Great Western Coffee Shop

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/liberal-democrat-election-humiliation-spells-5832732

Very short-sighted if they want to keep the seats!

Agree that would be a sure way to ensure that they all went back to Lib Dem next time.

Made up comment surely?

If The Mirror really do have a Tory minister on record saying that, they'd have published his/her name.

Two words. The Mirror.

It's like the Daily Mail running a negative story about Labour - probably heavily biased!

"probably" ??   :o ::) ;D

AT300's don't count as investment, I suppose.

OTC

In a lot of respects I consider the AT300s for Plymouth/Penzance an inferior option to refurbishing the IC125s with plug doors etc. For the 9-car ones, you could argue a capacity benifit but so many of the proposed fleet are 5-car units that it looks to me like cutbacks. Say what you like about enhance frequency local and regional services, but they (I assume) would be delivered regardless of whether the AT300 option is approved (I hope only the 9-car sets are approved and 17 or 18 IC125s are kept).

In lots of respects I consider brand new trains a must now. We can't keep on refurbishing 35-40 year old stock. New trains with a 30+ year lifespan are what's needed. Not Trigger's Broom.

And there's NO point in 9cars going all the way to PNZ....capacity would be way over the top!

Does your maths look like this, Chris?

Using HSTs (8 car seating + 2 power cars):
12 hour round trip (PNZ), train every 2 hours, 6 trains of 8 carriages - 48 carriages from London

Using 5 car units (effective 4 of seating):
12 hour round trip (PNZ), train every 2 hours, 6 trains of 4 carriages - 24 carriages from London
6 hour round trip (PLY), train every hour, 6 trains of 4 carriages, 2 trips each - 48 carriages from London

* One third increase in capacity London to Plymouth
* One half decrease in capacity Plymouth to Penzance

Very much simplified - showing principle of getting seats where it's suggested they may be better filled.  Clearly add on top of this the other workings that don't stretch beyond Plymouth, and couple up the various units so that they're not eating up paths and crews on the runs into / our of London!

Very simplified - I'm guessing many will be 2x5car to PLY, splitting there.

Whilst I can see the theoretical advantages of shorter trains for the extremities of a route and of adding another unit when nearer to London, I fear that the practical result of such a policy will be a significant downgrade in quality.

Firstly, if the TOC has the "flexibility" to run short trains, then when availability falls short of that expected, short trains will run over the whole route resulting in gross overcrowding at the London end.

Secondly, if some special event or disruption results in unusually large passenger flows in the far west, then lengthening the trains wont be an option due to lack of rolling stock. 5 car DMU instead of the night riveria, or on the Golden Hind anyone.

Thirdly, two half length DMUs coupled together are less satisfactory than a full length train, first class will be in two different and presumably random locations. In the unlikely event that Pullmans survive the downgrade to DMU operation, in which unit will it be located ?

And finally, after a few years of speculation I expect that the new shorter DMUs for far west services will be a similar downgrade to the IEPs with no buffet, minimal first class, mainly bus seats without tables, and higher density seating.

Surely, better a 5car runs full than a 9car gets cancelled....?

(Assuming you are referring to breakdowns)

Actually adds flexibility, not lacks it.

You're creating issues....they could exist with 9car units too. When running normally, which is the plan & does more than 85% of the time, this really makes definite sense.

Not certain that I agree. Whilst an overcrowded half length unit is preferable to a cancelled full length train, this presumes that the two events occur at a similar frequency.
In practice I expect grossly overcrowded half length trains to be far more frequent than cancellations of full length trains.
If a train is cancelled then the TOC is liable for substantial penalty payments, this provides a powerful incentive to avoid cancellations if at all possible.
With the flexibility of DMUs, there is no such incentive to avoid short formations. If the train for the XX-30 is unavailable, then simply divide the train intended for the XX-40 into two portions and run two half length units in the rush hour.
Nothing cancelled, no penalties payable. I expect this to happen regularly.

Sutrely a 5car is going to be as unavailable as a 9car? I don't see the difference

I know what I'm about to say is not very fashionable these days, but fashions tend to go in cycles. If a train is 5 + 5, what's to stop 5 cars being detached for another destination on the way?  There are statistics out there that say between 40% and 46% of traffic is lost if you make a change of trains necessary along the way, so (looking at the positive) perhaps there's some possibiities? 

Let me try some leading edge (or perhaps bleeding edge) and positive thinking.

5 + 5 from Paddingon.  High speed express, calling at Reading, Taunton, Tiverton, Exeter St Davids. Front portion for Newton Abbott and all major stations to Penzance, with each train calling at a selection of minor stations too (or them being covered by an intermediate unit - wasn't there going to be 2 trains an hour beyond Plymouth?). Rear portion for stations to Paignton.
* Clockface to Plymouth
* Hourly to and through Cornwall, without huge numbers of empty seats
* Hourly London trains from Torbay
- release of some units which would otherwise be running in Cornwall
- release of some units otherwise running Exeter to Torbay

How about split at Exeter, front fast PLY, and stations to PNZ, rear slow to PLY?

These suggestions highlight the flexibility such trains offer. Something not possible if the HSTs are retained.

I like HSTs. It'll be a sad day when they are all gone from the 'Western'. But I'm also a fan of a progressive forward looking rail network, looking to address capacity and meeting the needs and aspirations of all users. Unlike many I don't fear for the future. I'm looking forward to the Class 800/801 introduction and hope the DfT green light the AT300 variant.

I agree that portion working has many advantages in term of stock utilisation and also efficient use of precious paths..  I think that the reason that splitting is out of fashion is that there is potential for delay when worked in the opposite direction when you might be delayed waiting for the other portion to arrive. 

Totally agree. HSTs will always be the best train I have and will ever travel on but they are tired now. Besides, when I need an HST fix I just need to head to Scotland and enjoy them up there along with the great scenery.

Yes that's what has been stated.

I'm not saying this is what anyone on this forum thinks however I believe there are SOME people who think that whilst it has been stated there would be 2 tph from London to the South West and 2 tph from Plymouth to Penzance that they think these would be the same through services.

I'm not sure whats in the XC franchise however IMO I believe there could be 2tph from London to Exeter/Plymouth with  1 train every 2 hours running semi-fast from Plymouth to Penzance. This being supplemented by a XC service running parallel every 2 hours also running semi-fast, these both being supplemented by an hourly 158 (or whatever is allocated to the region) which stops at all stations between Plymouth and Penzance.

Having 5+5 running in this region I believe to be a good idea, especially with splits to Paignton/Newquay/Penzance.

My quote .. and being in a public area, I could have made it clearer that I wasn't thinking of a train with Penzance carriages leaving Paddington every 30 minutes - though in hindsight it wasn't very clear that I wasn't thinking that.   Hmm ... what a negative sentence!

Perhaps not, but I'm sure some posters have said the IC125s do get well used in summer, so would a 5-car unit be sufficient, ALL THE TIME? I personally doubt it.

The trouble is the brand-new trains being offered have alot of problems associated with them, such as:

• Underfloor diesel engines, both a discomfort to passengers and potentially an excuse to keep burning diesel and defer electrification for another 30 odd years rather than, at most, 20yrs if we keep IC125s
• Shorter sets, fewer seats, no buffets and thus potentially no hot food for standard class passengers
• Non-gangwayed multiple working and possible portion working (yuck)
• 26m vehicles, meaning they would be unable to operate some services where the GW franchise's trains currently provide vital extra capacity

So yes, new trains would be nice, but let's have some more electrification first and a design with buffets, at least the 8 carriages currently provided and 23m vehicles that can fit on the whole GW INTERCITY network.

I hope my list above makes clear that my objections are based on areas where I beleive the new trains would not meet "the needs and aspirations" of certain rail users. I'm even being forward-looking (see electrification).

To which I say 'please no'. Portion working without UEGs is something akin to the devil's own work in my book.

Fashion has nothing to do with it (in my eyes anyway). I agree with what you are saying about removing the need to change trains, portion working is done day in day out at Machynlleth with class 158s between Birmingham and Aberystwyth/Pwllheli and I think it is a great idea. The difference is class 158s have UEGs, and (generally) helpful guards, so if you board the wrong portion you can correct your mistake. On a train without UEGs you cannot, in which case (assuming you have a helpful guard informing you of your mistake) you basically have to change trains anyway to move to the correct portion.

There's another thing about 158s as well, they are 2-car units. With shorter sets, it is easier to balance the capacity allocated to each route (153s are, in theroy at least, even better in this regard). While I don't know (for sure) of anywhere it is done at the moment, it is plausable to have a 6-car formation with 2 coaches detaching for one destination and the other 4 continuing elsewhere. With the 800/801/AT300 fleets, it is a choice of 5-car, 10-car or 9-car. So, using your example, you have to have 5-car for both Paignton and Penzance even if, for example (I have no idea of actual demand), Penzance trains need to be load 7 and Paignton only 3-car. The 125mph crumple zones and (first-class only) kitchens waste a heck of a lot of space in a 10-car pair of 800s too, just one more seat than a fixed-formation 9-car 801.

I say again, portion working is great for short DMUs with UEGs, but for 125/140mph INTERCITY trains it is just plain silly. Just work out how to provide a robust DMU connection without leaving passengers waiting ages on a wet, windswept, platform.

(UEGs = Unit-End Gangways)

I was on a 2 x 5 car Voyager recently, with only 1 working toilet in the portion I was in. If that had gone out of use, then the next station stop & associated dash round would have needed to be sooner rather than later.

With the increase in service? Yes, definitely.

Unlike ChrisB I don't think it'd be quite that black and white on all trains at all times of the year, so I don't think they would be enough all the time, no.

Though if you look at the spreadsheet I posted earlier this year at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=14894.msg173185#msg173185 (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=14894.msg173185#msg173185), which shows based on that sample timetable, which provides roughly the frequencies and improved journey times we've been told to expect, you'll see that there should be plenty of scope for many of the 9 or 10 car formations to go through to Penzance if demand dictates.  And that's without taking up the option for more vehicles in the contract if it gets approved.

I do personally think a few more 9-car Electric trains (with the view of extending them to 10 should demand dictate) should be ordered though, but there is scope for plenty of 5-car sets running alone all the way, or coupling up part of the way to another unit, still making sense on many potential diagrams.

Most of these are personal preference frankly. XC services run full a lot of the time, and I see few complaints about the under-floor engines; no one is eating hot food now, so you're not going to suddenly get an explosion of purchases on the new trains, hence it's a personal choice of yours; pax can & will be trained, it's not rocket science, especially if station staff are more & active, including both train managers!; 26m coaches might mean platform extensions which are easy to do


So in the summer peaks, 2x5car go to PNZ, simples

I don't actually mind the engines on DMUs much*, but others do. Do I have to quote Mark Hopwood again?

This isn't about platform extensions. It is about increased over throw on curves meaning carriages would strike infrustructure.

* I think I notice the absence of underfloor engines on an IC125 more than I notice their presence on Voyagers.

Which might indeed hinder a weekend only, summer only, Pembroke service, but looks like it probably won't affect anything else.  I remember talk on here and elsewhere that the new 26m vehicles would mean widespread platform rebuilds resulting in huge extra unnecessary expense and that Turbos wouldn't be able to go to many places further west without similar spending on infrastructure.  Can't say I've seen too much work so far.  Is it all still to take place or was there an awful lot of exaggeration going on?

It is he that has ordered AT300s. 'nuff said. He can't be too bothered.

did he have much of an alternative?

yes, I think they could do what they did before & try & make it work with what the DfT said they needed, stock-wise. The DfT could not easily penalise them.

Was it his decision? He refered to underfloor engines as being unacceptable for the service, so has he changed his mind or have other parties somehow overuled him?

It's possible I guess that the First Board have told him what they want.....but that points to his thoughts being his personal choice, than a business decision

Perhaps a carefully worded question in a customer survey has produced a result that could be interpreted as saying that customers PREFFER under floor engines rattling roaring and farting away.

After all, customer surveys show a preference for no buffet, for shorter trains, for higher density bus seats, and for reduced first class. So why not under floor engines ?

The purpose of customer surveys is not to find out what customers want, it is to justify downgrades that have already been decided on.

Have you noted that support on here too seems woefully low too?

Random Question  raised in RailWatch magazine recently.

Though the AT300's will have better acceleration it is believed their top speed will only be 100mph or so under Diesel power alone. I am sure these cancel each other out to an extent and savings can be had in maintaining much of the route between Newbury and Westbury, at only 100mph rather than some for 110mph.

In this case the what is the top speed of the Bi-mode IEP type train under Diesel traction alone?

If it is too low then it may impact an already busy portion of line from Bristol to Taunton/Exeter.

Anyone know the spec?

Both are designed for 100mph maximums when under diesel power I believe.  That presumably will allow for the best compromise on gearing ratios for top speed and acceleration.

It looks rather contradictory:

If the initial requirement really applies over its whole operating network, it must apply to a bimode beyond the wires. So what does that caveat about trains including self-powered bimodes mean? Perhaps it is intended to cover a specific case, but poorly worded so as to conceal that fact.

Perhaps more important, in practice, is this:

The highest linespeed not be be electrified is 110 mph, I think, between Bristol and Taunton. So to start with a diesel-powered speed of 110 mph would comply. But it hardly makes sense to entirely rule out further improvements at this stage, does it? Especially to do so only by implication.

Of course the train may be capable of more than the minimum requirement.

Exactly.  Or operate one of the seven 9-car trains on those services.

Correct, the following is from the Hitachi website

Out of interest, how far can the class 800s go, Newton Abbot/Paignton, or will they struggle before then?

Does anyone really think that there will be spare stock lying around to strengthen  "summer peak" services. If a service is diagrammed for a single half length train then I predict that this is exactly what will be provided.
Previous experience of new shorter trains on other routes suggests that these will be procured in just barely sufficient numbers to cope with the AVERAGE passenger flow under ideal conditions.
I recall full length trains on the Waterloo to Exeter line being downgraded to 3 car DMUs, it was stated that "flexible train length" was a great merit of the shorter trains and that "6 car or even 9 car trains could run at busy times" in fact single unit operation and severe overcrowding was the norm for at least 10 years. Whilst it is true that the 3 car and now some 2 car units do regularly run in multiple this has taken at least 10 years and perhaps 20 years and has barely kept up with passenger growth.
Broadly similar arguments apply to the (then) virgin voyagers, new and very expensive half length DMUs that resulted in overcrowding. These can indeed run in multiple to provide a full length train, but single unit operation is the norm even in the Summer peak, no matter how busy. "not enough spare stock"
"we cant provide extra trains just for a few weekends a year"
"there is plenty of room on some trains"
"we are a victim of our own success, more and more people are choosing our wonderful trains"
"you are recommended to book a seat"
And so on, maybe this lot of new shorter trains will be better, but previous actual experience does not fill me with optimism.

Don't they find stock for the summer service now?

An advantage of this though is assuming the correct driver is in the right location there's nothing to stop the on-time portion from continuing without the need for a lengthy wait.

Slightly different example but I saw a good piece of planning by XC last week. The service from Newcastle to Guildford was delayed at Doncaster for an hour due to an unwell passenger. This unit was then terminated at Sheffield. As it happened a double voyager was heading from the south-west to Edinburgh, they decided to split this at Derby with one portion heading south to Guildford on-time about 10 minutes later, the remaining portion continued Northbound and by the time it had reached Sheffield the original Guildford service had arrived, so joined them up and continued to Edinburgh with minimal delay and the correct number of units going to where they were suppose to.

Interesting observation. I suppose it worked because Sheffield and Derby are roughly around halfway between Edinburgh and Guildford so the units should be OK for fuel being switched.

The problem with Plymouth is that it is 2/3 of the way between London and Penzance so you could run into fuel poblems if units had to be switched.

It's a problem with DMUs.

I know you regularly cite this example as to why we should expect the new trains ordered for the Great Western route to be a disaster in every regard, but there are several reasons why a direct comparison might not be helpful, and indeed misleading:

• It was over 20 years ago and before privatisation.
• The country was in recession from 1990 to 1993 so NSE found it very hard to find the money to deliver the number or type of trains that it wanted, indeed the 159s that turned up were basically those not wanted, but already ordered (as 158s), for Regional Railways routes.
• As a result, after a rise in the late 80s, the early 90s (when the trains were delivered) saw several successive years of reduced train travel - much less than half today's total.
• The route itself is different, more a regional route serving smaller populations closer together than the bulk of the Great Western network on which these trains new will run - though I guess you could compare Basingstoke to Exeter with Exeter to Penzance in some respects.

I remember travelling down to Templecombe and Andover on a couple of occasions in the latter days of loco-hauled trains and the timings were slower than now, the carriages comfortable but dated and often half empty, and the reliability of the engines (Class 47s, 50s, or, heaven forbid the odd Class 33!) absolutely terrible causing massive problems if they failed on one of the single track sections.  Oh, and the frequency was about half of that the route now enjoys.  But they were the apparently the good old days?

The 165/166 order was also in the early 1990s and goes somewhere to explain what was thought to be sufficient at the time are now bursting at the seams.

To be honest, I can^t see bi-modes being used on Services to the Southwest for the foreseeable future, not until more of the route is electrified.
In short I can see HSTs being retained for Southwest Services ^ and, in this context, by Southwest services I mean Pad ^ Westbury/Frome/Taunton/Exeter/Paignton/Plymouth/Newquay/Penzance services. (For the current summer timetable this would require about 20 HST sets)

Plus with the current political backtracking I doubt that there will barely be enough bi-modes to work Pad ^ Worc/Great Malvern/Hereford/Cheltenham/Weston^super-Mare/Carmarthen/Pembroke Dock Services.

Another problem is that bi-modes, if they^re limited to 100mph, they cannot reach the 110mph line speed on the Newbury ^ Westbury route and the Uphill Junction ^ Taunton route, therefore I cannot see them being introduced until a time when more of the route is electrified.

In any case, with some exceptions, total fleet replacement is not as good an idea as partial fleet replacement. Partial fleet replacement means that you have plenty of spares for the remaining fleet. Therefore I don^t think that leaving HSTs on West Country services is such a bad thing (plus all the other advantages an HST has).

I remember the last years of loco-hauled on the Exeter ^ Waterloo line where everything was seemingly deliberately run down, partly to make the new units look better. Good locos were withdrawn and sold and locos in poorer condition were left to carry on with not enough maintenance. Also more modern Air con stock was deliberately kept off the line, despite being available, (with the exception of first class vehicles mind you, it was ok to upgrade first class vehicles to air con stock!). I also seem to remember the micro-buffets disappearing from this route around the same time.

One final note about buffets is that they^re useful normally and a god-send when a train is delayed. If you get stuck on a train somewhere, knowing that you can walk down to the buffet for refreshments makes a lot of difference.  :o

Now that, Kernowman, is a very good point, and well made.  ;) :D ;D

Don't forget that you'll still able to walk to a trolley. Who knows, you might not even have to walk...it might come to you....

Fair enough - but only a trolley the size of ... well, a buffet ... would be able to offer the same range of refreshments to such stranded passengers.  ::)