Great Western Coffee Shop

Just glanced at the May timetable for the Cotswold Line and there are a couple of notable changes - or even more added padding, to be blunt. It may aid reliability, but if this goes on we'll be back at steam age timings pretty soon.

The first Abergavenny/Hereford to London leaves earlier and runs about five minutes earlier than now as far as Charlbury, before being allowed 23 minutes to Oxford, inclusive of a Hanborough stop, before it runs in the existing times to London. The usual non-stop timing CBY-OXF is 12-13 minutes, and even an HST doesn't need that much of a timing allowance to call at Hanborough, so this train will be hanging around at Wolvercot junction, or held at the last signal outside Oxford waiting for the platform an awful lot of the time.

In the opposite direction, the 06.30 London-Worcester Turbo, which often causes delays to the second Aber/Hereford train by blocking the single line from Oxford to Ascott-under-Wychwood, will now leave at 6am, trundle to Oxford in 1hr 49mins (generous even for a stopper), leave four minutes earlier, then run non-stop to Kingham with the not exactly taxing timing of 28 minutes for just over 21 miles - this with a lightly-loaded three-car Turbo being driven flat out at 90mph to clear the single line. I predict much sitting around at Kingham waiting for departure time.

With all this slack in hand, surely this train ought to make a stop at Shipton, to see if there is any market for travel westbound at this time of the day? It's on the double track by then, so no danger of causing delays to any other trains.

its getting silly. Either trains are VERY late or you sit for ages somewhere

ps.

Where can u see the new ttable

We've got a topic running on it in the link below.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=2398.msg17936#msg17936

Agree, this is getting silly, at the Charlbury meeting with NR and FGW one of the points made was that timings to Paddington are getting slower and slower.....even now it is 10min longer than when I started using the Cotswold Line in 2001.

Just checked, the new timetable shows the 0730 ish train as 1hr 27min from Charlbury to Paddington, this used to be under 1hr10min.

Re 06:30 London Worc 1:49 to Oxford  may not be too generous depending on the number of stops and the fact that it  presumably it runs relief line Padd to Didcot. Therefore the 28 minutes Oxford  to Whychwood may also not be too generous either. I assumme it's to allow the train to be 5 late leaving Oxford and still have a path onto the single line.

The trouble with such padding is that it leads to slack working. What's the incentive for station staff to despatch the train promptly and for the driver to drive briskly if they know they are going to hang around at various places awaiting time.

Whereas a crisp/tight timetable leads to brisk working and trains running more to time, as there is an incentive to get a move on. This can even be communicated to the passengers who can be chivied into alighting and joining quickly so the train can get away on time. 

The days of Reading station staff telling Gerry Fiennes the then Genral Manager WR that "we don't blow whistles at passengers from Newbury" when they are changing into the London train, are long gone.

Trust me, this is ridiculously slack. This is a typical time allowance for a 125 making stops at Hanborough and Charlbury before Kingham. Some years ago, after a cancellation fiasco at Oxford (Thames Trains could do those quite well too), I rode on a Turbo which was first stop Kingham. We flew along flat out at 90mph most of the way and ran from Oxford start to stop well inside 20 minutes.

It could still be five late from Oxford, stop at Shipton and make it to Kingham inside the time being allowed from May.

See your point willc, agree 28 minutes is too long even if late off Oxford.

The other point about such slack timings especially on a single line like the Cotswold is that it restricts the number of trains that can be run. If trains can clear the single line in under 20 minutes then you can run 3 trains an hour 2 one way and one the other. If it's timed over twenty minutes you can't. But they have to be run briskly.

Then you get the silly situation we had last night.

1721 PAD - HRF.  Got into Evesham at 1912 but not due to leave until 1922 - padded I suspect to allow for it or the up train to be late.

The up train in question got into Evesham at 1913 not due to leave until 1919.

So two full size HST sat for 10 minutes in Evesham to deal with padding!

This is the problem with busy single line sections, the answer is doubling the line again, which is being mooted at the moment

The fastest train in the 1973 timetable from Hereford to Paddington was 1 minute faster than the fastest Hereford to Paddington train in the current timetable. So that just about sums things up. In 1973, the train did not call at Pershore, Honeybourne or Reading, but on the other hand I guess the maximum speed would have been 90 or 95mph, and not 125mph as it can be today.

The service 10 years ago was much faster between hereford and Paddington - 2 hrs 43 mins, compared with 3 hrs 4 mins this year.

An interesting post from The Ticket Collector (link below.)
http://www.theticketcollector.co.uk/wordpress/2008/04/11/so-just-what-is-on-time-when-it-comes-to-the-railway/

How accurate are those timetable pdfs? And if they're not, why have they posted them on the website?

It appears the skipped stops by the Turbo at 6am may just be yet another error, as the CLPG have picked up that the 17.51 from London to Worcester is shown taking four minutes to get six-and-a-half miles from Hanborough to Charlbury, but in fact it will lose its Hanborough stop, with the 18.21 to Hereford calling instead.

Nevertheless, that this train is moving back 30 minutes, from 6.30 to 6am, in the hope of ensuring it reaches Oxford in time to depart four minutes earlier than now, does beg the question of what's going on out there with these padded timings. It is running against the peak flow as well, for goodness sake!

Even if it does call at Hanborough and Charlbury, it is still allowed a minute more from Oxford to Kingham than the 21.48 from London, which does call at Shipton. Why not give a stop here at about 08.20 a go on a trial basis? If someone has business or wants a day out in Worcester, or further afield in the West Midlands or Herefordshire, the 17.06 from Great Malvern offers a handy return service with a call at Shipton at 18.30, but the first Worcester-bound train from Shipton is at - honest - 17.58! A long-standing mid-afternoon stop at Shipton by what is now the 13.51 ex-London was dropped last year.

While it can't compete with the one train a week in one direction Stockport-Stalybridge service, Shipton has got to be one of the strangest calling patterns around.

If one can trust the pdfs, from May there will be the following calls:
Weekdays to Oxford and London: 07.40 (halts train to OXF), 18.30 (06.02 to London appears to be dropped)
Weekdays from London and Oxford: 17.58 (return halts), 19.20, 23.14
Saturdays to Oxford and London: 07.13, 08.27, 15.28, 22.27.
Saturdays from London and Oxford: 15.15, 18.15, 21.12, 23.11.
I have no idea why there is no attempt to provide an 'evening out in Oxford' train on Saturdays, but they don't bother, even though the 17.07 ex-Malvern will stand for 13 minutes at Evesham until 17.56, just in case the 15.51 from London, due away at 17.48, is late. Up until the notorious December 2006 timetable, the Saturday trains here were better spread out and the other halts had trains too.
Sundays: Absolutely nothing, even though there are bound to be people heading back to London from the Wychwoods in the afternoon and evening. Never mind, they can do their bit for the environment by driving, or getting a lift to Charlbury instead.

I know that it would be dreadful, inconvenient etc. , but I still can't see why they do not run the Cotswold Line as a shuttle (180) every hour/two hours to connect with half hourly HSTs at Oxford. Even with a connexion, journey times would be shorter due to less slack and improved reliability.

Does anybody know whether an hourly service would be possible using a shuttle?

This way ALL trains could be time-tabled to pass in the middle of the big loop, and avoid passing at Evesham. I think that at the moment they pass at Evesham near Ascott and near Wolvercote - asking for trouble.

Then, when the Cotswold Line gets redoubled, an standard hourly service (with other slower/faster services put in between) could run from London to Worcester Foregate Street and (some) beyond.

---------------------

And why are trains randomly missing out important stops (Charlbury, and to a lesser extent Shipton)? ???

---------------------

I call 4 mins between Worcester's stations slack!

An hourly timetable could run now, with the existing track set-up, but it would require every single train to be bang on time, day in, day out, which isn't going to happen, sadly. You need Swiss-style top-notch infrastructure to achieve Swiss-style punctuality.

The Saturday timetable does largely conform to an hourly pattern, though with extended stops at Evesham to try to ensure it doesn't unravel due to delays.

I've said it before, so I'll say it again, no-one wants shuttles. They may appear reliable, but often aren't, especially over longer distances, and people do not like changing trains. A crude comparison of passenger numbers in pre-Turbo days up to 1992, with those since, with almost all trains through to/from London, is all you need to demonstrate this.

And connections would not be slick. To ensure robustness, trains from Worcester would be timed to arrive in Oxford not long after a London train had left, to allow for delays and ensure people were able to catch the next one - when they did try a five-minute connection a couple of years ago, at noon, it took a complaint from the CLPG to stop them despatching the London service just as a slightly delayed train from Worcester arrived.

If a shuttle used the north bay platform at Oxford (and I'm not sure if an Adelante is allowed in there anyway), passengers from London would have to cross the line, not easy with luggage etc, so you again have to allow a long margin between arrival and departure (there is currently an eight-minute allowance between the 16.21 from London arriving and the 17.31 halts train departing - a through train would be at Hanborough in that time). And shunting trains out of and into platform 2 would be no less time-consuming. So journey times would be just the same, or longer.

Is there any chance that you could post some of the passenger numbers in pre-Turbo days up to 1992 on the forum, willc? I would be interested in having a look at them.

Lee,

For detailed numbers, you would probably be best trying the CLPG, who I think have stats going back for most of the 30 years they have been around. I have put some numbers I can find without too much detective work below, and also something on the instant effect of the full Turbo timetable in 1993. You were often spoiled for choice of seats when using a two-car Sprinter off peak before then.

During a House of Commons transport debate in April 1994, Peter Luff, then the Tory MP for Worcester (he now represents a rural chunk of the county, including the Vale of Evesham) said: "Investment in rail is also proceeding. The Cotswold Line Promotion Group, in its winter 1993^94 newsletter, described the effect of ^3 million of investment in new rolling stock: The new service of modern Class 165 and 166 Turbo trains through to and from Paddington is now beginning to pay handsome dividends. Mike Haigh, District Manager for Regional Railways (Central) has recently told the Group that passenger numbers, since the introduction of the trains in May 1993, are 25 per cent up and revenue is 32 per cent up on the same period last year".

The winter issue of Cotswold and Malvern Line News usually appears in late November, or early December each year, so the figures he quotes are probably for the first five or six months of Turbos - that is how dramatic the hike in passenger numbers was. Regional Railways are mentioned because under BR they managed the route, even though the Turbos were Network SouthEast's

Not directly related to that period I'm afraid, but these are annual passenger figures for the principal staffed intermediate stations on the route.

In order 1977, 1979, 2003, 2005, 2006
Charlbury: 65,494; 81,152; 229,000; 236,749; 232,040
Kingham: 31,258; 36,615; 121,318; 124,462; 126,995
Moreton-in-M: 56,370; 68,193; 176,893; 180,458; 178,004
Evesham: 114,645; 130,198; 240,174; 269,474; 239,257

2005-6 was when the reliability problems began to take a toll on passenger numbers, though oddly that year Combe, Finstock and Ascott-under-Wychwood numbers were all up. I've yet to see the 2007 numbers.

I bet those values will boom once a reliable hourly HST service starts (with Firstminutefares)!! ;D

Many thanks for that, willc.

Do you think that the rise in Combe, Finstock and Ascott-under-Wychwood numbers could be linked to the quote below? :

I don't think there was a connection with the timing of the halts train, as Shipton's numbers went down 2005-6 and Finstock was still well below 2003, despite rising.

I'd say it's more to do with people's travelling habits, as the counts at the halts are pretty low to start with (low to mid four figures). Just one or two opting to commute by train or dropping out could shift the number up or down quite a lot.

Another example of padding overkill, the 1231 Charlbury to Paddington, departed Charlbury 6minutes late, waited outside Oxford for 5minutes until allowed to enter station because we were too early to get access to the station.

Scheduled at 27minutes, 11 minutes of which was late/waiting for platform to clear and still managed to leave Oxford on time.

This padding lark is getting ridiculus.

People who do not realise about the padding, will assume the train is being delayed, and tell thier friends that the line is unreliable!

Oh.....but............ ;D

No seriously, when will they realise that padding does not help?

As much slack as there is, without it any cock ups further along the line cause more substantial problems. I'd blame the single line.

The more slack there is, the more slack the service is operated - the staff don't bother getting the doors locked in plenty of time because they assume they will make up time - when in reality, they could delay another train, or become more delayed themselves!

This happened at Great Malvern about a week back - train rolled in (1551 to Padd) 5 mins early, and departed slightly late because the guard disappeared somewhere (I think the cafe). As it happens, it did not matter, as we rolled into Malvern Link way before 1555 (being a 180 helped). But I have seen this at Worcester, where delays cause congestion and delays.

of course, the sooner they redouble, cut the tokens, and increase speeds the better (anyone for continuous 90 mph from Worcester to Evesham?).

Think the CL slack is too much?

How about 1/2 hour slack :o (in the Wrexham and Shropshire timetable between Wellington and London)? ::)

I suppose we are lucky! 8)

Try the 13.20 from Hereford to London. Sits for 14 minutes at Evesham and 13 at Moreton...

>:(

See posts under Wrexham and Shropshire. Given they've got to get across Birmingham on heavily congested lines it's probably not unreasonable although regretable that we can't run our railways more to time and avoid such padding.

However:


That's totally stupid and as BTlines says:

"The more slack there is, the more slack the service is operated - the staff don't bother getting the doors locked in plenty of time because they assume they will make up time - when in reality, they could delay another train, or become more delayed themselves!"

Exactly there is fantastic quote in Gerry Fiennes I'd Tried to Run a Railway (voted joint second best railwayman (ever) in Alan Williams poll in Modern Railways) about the electric service out of Liverpool Street to Shenfield  in the late 50s early 60s. It's something like. "The trains rolls in the doors open passengers alight and 800 people get on the driver and guard change ends and 4 minutes later the train rolls out."

Stuff like that never happens today!

At Worcester Foregate Street, it can take 10 mins for a local DMU to be turned around (even if it is late, there is no evidence to rushing/urgency).

Saw an HST terminating at Foregate to go back to London. Arrived 4 mins before dep time, and the train left about 4 late.

Yes- HSTs are long + the platform is curved the wrong way.

But I saw a lot of strolling around, and times where all doors were shut, but not being locked. The doors also seemed to be unlocked/locked several times! The platform staff did not seem to help the guards (there were 2 (!) of them - unless the buffet man was assisting in despatch).

Took too long, and probably delayed a service later on.

Problem with HST turnrounds is you need to do a full brake test first....

Brake test shouldn't be a problem timewise if the compressors up to mark.

Although HSTs aren't electropneumatic the air disipates from both power cars whose brakes are linked electrically so only has to run half a train.

Perhaps we should bring back the GW 4 cone ejector that could raise 25" of vacuum in a few seconds. Of course it caused problems when you had feeble 21" other region's engine take over the train and the shunter forgot to pull the strings.

There is nothing new in runnnig a railway it's just that we seem to have forgotten how. In fact with modern technology it should be easier yet it took a week to introduce a new coach into the Pendelino to get all the computers talking to each other. Now that's bad design.

Resignalling now seems to be a major obsticle. Apparently Marylebone IECC although modular can't take any more signals because the modular boxes are full and you can't add any more individual signal modules.  Now that's bad design/planning as well.

Another quote from Gerry Fiennes pre war Doncaster division was bottom of the punctuality table. They appointed a new Divisonal manager whose main occupation seemed to be standing in the buffet doorway on Doncaster station with a pint in his hand. Gradually Doncaster rose up the tables. When asked how he did it "personal supervision was the answer"

Of course it couldn't happen today but "personal supervision" by senior managers is still the only way to run a railway you can't do it from an office. That's why the Station Master at Paddington always saw off the Cornish Riviera.

As Tom Peter's said in "In Search of Excellance" MBWA "Management by Walking About."

Yes, apparently in the old days, the station master would always be present at the departure of  London express (on the GWR).

Woe betide anyone who delays the London express!

What do we get at the mo?!

I remember seeing in some book a copy of an old GWR telegram back in the 1930s from the General Manager to a station master down in Cornwall (somewhere around Liskeard, I think) in terms of "Please explain the delay to the Limited (ie Cornish Riviera) at your station yesterday". Could crash an entire e-mail system if you followed up all the delays these days.

Nice analogie, but shame it won't happen ;)

Unfortunately it seems that the the railways along with BAA and BA and other 24/7 real time enterprises have forgotten is tha can't manage them from an office.

You have to have the NCOs out on the ground to make the minute by minute decisions.


Unfortunately all these organisations have read the latest management gurus which says you have to have a lean mean organisation and sacked all the NCOs and given managers greater and greater areas of responsibility and more and more staff. Whcih makes it physically impossible for them to carry out there roles. 2 of us had our work cut out as shift ASMs at Sutton plus looking after the staions on the St. Helier branch plus Waddon and Carshalton Beeches. Being a 5 way junction if anything went wrong at Sutton you had any number of trains round your neck in minutes which had to be sorted out. You don't have time to phone control you just get on with it. Of course we could phone the signalman and tell him what train we wanted when.

It may work in advertising or marketing but it sure don't work in a 24/7 transport environment.

It's intersting that the Army still relies on large numbers of NCOs to keep the squaddies and Ruperts under control. BR used to be run by the Inspectors, station, motive power, signalling track etc.

That's the layer that's gone so you get things like padding the timetables as in this thread because there is no-one on the ground with authority to keep everything running smoothly.
 

Try this for Padding overkill?

1721 last night left six minutes late from PAD

Got stuck outside oxford waiting for a plat form

Ended up at Morton for nearly fifteen minutes whilst they tried to fix a door problem (which they didnt and only solved the problem by locking them and turfing H,G,F,E into A,B,C,D - which did not go down well)

But still got into WOS only three minutes late.

Were you on the train Mookie.
I would be pretty peeved if I had payed FC and they moved me to SC.

Yup

I ended up with a table in D - although it proved to me how impractical the idea of SC is - my laptop covered over half the table and I experimented - it wont open properly in the airline seats

Well - that was quite a result really!

Not really - by Morton the train is fairly empty

I was in F near the buffet so I was ahead of the rugby scrum

And they did rehome FC before evicting E so we got the choice of what was available

THw worst part of this is, how much of a delay this did train cause elsewhere?

It is as if FGW have given up trying to run a tight schedule!

Why did they need to evict 4 coaches? Sounds like an obscure SDO fault that would not have been a problem pre December.

*in response to Btline

What do you realistically expect them to do?????????

Its not as if Notwork Derail is jumping at the chance to improve the line!!

If FGW had no slack then there would be less money to waste on under utilised services on the Cotswolds Line. Use the damn service and show that people appreciate it or i'm sure FGW will just stuff the line!

Some of us do use the line - every day! Short of spending my entire day sitting on a train I can't do more!

The peaks are well utilised - off peak is a different issue.  If they ran a proper peak commuter express they even could get more usage.

All this padding puts commuters off! If it takes too damn long they just won't use it!

Most people think I am deranged or a masochist!

Run peak express services with a decent connection at oxf for a stopper. Run shuttles but only during the day or against peak flow,

0545/0634/0734 - are busy hst
1721/1751/1821 - are bust hst

The rest are not - make trains at roughly these times be semi fast express and put more shuttle stoppers elsewhere

I'll go for deranged!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  ;)

They should really prioritise peak flow services...

Excellent idea. Run expresses with a stopper leaving Oxford 10 mins after the express has gone. And vice versa.

I don't care if some Cotswolds villages people will have to change. The journey time is far too long for longer distance commuters!

I still think more expresses during the day would get people onto the line....

Not much, no more than the 17.21 often does with a healthy train, like it seems to have done yet again tonight, with the 17.50 and 18.50 from Worcester five and 10 minutes late and the 17.51 from London 10 down by Moreton.

And full marks to the train crew and control for coming up with a solution to keep the train running. They could quite easily have terminated it at Moreton and turfed everyone off to wait for the 17.51.


Let me assure you, having heard Dave Ward (Network Rail western route director) speak at Charlbury last month, that if the decision to commit the money for more double track was his, or the NR board's, the work would be under way as soon as possible. They are fully behind the proposals they have submitted to the Office for Rail Regulation - it would be pretty daft not to be after they have spent lots of money on study work over the past year.


Remember it was FGW's decision to go for a near all-HST service, all day. As many of us have pointed out previously, an Adelante, or something similar in terms of capacity and passenger environment, is the ideal train for the Cotswold Line off-peak, or on services running against the peak flows.

We do appreciate the service we have, but frankly any local marketing effort to try to attract non-rail users to fill more seats on trains off-peak - and promote the Cotswold Line Railcard as well - is pretty much non-existent and that ball is in FGW's court.

Oh, and they won't 'stuff' the line - they make too much money from it. Quite apart from fares revenue, several of the station car parks are big earners - tens of thousands of pounds each every year. With less than fantastic road links and congestion, we are pretty much a captive market for FGW.


Not this old chestnut again. What villages? Hanborough, okay a village, but the nearest station to Witney, Woodstock and Kidlington; Charlbury, busiest intermediate station on the line after Evesham; Kingham, a village but its station serves a wide area, including Chipping Norton, so busy; Moreton-in-Marsh; a very small town, but acts as railhead for a large part of north-east Gloucestershire and south Warwickshire, so very busy; Evesham, need I say more; Pershore; station is badly sited, but again serves a wide area. Which leaves the halts; plus Shipton, poorly served and could do with more trains; Honeybourne, better served, perhaps over-generously at times.

So, take out a few calls at Honeybourne and Pershore and you'd save about five minutes on a journey to Worcester!

By all means attack the slack, but even if there is more double track, virtually every train will continue to call at all the points listed, because they generate far more money for FGW, from far more passengers, day in, day out, than Worcester or Hereford ever will, even if there were faster trains.

Completely agree with Willc.

And where are these empty daytime services, in recent weeks I have had to travel into Oxford and Paddington much later than usual, still in the morning but often just before lunch. When a 3-car turbo is scheduled it has always been packed, when an HST has provided the service I estimate approx 1/3 to 1/2 full.....which is a lot for an Adelante or Turbo (they both have similar capacities) to carry in comfort.

The current schedule still has 2 hour gaps in very inconvenient places....try getting back from Oxford to Charlbury for 3pm for the schools...you have to leave before 1pm!

Getting better but still could do better.

I sort of experience similar

If I dont want to travel in the peak I have to get the 1423 or the 1623 from Reading.......

BUT how many actually HAVE to travel at these times?

People who travel in the peak usually have no choice.  (note: I have no sympathy for the school run - people choose to have children as a life style choice its their problem to deal with since no one made them have offspring - and when I was a lass we were in school doing SPORT until 430pm at the earliest)

I'm not saying the villages should have NO service - just that they should have a well timed stopper connection

They couldn't of turfed everyone on to the 17:51 today.
FGW live updates had it is an Adelante.

Twas

I was on it

It was heaving (hence my post on the main forum about one way in which adelantes are better than refurb HST!)

Also - the aircon unit in D was sick - the compressor was sucking all the way!)

And since it was a late replacement there was nothing in the shop - and bugger all in first class!

Maybe there is a compromise

The 0545 WOS - PAD which is a HST stopper run as it is

The 0632 is useless for anyone who has to be in London for 9am

The 0732 is for those who work in reading or have flexibility

Why not scrap the first down train (what really is the passenger numbers on that PAD-WOS train that then forms the 0841?) - whenever I see it I see a ghost train.  Give priority to the up train of a morning - source the unit for the 0841 elsewhere.
And make the 0632 a true express getting into london at about 0830 which is what it did 4 years ago!

They are trying to cater to two markets at the moment and not satisfying any!

the 5.45 service picks up a LOT of school children from kingham/evesham/pershore area, but in all fairness the times i've been on it, it's been a turbo (my luck!) and it's been crammed then, i'm guessing if it's a HST normally it's probably not as bad but it's still a well used service.

Certainly could, it rarely has more than two or three dozen people on board past Moreton-in-Marsh. And it is only ever "heaving" as far as Oxford, whether an Adelante or an HST.

The 05.42 from London is obviously run mainly as a way to get a train out to Worcester to form the 08.37 back to London, BUT it forms a useful early fast Reading-Oxford train, has a few loyal regulars from Moreton-in-Marsh and, as Steve says, loads well from Evesham and Pershore into Oxford, with schoolchildren, college students and people going to work in Worcester. And there aren't so many HSTs around that they can leave one sitting doing nothing at Worcester all through the morning peak, or running up empty from Bristol in among a stream of fully-loaded CrossCountry commuter trains bound for Birmingham.

And any 'express'  - which will never happen as any skipping of stations in west Oxfordshire would see a certain Mr Cameron raising merry hell - would of course be brought straight back down to a sedate pace past Didcot to fit in with everything else fighting for track space at that time of the day. Until Reading is rebuilt, nothing will change, as it is the key cause of padding in the entire FGW timetable.



But as I pointed out earlier, we 'villagers' are the ones who actually pay the bills and provide the profit on the Cotswold Line, not a handful of hardy commuters from Worcester.

Also, passengers hate changing trains and operators know this. Which is why Cotswold Line passenger numbers sky-rocketed in 1993 when the Turbo timetable was launched. Which is why FGW is running through trains to Newquay all summer. Which is why Hull Trains has been a success, as people don't have to change at Doncaster. Which is what Wrexham & Shropshire are banking on, even though their through journey times to and from London are rather longer than changing in and out of Virgin services at Birmingham or Chester.

It's a good job you weren't using the route pre-1993 Mookiemoo, as you would have been changing trains at Oxford rather a lot - with no first class on 150s and 155s, never mind no complimentary refreshments.

A better idea. Run a double 180 as far as Oxford. Then split it:

*front half runs fast to Worcester, all stops to Hereford
*second one stops at all stops to Worcester

And I disagree - I think passenger numbers would boom if the journey time came down.

a. 180s are history in these parts. They will all have new operators by the start of next year, judging by the interest being shown.
b. If you split trains, someone will always be in the wrong part, so hello instant delays as they (slowly) sort themselves out when the train divides.
c. You can't have a train sitting in a platform at Oxford for 15 minutes. There are too many other trains and not enough platforms. Even if you were to park in the goods loop north of the station to wait for a path, as a journalist, I - never mind the nationals - would have a field day with trains being operated like this - 'sorry you've missed your train, that's it just up there at the sidings, you can sit and look at it for 15 minutes until it leaves'...
d. Imposing this kind of nonsense on passengers heading to London and living within driving distance of the Chiltern line would have a simple effect - they would all drive to Bicester instead - net result, a FALL in Cotswold Line passenger numbers
e. To pay to run trains like this would need 200 passengers going to Worcester and beyond on every train - they don't exist and wouldn't even if the trains were faster. Do a headcount on the 17.21, 17.51 and 18.21 ex-London beyond Moreton-in-Marsh pretty much any day of the week if you don't believe me.

2 years ago the head count was much larger - then the timetabled journey was 1 hour 50 minutes ish

Now it is 2 hours 20 and the only train with even a chance of making it to London for a 9 am start leaves in the middle of the night

FGW new timetable cost me my last client.  Up to December they could cope with me arriving circa 0915 every morning.  December/Jan/Feb - I was arriving anywhere between 0800 and 1130 depending on the issues. Before then I had commuted daily into london for three years (in six month stretches) with no issue - yes, even back on the 1 hr 50 timetable - the morning train usually arrived on time at 0830ish - it was the evening that was screwed.  On being given a "be in the office by 0830 at least three mornings a week or else" - I had no choice but to look for a new client.  I could not guarantee it.  Funnily enough just as I changed, the service improved but by then it was too late.

Just out of people I have spoke to I KNOW if people who have changed jobs, moved to chiltern etc because of the piss poor FGW cotswolds service - The ONLY reason the villages can still  provide the amount of service they do is that in general they are well heeled and can, within reason, set their own time table (Something I can also do).  It is no consolation to the Charlbury commuter who has to be in London for 9am if the train doesnt arrive until 0850 and they have to get across town.

Of course, the compromise agreement I suggested could work.  The 0545 is too early for most WOS/Malvern residents to use daily - but by the time it gets south of Moreton it is coming into civilised.

Why not, run the 0545 and the 0734 as stoppers as they do now - but run the 0634 semi fast?  And have it arrive at 0830.  Stop it at evesham, moreton, Kingham, Charlbury, Oxford, PAD - Reading has more than sufficient fast to London (it always amuses me at people trying to jump onto a departing train running fast to PAD when the next one is only five minutes later - FFS if five minutes is THAT important you have problems).

If the journey time gets much longer, I will start staying in a hotel during the week - and thats only to Reading.  The HST enabled routes such as Cardiff and Worcester to be commuter routes to London - FGW are reversing that at a rate of knots.

Well, I don't know how much you think I earn, but well-heeled I and many others using the Cotswold Line ain't.

Everything now stops at Reading because ever-increasing numbers of people - yourself included - work there, plus it offers connections, avoiding London, to an awful lot of destinations.

And don't forget, your daily journey is very much the exception and was even before the padding. The following points are from an RAC Foundation study last autumn:

The average daily commute is 8.7 miles a 6% increase since 1995/97.
The average commuter travels for 54 minutes a day.
One in ten commuters have a daily journey in excess of 2 hours.
3% of UK workers are 'extreme commuters', travelling at least 3 hours everyday.
People working in London have average daily commutes of 86 minutes, almost double the commuting times of other regions.

Even with a one hour 20 minute express timing between Moreton and London, anyone doing that journey daily effectively counted as extreme. Worcester and back, plus your drive beyond, must put you way off the scale. My family used to live in South Shropshire, so I do know just how far from London that neck of the woods is - a very long way!

Yes, there is some shocking padding in the Cotswold Line timetable - I did start this thread to highlight that - but that goes for a lot of FGW's other services and other rail companies as well. Unless and until the infrastructure (Cotswold Line, Oxford-Didcot, Reading) is sorted out, we're stuck with it. While in nearly seven years of commuting I have never known a period as bad as last December and January, there were some pretty rough times under Thames Trains as well.

Any rail/bus/airline timetable is a compromise and the needs of tiny minorities (eg regular commuters to London from west of Moreton-in-Marsh) are always going to play second fiddle to those of the majority (eg Oxford commuters, who got an extra Adelante service all of their very own, with the train pinched from the first Malvern service, within weeks of the start of the ill-fated December 2006 timetable.

For those of us living in Hereford and having to go to London on business (say) twice or three times a month, the early morning/evening "expresses" are now a pain. Back in the 1990s the Cathedrals Express was pretty pleasant, normally on time or thereabouts and fairly quick.

Now, as I've said in other messages on this site, the service is a pain. Takes longer and is less reliable. Yet again, the service late to London because of, guess what, hold-ups at Evesham and Moreton in Marsh.

No wonder I now drive to Swindon and get the train. I know of others from around Ledbury/Gloucestershire way who drive to Hillingdon and get the Met.

B****y ridiculous.

"And any 'express'  - which will never happen as any skipping of stations in west Oxfordshire would see a certain Mr Cameron raising merry hell"

Maybe except ludlow and south shropshire is a tory swing seat - between iib dem and tory

 We were lib dem we are now tory

At the end of the day - if the villages have to change - so be it


Serve the connurbations first

This thread, like many others, demonstrates exactly what a shambles FGW is (through the Cotswolds). This is largely down to the fact that they are trying to cover differing requirements with single solutions. The full run from Hereford covers both long distance with several commuter services, namely to/from Worcester, Oxford, Reading and of course London. These are shared with the longer distance Hereford / Worcester - London travelers.
The 180s are fine for the Cotswold line, particularly north of Oxford. The sad fact is FGW's management of the problems that afflicted the 180s was pathetic. The problems will be sorted out and another TOC (maybe part of the First group) will benefit.
Trains did split at Oxford a few years ago, half going to Stratford the other half going to Worcester / Malvern. It was quick and painless.
To be honest I would terminate the second half at Oxford, so the Oxford - Paddington section would be strengthened. I would do that at peak times only (but obviously need 180s to do it). The point you are making Willc highlights what I see as strange, the fact that you can't run two trains on the single line in the same direction. It is surely not that difficult to provide signaling to cater for split sections along a single track to allow that to happen. You could then run a stopper out of Oxford to say Moreton following an 'express' to cater for the smaller stations and a stopper to run ahead of an 'express' into Oxford on the up direction. You would better cater for both long distance and local Oxford services that way.
I really don't see it as nonesense. The trouble is the mixing of long distance vs short distance passengers, besides that has already happened, Banbury, Leamington and Warwick Parkway already attract passengers into London from the Cotswold line.
So let me understand this, it's OK to run a 400+ seat HST but not a 280 seat 180 which this proposal suggests.
A first class return from Hereford costs ^237, the return for the Hanborough - Oxford commuter is ^3.50, or to put it another way for every first class Hereford passenger you lose you need to recruit another 67 Hanborough - Oxford passengers. Yes I know I've taken an extreme but the concept the 'villagers pay the bills' appears strange - the First Class Hereford / Malvern / Worcester - Paddington passengers are the ones you don't want to lose. That is another illustration of why mixing the services fails. Do you have revenue splits from each station by class and destination?
Finally, can someone please explain the logic behind waiting at stations for 10 mins? If you are going to pad the times then why not run slower if you are on time and save the diesel rather than sprint to the next station and wait for an age?

So, Mr Cameron is going to tell his constituents they have to take some pain so his party may gain in the deep south of Shropshire. I doubt it. And if we are only serving conurbations, then presumably the super-trains to Worcester will run on non-stop to Hereford too, making them even emptier? Or are Malvern, Colwall and Ledbury exempt from the 'village' category?

Class 180s - as I've said, a pointless discussion, they are gone! And at the CLPG AGM, Mark Hopwood said the leasing charge for one was the same as that for an HST, which may indicate why, never mind the reliability issues.

Quick and painless joining and dividing trains - as long as the couplers work. Sometimes they don't - I've been there. And it was never quick on a Friday afternoon with lots of occasional passengers unfamiliar with the routine lugging bags around from set to set. As I've said before, the through London trains are precisely why the line is as busy as it is today and why FGW will carry on running them. But not while doubling operating costs to carry the same number of passengers.

Intermediate signals in single track, perfectly possible, but in 1971 the Cotswold Line got the bargain basement singling option and the sky-high cost of interfering with the existing signal systems at Oxford and Worcester is why the extra double track plan goes nowhere near those two points.

Most of those who drive to the Chiltern Line switched out of frustration at the unreliability of the Cotswold Line service - deliver a reliable service and many are likely to return - though this would just mean yet more of us irritating 'villagers' to deal with. And it may be an old wives' tale, but I gather that in the Act of Parliament authorising the building of the Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway there is a clause requiring ALL trains to stop at Moreton-in-Marsh, inserted at the request of the then Lord Redesdale as a condition when he sold land for the railway. Certainly in steam days the Cathedrals Express always stopped  - at a town which was far smaller than it is today.


The proposal actually suggests running two 180s, one of which would be nowhere near full leaving Oxford on its dash to Worcester. The other would be near-empty beyond Moreton-in-Marsh but would have to go all the way to Worcester to serve the points missed by the non-stop one. Not great business practice when you could run one train, covering most or all stations - like they do now.

And if there are just so many people shelling out for ^237 tickets from Hereford - or first class seasons from Worcester - why do the bulk of first class passengers join/get off the trains at the stations between Moreton-in-Marsh and Oxford?

You may get the rough end of the deal but in terms of the overall picture, the places where the bulk of the passengers are and most of the growth in numbers has taken place are the ones that FGW will focus its efforts on - the fact is that with a decent level of service, they are far more likely to get those extra Hanborough-Oxford passengers - and on a regular basis - than they are to find a great many more willing to pay an occasional ^237, even on expenses, from Hereford.

I agree with (most of) this. Two different types of service are required on this line.

And as I said before, there is a Worcester commuting market also - so an improved service from Morton to Worcester would see an increase in passengers. The HSTs/180s/Thames Turbos would not be empty.

In short, the reason why the trains are empty at points is due to the failings of the operation.

The suggestion is 'express' trains for the long distance traveller, so stops at Oxford, Moreton, Evesham, Worcester and on to Hereford - see the old Cathedrals Express. This would be one train in each direction per day.
Your obsession with Mr Cameron is interesting - as and when the line runs through Notting Hill I'm sure he'll be really interested, however until that happens I'm sure he's got far more important issues to focus on.
But what is the total cost of ownership, i.e. lease cost, access charges, maintenance costs, fuel costs etc. Out of interest do you have the figures?
If that is the case why do so many people get off at Oxford? There is a very significant number of passengers who travel from 'villages' to/from Oxford and their needs, important as they are, are at variance to those long distance travellers.
You would only need to upgrade Wolvercote to Ascott. I am only suggesting additional trains to cater for Moreton - Oxford stopper.
I'm not sure you're right, Chiltern work hard to gain brand loyalty. There is nothing irritating about 'villagers' it is purely that there are conflicting requirements. If FGW are ever going to succeed they need to be sensitive to both markets.
Possibly correct - I'm not sure anyone wants to omit Moreton. An interesting read is The Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway by John Boynton that goes through the history of the line.
Sorry, I was suggesting a fast service followed by stopping service. The former would ideally be a 180, but HST if that's what's available. The stopper would be a 165/166. To be honest I didn't go into that much detail and I'm not suggesting that an HST and 166 run coupled, just that a 165/166 would provide the stopping service.
So there wouid be three services, the express with limited stops once a day in each direction, the current service and on alternate trips the current service augmented with a 'stopper' preceeding the up services and proceeding the down ones, running Oxford - Moreton.
 Oh dear - you really don't get the picture. You need to cater for both - and chasing the bulk passengers may not be as wise as chasing the revenue. It's about being sensitive to both markets, not alienating either one or the other. I believe it is really possible to do both  (and without intervention from Mr Cameron).
Do you have a breakdown station by station of numbers of tickets sold by class and destination? It would be interesting to see an analysis of the revenue figures.

I don't get the picture - excuse me. I use the route several days each week, for six years and counting, lived locally for two years before that and have been travelling occasionally since the mid-1970s visiting relatives locally, so have seen it come from near enough its lowest ebb - couple of peak through Herefords and assorted other oddments each day, with precious little commuting beyond Oxford - to where we are today.

markets

Which is what FGW, Thames and BR have done for years, not least since the 1993 Turbo timetable got rid of broken journeys at Oxford and passenger numbers on the route went up by 25 per cent and revenue by 32 per cent within six months - and kept climbing until 2005, when the unreliability started to take a toll.

That the rail operators' way of catering for both markets - and the compromises that it inevitably involves due to operating, staffing and cost constraints - may not entirely suit the smaller number of people travelling from the west of the route is unfortunate. But long-distance trains making more stops is a fact of life across FGW, in Cornwall, Somerset and Wiltshire just as much as the Cotswolds. Why? Because it makes them more money from more passengers and they need it to pay the Government when those premium payments kick in. And in the current economic climate all the more so.

That 1993 timetable also changed the market for ever, making Hanborough, Charlbury and Kingham, in particular, eminently commutable for people working in London. People hate changing trains, so saying 'sorry, we're taking away your through trains in the middle of the peaks and you can all pack into a Turbo and get soaked/frozen in the winter getting to or from platform 3 at Oxford' would destroy what little goodwill FGW have clawed back after the fiasco in December and January.

I posted these passenger figures earlier in this thread but they bear repeating

In order 1977, 1979, 2003, 2005, 2006
Charlbury: 65,494; 81,152; 229,000; 236,749; 232,040
Kingham: 31,258; 36,615; 121,318; 124,462; 126,995
Moreton-in-M: 56,370; 68,193; 176,893; 180,458; 178,004
Evesham: 114,645; 130,198; 240,174; 269,474; 239,257

So if an express was going to stop anywhere between Oxford and Worcester, Charlbury would be one of the stops, but that would then draw passengers from Kingham, swamping the Charlbury car park, so you would have to stop at Kingham too, and if you did that then you would have to call at Moreton, etc, etc. Which is why we are where we are. The current stopping patterns are the result of careful analysis of where the money is coming from. If the extra stops at Hanborough, Honeybourne and Pershore weren't paying their way in terms of revenue earned, they would have been dropped.

Regular commuters equal regular, steady revenue, equal predictable cash flow. The bedrock of any business. Occasional passengers do not equal steady cash flow, even when they pay ^237 - and how many of those tickets do they actually sell? If it was a high number, then they might look more favourably on the idea of a limited-stop train, but bear in mind any such train would be no quicker than it is now between Paddington and Didcot, as the number of services on that section is now so high that belting along London-Reading in 20 minutes is no longer an option.

I'm not obsessed with Mr Cameron and hold no brief for him. He represents a long stretch of the line, including the second busiest intermediate station - Charlbury - and he is quite focused on the railway, because it is used by a lot of his constituents. Inaction would cost him votes in his own backyard - not a great advert for a prime mininster in waiting. Has your MP held two public meetings about the railways so far this year? I doubt it. One was attended by Andrew Haines and Dave Ward, Network Rail's boss for the west of England - and Notting Hill wasn't mentioned once.


Exactly. A very significant number, far more more significant than people travelling two or three times a month from Hereford or Worcester to London. You could try running non-stop Worcester to London and back, cutting out all us annoying intermediate passengers. But you would lose a pile of money, as the trains would be near-empty - and still would be even if you did stop at Oxford but missed out almost all the intermediate stops beyond.


Shall we try this point again - on cost grounds, you can't do anything that involves fiddling with the signalling system at Oxford, which controls the section to Ascott. Dave Ward said at the meeting in Charlbury the costs would be off the scale, which is why it is not being attempted in the double track project.

And your stopper can't end its journey at Moreton, because you still need to serve Honeybourne and Pershore, where passenger numbers have also climbed, but which also seem to figure high on the hate-list of the fans of running flat-out to Worcester. I refer you to Btline's original proposal:


Someone spoke up in favour of this idea at the CLPG AGM. It wasn't exactly cheered to the rafters - too many 'villagers' there, I suppose...

And people went to Chiltern because they knew when they were going to get home every night - why else would you switch from a station 10 minutes' drive from home to one half-an-hour away?

I don't have a breakdown of 180 running costs, but as well as the same lease fee as an HST, you are looking at maintaining five engines and transmissions, versus two in a 125, and every extra train you run needs a crew of two or three people, you pay more track access charges, etc. And FGW get through something like 22 per cent of all the diesel fuel used on Britain's railways, so I expect they are pretty thorough when it comes to weighing up the numbers on such matters.

Both Willc and Andy W have fully valid points.

Can no-one see that the journey time is too long for longer distance passengers?

It is not about "annoying villagers" but stopping a HST every few minutes on short platforms and then slowly accelerating.

The point being made is not about: either "the villagers" or the "first class long distance commuters" but both.

Has it not occurred to anyone that taking longer distance passengers off peak services would free up space for the main commuters?

But there are only so many passengers out there, witness the empty seats on the peak trains either way west of Moreton-in-Marsh now.

Running more trains equals more expense and even with better capacity on the route, which may allow a more even spacing of trains in the future, it's already pretty near a 30-minute interval service running in the direction of the peak flows in the morning and late afternoon-early evening, which is probably adequate to meet demand well into the future, especially if everything bar the halts trains is operated by an HST.

At the moment you're talking 4xHSTs east of Moreton each morning peak (3 of them starting at Hereford or Malvern), plus a Turbo, which gives more than 2,000 seats in each directon at these times, with all four return HSTs from 15.51 to 18.21 going through at least to Worcester.

And whether you like it or nor, the 125s, operating to current stopping patterns, are what will be meeting the needs of both types of passenger for the next seven or eight years, in all likelihood - unless FGW snap up some of the 130-odd Mk3s with power-operated doors that Irish Railways are now offering for sale. Convert the bogies to standard gauge, rewire to make them into HST trailers - as Grand Central has done with ex-Virgin loco-hauled Mk3 stock - and you could speed up station stops quite a bit.

I'm not sure I'd cite GC as a good example of how to reuse rolling stock (emergency service again this week due to a breakdown last Friday).

It's the power cars - refurbished by DML at Devonport - that keep breaking.

After the small problem of forgetting to pay the bills, that is...

Hi Willc,

I live just outside Pershore and very rarely use the service because I prefer to drive to Warwick Parkway (and extra 40 mins) and use Chiltern because, despite the drive it's quicker, cheaper, more frequent and more reliable. However yesterday for the fifth time this year I actually went down on FGW.

Here are my observations:-

The train was the 11.40 Pershore - Paddington
The train arrived spot on time. Arrived at Evesham to be told we would leave 10 mins late. The train running towards Worcester arrived, stopped around 2 mins and pulled out, we waited an extra few minutes while our driver got the token. I really fail to understand why they still stick to 19th century practices - but that's not FGW. We got to Oxford where it was announced that we would have to wait another ten minutes for the Hereford bound train to arrive!!! Now this is all double line so why would we have to wait? Simple we had to wait for the driver who was driving the Hereford train to drive ours back!!!! So there we have it, even when there is double track FGW still completely screw it up by pathetic working practices ........ our train was sitting there blocking the platform because of total incompetence !!!

Back to your points


Yes but I'm interested in the full anaysis, i.e. breakdown by destination and class - and along the line not just 4 stations.


I never trust people who throw one cost (in this case lease costs) without going through all the costs, there may or maybe nothing to hide. All I can tell you is total cost of ownership is far more important than lease costs.


Of course you don't otherwise there would be a degree of balance rather than only looking at the 'villages'. A huge percentage of those people use this service as an Oxford commuter train. Why not cater for them with such a service, that also caters for Finstock, Ascott, Shipton etc.In fact treat the intermediate station from Moreton in exactly the same way that they are treated from Didcot?

I don't agree with BTline on that even though Pesrhore is my local station. If I wanted the express I'd go to Evesham but as I stated before Chiltern will continue to get my custom.

Anyway I can't ever see us agreeing, I'm more than happy with Chiltern and you'll be happy driving customers off the service.

On a final note from my trip yesterday, despite enough padding to make Twiggy look like Dolly Parton the train was still ten minutes late ............. but wait 10 minutes late is considered to be on time !!!!!!!!!

>:(

No, we probably won't agree, but when somewhere the size of Charlbury generates almost as many passengers as does far larger Evesham, then anyone running the trains is going to stop lots, or all, of their trains there.

It's not about what I think, I am just trying to point out why the trains are making extra intermediate stops - because these stations are where FGW earns its corn - not from Worcester and Hereford, where the bulk of custom is heading to Birmingham, not London.

Even if there were more double track, when are any extra super-fast trains going to run? And would you use them anyway, since you seem happy with your current arrangements? While you say you would go to Evesham, where would you park? There aren't enough spaces there now, and nowhere to expand, hence stopping more trains at Pershore and Honeybourne, to ease pressure on Evesham.

I'm sure you won't trust anyone on this either, but a 30-minute interval service in the peak is probably about all the line can sustain, in terms of generating adequate traffic - it isn't exactly inner-suburbia here. Over the years, I have used every peak train from 6-am-ish from Moreton onwards, through to what is currently the 08.37 from Worcester. Whether you like it or not, all those starting further west pick up the bulk of their passengers from Moreton onwards - in both classes - and drop them off by Moreton going the other way - whether traveling to/from Oxford, Reading or London. Maybe everyone from further west is now driving to Warwick?

I'm sorry I could only find numbers for four stations off the cuff when Lee was asking about it a while back, but maybe you don't want to observe the clear general trends - Charlbury traffic up almost four-fold, same at Kingham, Moreton trebled, Evesham not quite 2.5, even at its peak in 2005. The Hanborough multiple would be far more - it only had one train a day each way in the late 1970s, like the halts - which, with the exception of Shipton, are unlikely to supply any more custom than they do now, however many trains you stop there.

If you really want a full breakdown of passengers and by class, ask FGW, though I expect they would say it was commercially confidential, and overall numbers by station are all that do seem to get released.

Total incompetence - or Network Rail? They are responsible for the bulk of delays across FGW.

Wikipedia has some station usage figures.

Go to a station's page, and look at the info box on the right hand side. There should also be links to other data.

That data is all taken from the ORR website - station usage data. All stations in the UK are listed in a mass Excel spreadsheet.

Which you can find in the link below (latest figures due to be added very soon.)
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1529

Yes, I'm watching out for the latest data. Will include half a year of the disastrous Dec 06 changes, so expect Melksham to plummet.

As pointed out on the charlbury blog regarding changes to train times in the new timetable.

From Charlbury to Oxford, the 0724 (was 0729) HST Hereford to Paddington now arrives at Oxford at 0747 (was 0748) so a journey time of 23minutes (was 19min) with one stop at Hanborough.

However the next train the 0749 (was 0750) Turbo stopping service with 3 stops before Oxford now arrives at 0812 a journey time of 23 minutes.

Yet more padding, slower journeys. In recent years the journey by HST between oxford and Charlbury always used to be approx 12-14 minutes including the stop at Hanborough, so this is not an HST problem is is simply padding. The journey now takes almost twice as long.