow on the attachment, the 9-car trains are in red.

In total I've used six 9-car diagrams and twenty-four 5-car diagrams, which given the overflow of the already ordered Bi-modes from the original draft diagrams is probably easily achievable, and that (along with other efficiencies saved with an in-depth look at the diagrams) will probably result in a few more sets becoming available to help with the possible shortfalls I remain concerned about for South Wales, and Cotswold Line services.

So, in short, I don't personally expect overcrowding to worsen significantly on WoE services as a result of this proposed order - especially given the increase in the number of trains to spread the load - around 50% more between Paddington and Penzance for example.

[Edit:  Just spotted a couple of mistakes in my spreadsheet, the 17:26 PNZ-PAD would be formed off of diagram 508/9 and the 18:26 PNZ-PAD would then be diagram 905.  Also, the 21:40 PAD-PLY would arrive EXD at 00:08 and PLY at 01:10]

It's also pretty common for S.Wales services to be packed from PAD-RDG, empty out considerably at RDG and remain light-moderately loaded to CDF, then stuffed to the rafters again from there, so it's a bit more complex than just the PAD-RDG bit being busy! Sometimes the large influxes occur at Swindon or Bristol Parkway depending on the time of day.

The DfT document says Plymouth will be hourley and Penzance two-hourly which is roughly the same currently so where is this 50% increase in the number of trains to Penzance?

I based my timetable on this from the Government's response to the consultation:

"Respondents indicated a strong demand for the provision of two trains per hour from London to Exeter (one fast and one semi-fast), with one train per hour extended to Plymouth and Penzance.  Maintenance of the current level of Paignton through services and improvement in journey times were also highlighted as requirements.
We are pleased to confirm that we have been able to address this requirement with the new Franchise from the timetable change date in December 2018."

To me that meant an hourly service from Paddington to Penzance which increases the current 8 or 9 through day trains a day up to 14 in my example timetable.  If that's not the case and some only go as far as Plymouth then diagramming 9/10 car trains on each service becomes even easier.

Yes, the same document later says:


This is a bit confusing considering the document first says that Paddington to Exeter will be 2 tph but then says the Exeter semi-fast service will only be two-hourly althoug I see in the quote above it says "up to two trains an hour" which will allow for the service to not be 2 tph every hour.

I have also read a discussion elsewhere where it is said that the 9 car trains will be used on the semi-fast Exeter services.

I don't see any reason to think services will be mainly 5-car - there have been consistent suggestions that 19 trains, new or retained, would be needed for services to the West Country and this would fit with the 18 9/10-car sets the new fleet will allow.

I think the 50% increase to Penzance is the half hourly Plymouth to Penzance local service theoretically in 2018 after the re-signalling and extra Thames valley rolling stock.

If they are going to run as 10-car all the time, that would largely settle the capacity concerns on that route (south Wales and the Cotswolds still looking in trouble) but then you'd be paying for 10-car when you only need 9-car to provide the same number of seats if you had fixed formation 9-car units instead.

Unless of course the stuff about more-powerful engines on the extra units is a load of rubbish and they are going for a uniform fleet for maintenance reasons, in which case perhaps a 10-car bi-mode with six engines has a slightly better power:weight ratio than a 9-car bi-mode with 5 engines.

I see no need, nor desire, to run full length sets all the time - if that was the intention they wouldn't have bothered with all the 5-car sets.

Clearly the fleet composition is designed to give them flexibility, to tailor train lengths to the expected demand rather than have full length trains to Penzance at all times and that seems perfectly sensible to me.

Yes indeed, I'm sure the final timetable will feature much more portion working than my sample did, I didn't want to spend ages making things too complicated though to prove how far that number of units could stretch to provide a lot more seats per day from all stations on the route than is currently the case.

Personally though, I would have thought a couple more 9-cars and a few less 5-cars would have been a better balance, but will defer to those who have done the calculations and presume they've got them right until proved otherwise.

Loadings are very light November/January - Mid-March west of Plymouth....1/3 of the yeart where 5cars to PNZ will be ample.

My concern is that with so few full length trains and with most being half length, that a great many services will be operated by half length units.
Flexibility is a fine thing in theory, but I have seen so many new shorter trains introduced on different routes, and in every case "flexible" was railway speak for shorter.

Both the original order for IEPs and the proposed add on order for a sub fleet of similar DMUs for far west services consist mainly of half length trains.
A 5 car unit is a substantial backwards step in capacity compared to an HST, and a full length train is only a modest improvement.
Experience of new shorter trains on other routes suggests that "flexibility" means shorter trains at busy times.

Also I am not convinced that DMUs are suitable for long routes such as to Penzance. Luggage space will be totally inadequate for summer holiday traffic, indeed one of the reasons for keeping HSTs for the far west was luggage space.
Largely bus style seating, and the absence of a buffet will no doubt enhance the experience !

I thought that the new trains were going to be "purpose designed inter city trains" and not short inter urban DMUs.

AT300s are similar to SouthEastern's Javelin's.....

East Coast is getting around 30 of those, when they don't really need them (since they have IC225s) and a few have been ordered for PAD-Bristol/Wales but not enough for Wales. The rest of GW gets 'sardine midgets' instead.

If the alternative is 19 HSTs that simply isn't the case - with the extra capacity per carriage, the extra carriages per train, and the wider increase in services also being proposed this represents a considerable improvement.

They are purpose designed inter city trains., regardless of their length.


 

AT300 is the family name for a range of HS trains.
The Javelin (class 395) and the Super Express Train (class 800/801) are all AT300 derivatives.
The new order for the SW services is for an SET with uprated engines and larger fuel capacity.

They are struggling with a description for them because they want to differentiate the order from the trains ordered as part of the IEP. Hence the (possibly temporary) use of the generic AT300 title, until they are given a name or TOPS class description.

Really ? mainly 5 car DMUs, without buffet, with very limited luggage space, and underfloor engines roaring, rattling and farting away sounds to me like at best, an inter urban DMU not an intercity train.

I remember being told how wonderful the new shorter voyager trains would be, but it is now accepted that the voyagers are too short, noisy, lack luggage space, and are generally not suited to long journeys.

So have lessons been learned ? not likely ! lets order some more short cramped DMUs for inter city use.




Edit note: Quote marks fixed, for clarity. CfN.

If your description proves true then you will be correct and they will be a very expensive failure.  However since they are coming now, whether we like it or not, let us wait and see what they are like.

And you're totally guessing about luggage space as you haven't seen any design....

Much of what I predict is known to be true, rather than being an opinion.

We know as a fact that the order already placed is for mainly half length units, with full length being in the minority.
We know as a fact that they will have underfloor engines.

We also know as a virtual certainty that most of the seats (as in more than half) will be bus style without tables, this is as shown on the drawings published.
We also know as a virtual certainty that no buffet will be provided, this again is as shown on published drawings.

I grant that the last two points are not absolutely certain since the interior layout is flexible. But does anyone really believe that a buffet, and all facing seats at tables are to be retrofitted ?

The lack of luggage space is a reasonable inference to be made from the scarcity of table seats (no space for bags between seat backs) and the absence of power cars and the luggage space therein.

Voyager mark 2, at best.

But the proposed order is much more balanced, I think. Any so what if they are - there are definite plans to run in multiple.


For the IEP Order yes. You have no clue how the additional order is to be configured which will be to the operators wishes, with no DfT input as they're privately financed. And it's well known that half the population (ie women) prefer the privacy of these airline (not bus) seats to table seating where men play footsie.


luggage space is like road provision - you supply it & it'll generate its own traffic. You could never have too much even if each seat came with its own luggage space instead of a seat beside it 0- that would still fill. Better to stop people using them to move house....:-)

Predicting the future to be known ? ???

Sorry for the poor grammar, I should perhaps have said "much of what I have formerly predicted is now known to be true"  in regards to the new trains.

It is true that a fair number of passengers prefer the airline style layout to facing seats with tables. Not just females either.
Wasn't there a study that showed that the first seats taken on a FGW HST, paricularly during the peaks, were those closest to the carriage ends and the doors, followed by the airline style seats. Table seats tended to be avoided by solo travellers.
Conversely, groups of 3 or 4, or families, tended to go for the tables first.

Regarding finance, the IEP train order (i.e. the cost of the actual trains) is also privately funded. HSBC are heading up a group of UK and overseas investors, who are providing the finance to pay for the trains and support infrastructure. The UK government will not be buying them, or paying for them.



I can't say I've ever seen people placing their luggage in a HST power car. Maybe I'm just not observant enough?
The IEP spec detailed the required minimum baggage space. If it's mostly at the carriage ends, in or near the vestibules, that brings its own issues of security and passenger confidence.
Again, it's no use speculating until we can see what the end result turns out to be.

I don't think pax are allowed to put luggage in HST power cardms. On summer weekends, luggage is loaded into wire cages on platforms which staff then load into the power cars

Table seats are still popular with some solo travellers and couples (though I've seen many looks of horror when someone dares to join them!), and are obviously popular with groups, which is why I think that 8 tables per carriage, as proposed, is a sensible compromise - and of course a big improvement on the current layout.

Agree, passengers are not normally allowed to place luggage in HST power cars. However as you point out, at busy times luggage is indeed placed in large wire mesh sided trolleys and loaded into the power cars by staff.
This is a very valuable facility which will be lost with the downgrade to DMU operation.
What is to be done in the future ? advise those with luggage to go by road ?

Some way back in the main IEP thread a respected member of these forums cast doubts over the luggage capacity of the proposed new DMUs on services to/from the far West. The reply was along the lines of "don't worry about surfboards and other bulky luggage, HSTs are being retained for the longer distance services" This was no doubt true when posted, but it now seems probable that even the long distance services are being downgraded to DMU operation.
Summer weekends will be interesting !

While that is accurate, it's not quite the full story!

Firstly, while the TOC will pay for the train service provision, the DfT has guaranteed these payments for the 27.5 years of the Train Service Provision deal. I'd be quite happy with a guaranteed income for the next 27.5 years!

Secondly, because of the structure of the contract between Agility Trains and the DfT and its financing, the monthly payments per coach will be much higher than for an equivalent type of train, specifically the 140mph capable and tilting Pendolino. I wrote to my MP about the IEP contract and he forwarded me a reply from Claire Perry, the railways Minister at the DfT, in which she stated that fares will not rise because of the use of the Super Express Trains. As it is known that the monthly payments will be considerably higher this means that, all other things being equal, either a higher subsidy will be required to operate the trains or the Government will have to accept lower premium payments.

In either case the taxpayer takes the hit :( >:(

Or, the TOC increases revenue by cramming more passengers onto the trains. That, supposedly, is how Virgin East Coast intend to make their payments to government after IEP arrives. And is the government policy still RPI+1% fare rises? If so, fares will (regrettably) rise anyway (which would help pay for IEP) across all TOCs giving the government the excuse to say the fare rises are not because of IEP.

No, summer weekends will be a nightmare, IF it goes ahead. Here's hopeing whoever is elected only approves the 7x 9-car units of First's proposed order and instructs First to retain 20ish IC125 sets instead of procuring the extra 5-car sets.

I suspect that there will be a hidden fare increase to pay for the new very expensive shorter DMUs.
If a senior figure has stated "no fare increases to pay for the new trains" then I doubt that headline fares will rise by more than the usual RPI plus 1%.
I can forsee a number of ways whereby fares can be increased in less obvious ways.

 Adjust the peak hours such that the full fare becomes payable at times during which an off peak ticket may be used at present.

Reduce the NUMBER of discounted tickets sold for each train, keep the super saver at say ^50 but sell 2 such tickets per train rather than 50

Tweak the timetable to maximise revenue, for example if "off peak" means arrival into London after 09-30, then make an 09-35 arrival into an 09-25 arrival. This can be touted as a great improvement "look the new trains cut 10 minutes off the time"

A bright manager should be able to think of more subtle but generally similar tricks.

And yes I expect that the design will be tweaked to cram more passengers into each vehicle, the famous "thousands of extra seats"

The discussion has set me thinking on capacity ...  please excuse examples using a service where the figures are easily seen / calculated.

---

I recon there's some half million seats (250k each way) between Swindon and Westbury each year - that's 10 carriages each way Monday to Saturday, with a few less on Sundays, and with around 75 seats per carriage.  And on current reconning around 100,000 occupied each way.  Gives us 40% utilisation.  That's a rather higher seat occupancy rate than other services where it's easy(ish) to make such an approximation, cerrainly better that typical car travel that's between 25% and 30% (guess through personal observation) - and I would love to know figures for town buses, long distance trains, long distance coaches and airline flights.  Just because you (or I) may travel on busy services all the time doesn't mean that the average is "busy" - 100 opinions of 'it's busy' are formed on a 1 coach train carrying 100 people, but only 20 opinions of 'it's quiet' if there are FOUR other services each carrying 5.

So - how busy (really) are the trains?  And how can we [society, industry] do more to make best use of the under-utilised timeslices without adding pressure to the ones which are already oversubscribed?   Sort this out - get utilisation of transport up to 60% utilisation - and at very little extra expense you'll be able to increase your income dramatically without having to raise the fares for exisiting travellers.   Or if there's no extra huge flow of new passengers, how about even-ing the out so that fewer carriages but with more passengers (average) on each still give everyone a comfortable, seated ride?

I may grumble about overcrowding on the 19:30 off Paddington - but was the incoming train that formed the service full and standing?   I may press for the 17:36 to be strengthened (and look forward to that in 2 years time, with a hope for intermediate relief too), but I also just wish that the mechanisms that generate traffic would let us encouraged (carrot, not stick) more people onto the (2 car already!) 06:12.

We're discussing the add-on AT300s that FGW are proposing they privately finance, not the IEPs you are referring to here!

Indeed, it isn't the whole story.
The very expensive procurement process has incurred the sort of eye watering costs usually associated with government procurement exercises.


The guarantee doesn't cost anything, other than the legal and administrative costs of setting up the deal, unless the payments are not met, or there's a default on the leasing contracts.



The taxpayer would indeed take at hit, but only if those eventualities are realised.
If the TOC's increase their revenue and meet their contactual arrangements to pay the "promised" premiums to the government, then the taxpayer will not be paying.
On the other hand, passengers, MAY end up paying more for the service provided.
Again, it isn't as simple as that though.

Posted elsewhere:
They replied to my FOI request and initially rejected it on the grounds that it was planned for future publication and FirstGroup hadn't finished redacting the commercially sensitive parts yet. They have now released the franchise agreement (FA) (available here (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/first-great-western)) but I also asked for the Service Level Commitment (SLC) which doesn't appear to be available yet.
-----
Now, I asked for the FA and SLC because I want to know whether the Pembroke Dock - Paddington services are safe. The only mention of Pembroke in the FA is on the list of permitted destinations under "The Franchisee shall not without the prior written consent of the Secretary of State operate Passenger Services other than on the following routes (and in the event of disruption, any reasonable diversionary route):" Does the inclusion of Pembroke Dock on the list mean the SLC is the same as at present, or could it be included on that list despite being removed from the SLC?

It might be purely an option (whether seasonal or not).

You'll have to await the SLC to be sure.

The SLC seems to available on the same link! Or have I missed something.  Ah yes the dates; it is the current 2013- 2015 one updated in May 2015 - what does this mean? Is the SLC staying the same?

Oh and of course Paddington - Pembroke Dock services are included.

It means that its yet to be published

Then why publish the old one again with a May update?

See what you mean, I think. Good question

I've no idea why the old SLC has been updated in May 2015, but:

• that May update was published a while ago, it was there before I sent my FOI request (in fact I downloaded a copy which my computer has date-stamped at 28 ‎March ‎2015)
• that May update has on the first page the words "13th October 2013 to 19th September 2015" which I would think clearly indicates that the document does not apply beyond the end of the current direct award
• the new FA refers to four seperate SLC documents: SLC1 (until May 2017 timetable change), SLC2 (May 2017-Dec 2018), SLC3(a) and SLC3(b). I believe the latter two are different options for the service after Dec 2018.

On the last page, it says:

That suggests that the new SLC will be a revision of this one. Which isn't much help, if you want to know exactly what changes.

I haven't read the full details of how the FGW's privately funded AT300 will work but from the little bits of information I have read I just wonder how the ROSCOs will react to this deal, should it go ahead.
If it goes ahead then a precedent has surely been set for all other TOCs to fund the purchase of their own trains (unlikely I know), but where does that leave the ROSCO's because ultimately that's eating into their business and profits.  I wonder if they would have any kind of legal case?
On the other hand, it could be the kick up the backside that they need!

If First Group buys the trains itself than it will have to have quite deep pockets. The current financial situation of First implies that it would have to pay a (slight) premium on the interest for the capital it may need to borrow compared to other companies.

It is much more likely that First will arrange funding through a ROSCO, but it doesn't have to be Eversholt, Angel or Porterbrook, other ROSCOs are available! For example Voyagers and Class 68s and Class 88s are owned by other ROSCOs. As Hitachi has a significant presence in the business of supplying capital to businesses, and private individuals, it would not surprise me if the AT300s are financed through a Hitachi subsidiary - though probably not through Agility Trains.

Having had a look through the new First Great Western franchise agreement (as link to previous) it appears that their have been alterations to the amount of standard and first class seats that will be on the IEP class 800s & 801s when compared to the quantities shown in the original draft seating layouts (pages 145 to 148).

A 5 car 800 will now have 290 seats in standard class. This is a 20 seat gain over the 270 seats shown in standard class on the draft 5 car layout. This is the result of a 9 seat reduction in first class seats to 36 seats from 45 shown in the draft layout.

A 9 car 801 will now have 576 seats in standard class. This is a 50 seat gain over the 526 seats shown in standard class on the draft 9 car layout. This is the result of a 30 seat reduction in first class seats to 71 seats from 101 shown in the draft layout, and is the same amount of first class seats as can be found on the current HSTs.

Well spotted, MartinH.  Probably not a great surprise that the ratio of first to standard will be similar to what FGW currently think is the most appropriate.

Here's what that does to the spreadsheet I presented at the beginning of that thread (which is in itself now out of date after the recent timetable change).  Original table first, then revised table.

It's worth noting that Swansea will be served by an additional service to Cardiff and Newport post electrification, with the current Cardiff to Taunton service becoming a Swansea to Bristol EMU service.

Whilst not additional seats to Paddington, there will be a good number of seats remaining for local journeys.

Is a Swansea-Bristol EMU service confirmed (in the new GW franchise agreement)? Or are local EMU services to be decided by the new ATW franchise? In the latter case any new electric service might meerly be a replacement for existing ATW diesel services.

From the Maidenhead station: where is the common sense gone? topic:
I think this illustrates two of my concerns with IEP. Firstly, one can perhaps except "certain trains and certain times of the day when people still won't be able to find a seat" if "certain trains and certain times of the day" is a handful of trains in and out of PAD in the high-peak if pepole are only having to between PAD and Reading at most, but having to stand off-peak out of London or at any time in/out of one of the regional cities (which are smaller than London)...

The second is that there doesn't appear to be much 'future proofing' in the IEP order. Sure, you could lengthen the 9-car sets to 10-car but the rest of the fleet has been ordered based on multiple-working which means some sets will already be the maximum 260m length thus you cannot lengthen many 5-car sets before ending up with surplus driving vehicles.

Does the desision to reduce first class suggest they are now feeling that they'll be pushed for capacity pretty soon after introduction?

Oh, and I tried asking the DfT FOI pepole for more information:
What is the devolution settlement regarding rail at the moment? And does 'under review' mean they still haven't decided whether it will run next year? Or is it safe at least until May 2017 or Dec 2018?

They will order more trains the further the wires get extended, replacing the HSTs kept on.

I thought that the latest thinking was NOT to retain any HSTs.

Was not the ORIGINAL plan to retain a relatively small sub fleet of HSTs for far west services.
But that the CURRENT plan is to withdraw all the HSTs and to order more, mainly shorter, DMUs for the far west services. These being similar to those already ordered, but with uprated or more numerous underfloor engines in order to cope with the inclines.

If however more IEP vehicles ARE to be ordered, then I would hope that the priority would be to build more intermediate, non driving vehicles.
If say 25 vehicles are to be built, then IMO rather than building another 5 half length trains it would be preferable to lengthen 5 or 6 existing half length trains into full length ones.
An intermediate non driving vehicle contains more seats than a driving vehicle, so 25 vehicles applied to lengthening existing trains to 9 or 10 car would provide more additional capacity than 10 driving vehicles and 15 intermediate vehicles formed into 5 short trains.
The intermediate vehicles should be cheaper to build, perhaps allowing 30 vehicles to be built instead of 25.

As electrification spreads, the extra vehicles should not need diesel engines if added to existing sets they would be converting 5 car bi-mode into  9 or 10 car electric (with limited diesel power for when the wires come down)

I was hoping that the reduction of First class accommodation was only going to be a temporary thing until IEP came along. How wrong I was.

I have long held the view that a fleet of mainly shorter trains will be inadequate, and have previously forecast that the new trains would have no buffet (now confirmed) I think that I also forecast the reduction in first class (now confirmed), next no doubt will a "modernised" seating layout to "maximise capacity"

These "purpose designed inter city trains" are looking increasingly like, at best an outer suburban commuter train with minimal first class, no buffet, and of course much shorter.

Not to say that I don't have concerns with capacity on certain routes and certain times of the day post-IEP, but there are at least plenty of options going forward capacity wise.  Many of these have already been suggested, but within the infrastructure that will exist post-IEP introduction you could:

• Lengthen the 9-car Electric sets to 10-car
• Lengthen some of the 5-car Bi-mode sets to anything up to 10-car with additional vehicles
• Introduce more 5-car Bi-Mode sets to ensure that more trains run coupled together as 10-car sets
• Introduce more seating by removing tables and turning them into higher-density trains
• Remove first class accommodation entirely
• Potentially run the odd extra peak 12-car service EMU from Paddington to Swindon

Whether or not any of those will be taken, or need to be taken, is another matter of course.  There's also an option for '30 additional sets' within the FGW AT300 proposal for the Cornish services, though the exact details of that option I'm not aware of.

I think the redistribution of 1st/Standard class seating on the new trains was pretty inevitable given the recent extra standard seating installed on the HSTs, and is to be welcomed as (except for a very small percentage or trains) the benefits of such a change outweigh the negatives.

Also, with infrastructure to come over the coming decade or so in the form of ERTMS signalling, you could create extra paths for additional trains in the longer term.

I also think that summer weekend Pembroke Dock trains will be quietly dropped from the timetable.

I'm not sure what the ORIGINAL plan was, it has changed so many times. I think at one point the entire IC125 fleet was to be replaced with the PAD-Penzance route worked by new diesel-only stock with bi-modes on shorter routes. Later, electrification to Bristol and Swansea/Cardiff was approved and the diesel-only new trains were dropped, and at some point PAD-Penzance became an option for new trains rather than a core part of the proposal. The PAD-Penzance option under IEP was never taken up, so the current suitation is that FirstGW have proposed replacing the remaining IC125s with their own order of new Hitachi 'Sardine Midgets' (and a handful of 9-car bi-modes) but this is subject to DfT approval so is not yet the DEFINATE CURRENT PLAN.

The new FirstGW order does not have "uprated or more numerous underfloor engines in order to cope with the inclines". They are the same engines, and I believe in the same quantity per set, as under the IEP sets, but the engines on the IEP fleet are de-rated, the FirstGW order apparently will use the full power of the engines and will have larger fuel tanks.

I agree, the huge number of short trains doesn't make sense to me at all. Maybe it is just the bean counters realised "Walmsley's law" that it makes more sense to use LHCS if the train length is 6 or more coaches but DfT said no-locos so we end up with short MUs that make no sense instead?

I've added numbers to your options for ease of reference.
(1.) is fair enough, but doesn't help passengers to/from off-wire destinations,
(2.) sounds reasonable enough expect that the planned use of mutliple-working means that, out of the 50 units ordered under IEP (so excluding) you would end up with more units than you have work for (I estimate 4-7 units) due to over-ordering driving vehicles.
(3-6.) all these options represent further downgrading of standard of service and as such are not in the passenger's best interests

I think the option is a general First Group option, and possibly available to the rail industry as a whole (as with the Southern/GTR order for Thameslink interim units, First Great Western have exercised part of the option for additional sets), not specific to FirstGW.

I agree that the service will probably be dropped if the Cornish AT300 oder is approved by DfT (please DfT, if you're reading this, approve only the 9-car sets and make First retain a pool of full-length IC125s), unless it turns out the DfT/NR simply forgot to assess the Pembroke branch for clearance issues and it turns out to require little or no work. I highly doubt the latter is a possibility though. I'm not sure about 'quietly dropped' though. If it turns out to be axed without a decent replacment being put in place (4-car 156s on nearly all services on the branch might cover it) I hope that the London service doesn't go quietly.

I think the key to this, for me, is that FGW/DfT/NR must plan for the long distance routes to have a jolt upwards in usage following electrification, the much discussed 'sparks effect', and then for much more modest growth thereafter.  At the same time it should develop strategies for a number of other scenarios, including negative growth and higher levels of growth in terms of passenger numbers so that we're not left with a railway that cannot cope with the number of passengers, or franchises that go under.

I think they have enough options at their disposal to plan for all those eventualities, but whether they will do it properly remains to be seen.  The new franchise from the end of the decade will be important in that respect as recent franchises have suffered from not being flexible enough to cope with passenger numbers that have exceeded expectations, leading to costly and delayed additional carriages being sought from all sorts of unlikely places.

I fail to see how options 3 or 6 can be described as a downgrading of service.

Currently, services are run by 8-coach INTERCITY rolling stock with contiguous first and standard class and the ability for passengers to move along the full length of the train if they so wish (eg. looking for a seat). Option 3 would break the train into two seperate sections meaning passengers would be unable to move to any part of the train and first/standard class areas would not necessarily be adjacent. Option 2 is therefore very much prefrable to option 3. Option 6 implies use of a suburban EMU with wide doors part way along the passenger saloon (rather than narrower ones at the saloon ends) and probably a reduced top-speed (100-110mph), that is not INTERCITY standard. I suppose as an extra service you could argue that it is not a downgrade providing the INTERCITY services are not reduced to make a path available for it.

Agree that use of suburban rolling stock would be a downgrade on a route at present served by inter city trains.

And as regards building more half length IEPs, that too would be a downgrade if compared to a full length train. Whilst two half length trains coupled together are an improvement over a single half train, the result is inferior to a full length train.
With two half length units, sods law says that the trolley will be in the other one!
The first class host will be in the other one.
In the unlikely event that a full first class Pullman style dining service survives, that too will be in the other unit.

First class being in two sections, at random locations along the train, suggests a suburban multiple unit and not an inter city train.

Not withstanding the flack I may get for quoting to 4 levels ...  ;D

There used to be an extra service from Bristol Temple Meads in the morning peak - 06:00 and every 30 minutes was supplemented by a train at 06:40.    And I'm sure it was there for a reason, not run just for the fun of it.

A 12 car e.m.u. from Swindon to Paddington - a 4 car portion from Bristol Temple Meads, Keynsham, Oldfield Park, Bath Spa, Corsham, and Chippenham would - well - be a welcome forward development.   Yes - the stock may be less posh (and may also stop at Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough) but there are positives of thought services, avoiding the need to connect, and swapping Reading based units into the Bristol area for the local routes from there to Swansea and Chippenham.

Virgin (West Coast) manage to make this work fairly well with the 2 x Voyagers that split at Chester...

While you and me seem to be in agreement in general regarding IEP, I'm not sure I would quite go as far as to call IEP a suburban unit, at least the doors appear to be in the right place on an IEP (would be better if they were plug-type though).

Are there firm plans for Bristol-Chippenham local services, and/or Bristol-Swansea services (and, if the latter, is it to be run by the GW franchise or the W&B franchise)? Even without that though, what you suggest sounds like a good idea IF it is an EXTRA service (or an extension of the general PAD-Reading stopping services) and is not running in one of the INTERCITY paths AND if the units have UEGs (I only mention the latter because of your suggestion of a 4-car portion from further west, although the problem is more with services which split, joining isn't such a problem).

If a few 12 car emus running to/from  Swindon in the peak hoover up a lot of Reading and Didcot passengers (which is the intention), leaving the longer distance trains for the longer distance passengers then I think it will be a major improvement. By running the services as far as Swindon, the peak Didcot stops on the IEPs could be withdrawn, with passengers from Didcot west having to change at Swindon. I don't think that would be a great hardship if the greater good of segregating shorter and longer distance flows was achieved. 

Oh, I wouldn't dare ...  ;) :D ;D

On the currently proposed scheme, Didcot does not have any additional peak time stops on IEP services on the main line compared with the off-peak pattern unlike today. The only additional service goes to Worcester. The EMU service frequency is not specified, but earlier documents than the consultation response suggested hourly.

This does not seem overgenerous, especially for those west of Didcot that specifically pick out trains to stop there for split ticket purposes (!).

As a possible option should passenger numbers increase to the extent that it's needed, I would probably envisage it happening purely as a 'capacity buster' two or three times in the peak period with stops at Reading and Didcot (and possibly one of either Maidenhead/Slough, but that would be open to debate).  Using stock with the interior quality of the Class 387s FGW are about to receive (2+2 seating throughout and armrests) I can't really see commuters seeing it as a significant downgrade, especially if it means they don't have to fight tooth and nail for a seat (or have to stand to Didcot) like they sometimes do now.

110mph top speed would obviously be slightly slower than 125mph, but really won't make too much difference as I would expect the 387s to have slightly better acceleration and slightly quicker station dwell times - certainly timings under the hour from Paddington to Swindon would be achievable.  That's much less than Warwick Parkway takes with similar stock (excluding the loco hauled trains) and I don't hear massive complaints from Chiltern Railways commuters, just mostly praise for the Clubman trains.

Pathing wise, I don't think there would be no need to reduce any of the IEP services planned, the key location would be Paddington to Airport Junction and I would suggest the thinning out of the Heathrow Express service in the peak hours (which I can see happening anyway) would be the best way to create any paths needed.

Anyway, it remains an option, and after all the original point concerned the lack of options available after the IEP introduction.

It would be a financial great hardship to those travelling to from west of Swindon who currently split their tickets at Didcot to save much money.

But a ticketing anomaly ought not be a factor in deciding best service provision.

People also pick our trains to stop at Didcot if they're travelling between Oxford, Swindon and stations west thereof. 

Through journeys such as Bristol, Bath and Chippenham to Oxford were provided on an hourly basis in Thames Trains days, but they were lost at about the time that Thames Trains became part of the First franchise.    The loss of the through service hasn't simply added a change at Didcot - it's added a change at Didcot that often involves a long wait (see the "connection" leave as you pull in) AND an extra change at Swindon; it's changed a commute / journey that many were happy with into one that's only willingly undertaken by the more adventurous / seasoned traveller!

The connections at Oxford in and out of the XC services are no better. I remember claims when the Didcot XC stops were eliminated that connections would be improved but I can't say they have most of the time.

In the end it is down to the frequency - if Oxfordshire CC had their way there would be four services an hour between the 2 stations.

I will avoid that route to Birmingham (from Swindon) wherever possible due to the risk of lost connections twice rather than only once if I go via Cheltenham or Bristol Parkway.  I have spent too long waiting for XC trains on Oxford Station and having to phone to explain that I will be delayed. 

Connections at Oxford have been greatly improved on many northbound trains from Didcot since the recent timetable change.

Good.   

There {was} a lot of sense in the Go Coop route from Yeovil / Westbury / Trowbridge to Leamington Spa / Birmingham, via (Bath Spa|Chippenham) , Swindon, (possibly) Didcot, Oxford and Banbury ... there are significant passenger flows (more potentially than actual) but with multiple changes necessary and some awful connections, it's a market that no-one stood up for.

We've probably moved on now, with extra services on many sections of the line, more extras and changes planned /projected - so I would be surprised to see the Co-operative service happen in previously discussed forms.  But the changes coming up in the next few years should be taken at a change to at least turn one eye to this corridor / flow and to give it thought ... which as regular readers will know is happening in some (if perhaps not the corridors of power) quarters.

 What happens in Devon/Cornwall ?  A lot of the short platforms, my own station Totnes included, have short platforms.
 Hence only accommodate HST's thanks to selective door opening. So if a ''bi-model IEP somehow makes it's way down here
 will it only be a 4/5 car ?
 My understanding is, like the voyager's, the doors are operated by the driver.  So am I right in presuming that they do not
 have selective door opening.? 
 If my fear's are correct, unless stations across the region have work to extend platforms, is their a possibility that some
 stations may lose ''main line'' status as they cannot accommodate the trains ?.
 

IEP's do have selective door operation, which, like the 180s the driver will have controls for.  I believe it is a sophisticated system that means any set of doors can be selected rather than the system on the 180s which can only open doors from the front backwards.

Voyagers do have the capability for SDO, it's just never been signed off for use.

There's no technical or safety reasons I can think of why SDO can't be fitted/used on the Class 801 electrics or proposed 9 car AT300 bi-modes.

Doyou think it was part of the IEP requirement? You should only need one guess. It says:

In a sense, it has three.

Ahh... I thought I'd read that, or similar, before. I was hedging my bets with 'I think'.  ;)