Great Western Coffee Shop

From FGW live updates (http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/LiveUpdateList.aspx):





Edit note: Topic heading amended, to reflect subsequent discussion.

This is turning out to be a regular alteration, many times leaving from platform 13 rather than 5.

Any insiders know why this is happening regularly?

A service which is timetabled to be HST and is usually full, squeezing into a 3 car turbo is "interesting" to say the least.  I'm sure the regular FC travellers on this service are less than impressed!

Thanks in advance for any insight

FGW low on HST powercars.

Should see some of the faults!

I got this train on Monday and as this thread isn't totally recent I only just put two and two together and realised that it isn't a one off...

I got to Paddington two minute before the 18.18 departure and when I saw 18.33 was showing as on time decided not to run for the earlier train as that's never sensible. However at 18.20 (4 minutes later) it changed to delayed.. This is because the 18.25 stop everywhere service was leaving from the front of platform 13 I think.. I guess it's the same train brought in and then seperated to form two trains..

Once the 18.25 had gone we were trusted to get on the right train and so platform 13 was announced for the 18.33 which resulted in a lot of running from lots of people (not me!).. However once we were all crammed onto the 3 carriages and there was no more room, we still had to let the heathrow connect go from platform 12 and then by the time we left a couple of HSTs were deemed to be more important than us so we let them go too.. Eventually we arrived in Maidenhead 10 minutes late.. Since Paddington to Maidenhead is timetabled for 19 minutes on this time this isn't at all good..

In two weeks time I'm permanently back in London commuting again and was thinking the 18.33 will be my regular train home.. If it's going to be like that every day then I don't think it'll be much fun...

The other option travelling to Maidenhead is the 1750 (to Worcester). It is a fairly safe bet of an 8 carriage HST, except when things go badly wrong and its first stop Maidenhead (JT 19mins)

Agreed - most of the time its at least 2+7 and sometimes even has a mini buffet

Thanks for the information but unfortunately 17.50 is going to be too early for me.. That's about the earliest time I'll be able to leave work and I work half hour or so from Paddington..

Since the start of the new timetable I've noticed that the 07:50 Paddington-Oxford is often a seven-car Turbo formation, something which is normally very rare on FGW services. Is this scheduled or is it a temporary measure while there's a shortage of HSTs? It's a pity they can't find 7 cars for the 17:50 or the 18:33 when needed!

THat may be a way of getting otherwise ecs back to Oxford sidings....

The 17:50 to Worcester has been flagged up on FGW's live updates as being reduced to a Turbo on a lot of occasions since Christmas - probably about half of the time.

While putting a Turbo on the 17.50 may not fill one's heart with joy (it happened again tonight) - and I say that as someone who uses it to get home four days a week on average - it makes a lot of sense when there is a stock shortage, especially beyond Oxford, where Friday is probably the only night you will have more than 150 people on board heading on to the Cotswold Line. Typically there are only a couple of dozen left past Moreton-in-Marsh, so it's pretty hard to justify using a 500-seat HST if most of those seats will be filled for far longer on another duty. It wasn't by accident that the then 17.51 saw the last Adelante working on FGW last March.

Ok - I am one of the biggest complainers from the midlands but ..........

I agree - the 1751 north or morteton is a joke HOWEVER there is a reason for that.......

Once you get beyond Moreton it is as close (in reality) to 10-15 minutes behind the 1822 as is damn it.  So....for example when I was in slough - I had to leave work nearly 45 minutes earlier to get to  WOS 10-15 earlier. 

No one sensible going to Malvern and beyond would use it since you change at WOS to connect with ..... the 1822 which stops at all the same stations other than Shipton.

I happen to use it now only because I NORMALLY get the 1738 from crowthorne that gets to Reading timetabled 1754 - three minutes after the 1722 is due to leave.  2-3 out of 5 days I actually make the 1722 because either my turbo doesnt need the make up time OR the 1722 is late leaving reading (I know once I did delay it slightly by flinging open a door in G just before the SDO kicked in(saw the TM going to hit the buttons as I raced to the train so dropped everything around the posters) to stop it locking so I could load on my bike and my shopping - hey I'm human and I put up with enough crap that is not my fault!).

The point is.............Going to oxford a turbo is acceptable - going to Moreton, not so.

The PROBLEM is that when this is last minute substituted it is often a 165.  Even if its a 166 - first class REALLY get a bum deal. 

IF I get the 1751 AND it shows up as a turbo - I just go sit in upper crust for half an hour - it really isnt worth it.

FGW need to (1) decide if its a WOS service or not.  If it is (2) guarantee a HST and if its not (3) just terminate the damn thing at Moreton

It also presumably means that another peak hour service from Paddington goes short formed to release the Turbo which at that time of night isn't good news whatever train it is! I saw it leave Paddington tonight - probably about 30-40 punters having to stand (though I expect nobody had to beyond Maidenhead).

As for FA's Option 3, that would sure leave a gaping hole in the evening service back from Worcester...

If a Turbo is acceptable to Oxford, then it's just as acceptable to Charlbury, a dozen minutes later, where I reckon getting on for half the people on board after Oxford are leaving - and that's always been the case on the service in this slot for the eight years or so I've been using it, no matter what type of train is provided, from a two-car 165, to an Adelante (it must be about time to start a campaign to bring them back) or an HST.

Not forgetting a few of us join at Oxford for a shortish journey, so aren't that bothered, because for most people some sort of train is better than no train. And that's the judgment call someone at FGW has to make when they find themselves an HST short at Paddington at 5.30pm. The heavily loaded Bristol or Cardiff train will always win that argument.

While it's easy to say just cut it short at Moreton, I'm not sure someone who just misses the 17.22 at Paddington is going to be that chuffed to be told the next train isn't for an hour, when there has been some sort of plan B available for many years, though it was a tight squeak back when this service was the halts train and left Paddington a matter of minutes behind the old 17.0-something to battle its way up the relief line to Didcot.

Why does it go to Worcester? Because there has been a train to Worcester in that slot for a very long time. It used to cover the stops the preceding 17.XX train skipped and also allowed people from the skipped stations to pick up the 18.XX if they wanted to go west of Worcester. That role rather got lost with the decision in recent years to try to provide a more evenly spaced pattern of evening calls at Hanborough, Honeybourne and Pershore, with the 17.22 and 18.22 stopping, while the 17.50 gives Hanborough and Honeybourne a miss.

It might well be a more attractive proposition if it connected with something in Worcester, instead of just missing a Malvern working, but until redoubling is completed - and the mess that is Worcester is sorted out - the timetable at this time of the day is always going to be an ugly compromise.

I might add that looking at the loadings on the 17.22, 18.22 and - for the past year, since it has gone on to Hereford - the 19.22, people heading beyond Worcester seem to prefer a through service to changing, with the added complication of whether it's a Shrub Hill or Foregate Street connection presumably having something to do with that.

I got this train again yesterday (wed 27th jan). This time it was on platform 11.. Still a 3 car turbo (I think)... But on platform 12 was the 18.33 Heathrow connect service.. Even though everyone was on our train a good 5 minutes before departure (even the driver... we know he was definitely there as we had to wait for him to arrive to be allowed on the train).. the 18.33 stop everywhere Heathrow connect was allowed to leave before us...even though we were first stop Maidenhead.

The end result was that we arrived at Maidenhead 10 minutes late again.. Now I'm sure FGW doesn't mind too much as their statistics are done on the final destination I think, and I think there is enough padding between London and Oxford to easily make that time up..

However it is a little pointless timetabling a 19 minute journey (it's scheduled to arrive at 18.52) if they are going to do things like that..

I will start using this train regularly the week after next, so maybe my two trips have just been plain unlucky.. I do hope so  :)

The 1833 is pathed I think, to use the fast line until clear of the Connect service....maybe leaving from a high numbered platform creates difficulties in pathing across to the fast line?

I'm sure that the layout at Paddington doesn't allow trains to depart simultaneously from platforms 11 and 12. (Presumably the 18:33 to Oxford was in 11 because of some sort of disruption.) The common sense method here would have been to allow the Oxford train to go first because of it having the much longer-distance journey. However as I've discovered from other discussion threads on this forum the Automatic Route Setting in the Paddington area doesn't do common sense! So presumably the Heathrow train left first because that what the ARS decided?

Correct with the fact trains can't leave 11 and 12 at the same time.  It would probably have been held behind the Heathrow Connect for one of two reasons;  1) As ChrisB eluded to, there was a conflict (i.e. HST(s) coming the other way) crossing it from Platform 11 to Line 3 then 2 so it could get to the down main - it normally leaves from Platform 5 (I think) so that conflict isn't usually an issue, or  2) The TRTS (Train Ready To Start) plunger for platform 11 was operated by the dispatch staff after the one on platform 12 and ARS had already set up the route for the Heathrow Connect.

Thanks for all the information. Let's hope it departs from it's usual platform 5 as often as possible in the future then...And that whatever caused it to be in platform 11 is a one-off :-)

There won't be any problems with the 1833 Padd-Oxford after May as it's apparently being withdrawn.  Presumably Maidenhead passengers go on the accelerated 1836 to Bourne End (how full is that going to be!), Twyford passengers on the 1848 to Cheltenham, and London commuters for Tilehurst - Cholsey just lose the service all together.

It is going to horribly full..Just ready for the summer.. Fingers crossed they always give us a train with opening windows then if it ends up being a turbo or I think they might make people very ill.. or worse.. I do wonder why they are getting rid of such a busy train

By the way do you know what accelerated means.. I think that train currently goes down the relief line and stops at Slough... Maybe accelerated means it's allowed on the main line and won't be stopping at Slough?

I guess the new 1836 Padd-Bourne End will use the vacated path of the withdrawn 1833 Padd-Oxford and run non-stop main line to Maidenhead.  What's the max length for trains to Bourne End?  Can 6 cars go there?

The 1836 still calls at Slough and Maidenhead according to the journey planner.

Paul

hhmm.. that doesn't sound like a definition of accelerated.. :)

Could still be mainline with a stop at Slough - there's enough margin in front of 1845 ex Padd.  So Padd-Slough in maybe 16 minutes instead of 23 as now, so there's the acceleration.  But it will be a popular train ....

(later) ...  Just noticed that Journeyplanner shows it arriving Slough on Platform 4 - ie down relief - at 1855, so 19 mins Padd to Slough.  So acceleration is just 4 minutes, which all helps I suppose.

..and it's going to arrive at Maidenhead at 19.06 instead of 18.52 (arrival time of 18.33)..so Maidenhead passengers will get to spend an extra 14 minutes on the train which will no doubt be full to bursting.. what are FGW/NR playing at.. >:(

5 cars is the longest, Furze Platt and Cookham can handle 6 but Bourne End I think would have half a coach if not a whole one without platform

Do you know how long the current 18.42(ish) to Bourne end is? The 18.33 to Oxford (which pretty much empties at Maidenhead) is an intercity... Can these two train's worth of people really fit into one?

Doubt it - I suspect one of two things.....

1. FGW really don't care as long as there are bums on seats or in mid air if standing

2. The previous and later service are less loaded and management would like people from your train to move onto the earlier or later service

If the Slough stop was taken out of the 18:42 it would possibly work as a 5 car 165, the train virtually empties at Slough, it could then run on the Down Main to Maidenhead East and cross over to platform 4 or 5 (just like it used to do years ago)

I suspect number 1... As I know that the previous train  (18.18 departure) and later train (19.06) are also very full..

Well, I emailed FGW customer services on Sunday 21st March to ask where on earth they think all the passengers from the 18.33 will go.. I got a standard acknowledgement saying they should reply within 5 working days.. But nothing since  ???

Theresa May, our MP, is also aware of the problems that this is undoubtedly going to cause and is talking to FGW about it  but I suspect it's too late for anything to be done about it now..

A very very large step backwards by FGW  :(

But another step forward in cutting their running costs, which I'm sure is at the root of the decision, just like putting Turbos back on so many Cotswold workings over the past year. Never mind what effect it has on the poor old passenger.

I'm not sure the overall quota of HST departures is going down though - from the other post here:  http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=6521.0 (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=6521.0)

1736 Paddington ^ Oxford service (fast to Maidenhead) will be formed as a HST instead of a 4-car Turbo.


There's also an attempt to justify the removal of the 18:33:

1833 Paddington ^ Oxford ceases to operate between Paddington and Oxford For Maidenhead, the 1833 will be effectively replaced by an accelerated and retimed 1842 Paddington ^ Bourne End service. Instead of taking 36 minutes to get to Maidenhead (which makes it a relatively unattractive service), it will depart at 1836 and get to Maidenhead in 27 minutes. As far as Maidenhead it will be formed as a 5-car service instead of a 3-car, providing an additional 186 seats on this train. (NB the 1842 presently has an average load factor of c.72% so there should, on average, also be a further 75 standard seats available for use from Paddington)

Brilliant.. So the many of us who use the 18.33 should feel good that the people who get the current 17.36 will get our HST whilst we're still slaving away at work?

Actually we're not bothered about an HST.. Any train at 18.33 would be good.

But.. They're taking away a train that lots and lots of people get off at Maidenhead and are replacing it with two extra turbo carriages on an existing train which will get to Maidenhead 14 minutes later than our current service..

That is no justification.. That is very bad..

That should mean fun and games at Oxford. A terminating HST working what is a stopper beyond Reading, due in minutes ahead of XC and FGW services to Banbury and with the 18.22 to Hereford hard on their heels.

It usually takes forever for the dispatchers to check that an HST is empty at Oxford before sending it into the sidings.

This one will end in tears, or many delay minutes. You've got to wonder if either FGW or Network Rail have actually looked at what they are proposing to shove through platform 2 at Oxford between 19.05 and 19.21.

And the 1822 struggles enough anyway following the 1722 and the 1751

Deep breath...I'm probably going to make myself slightly unpopular here...



Now, I freely admit that it's easy for me to be detached and objective here, given that I only use the Cotswold Line once in a blue moon and don't commute from Maidenhead.

However, in the grand scheme of things (or to use a phrase that gets right on my n*pple ends, "looking at the bigger picture"), this is a relatively small change. For that reason I don't think I buy the "cost saving" argument - given the overall scale of FGW's operation it would be incredibly small beer.

Reading some of the posts above, you would almost form the impression that FGW's train planners have made this change or rostered Turbos on Cotswold service out of pure spite. They haven't. I know some FGW and NR staff involved in train planning and they are consummate professionals who take pride in doing a difficult job. Any change in an established timetable is going to alter someone's travel arrangements: given that it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that FGW are pursuing a vendetta against Cotswold Line users or Maidenhead commuters, I would trust that there is a good operational reason why these changes have been made, which may also benefit users elsewhere.

Well you better had buy the cost-saving argument, because it's a hell of a lot cheaper to run a Turbo than an HST. A former senior railway manager has told me recently that FGW are "hell bent" on cutting costs - I think he knows what he's talking about.

FGW promised the Cotswold Line inter-city quality trains throughout the day in 2004. When they were preparing to dispose of Adelantes, they acquired enough HSTs, at some expense no doubt, to do just that. Over the past 12 months, first on weekdays, now at weekends, many HST workings have disappeared. They haven't altered the timetable in this neck of the woods, just removed the trains offering inter-city quality. That is the only 'operational' change that has been made.

The sets involved haven't suddenly popped up somewhere else on FGW's network, so they aren't out there running up operating costs.

The conclusion I draw from that - as others do - is that it's about saving money, because I cannot think of any other logical explanation.

It would help if FGW were to fix a few out of use doors on HSTs - lately the 17:06 has been delayed at Twyford a couple of times while passengers in coaches B & C filed out of a single door.  >:(

Perahps the title of this topic needs changing.

So FGW says it's 5 cars as far as Maidenhead, which indicates the train splits there.  This is unfortunately another potential delay for Maidenhead passengers, as I dare say that when the 5 cars arrive at Maidenhead the doors will not be opened until the 2 sets are split.  In my past experience Maidenhead commuters are the stroppiest in the whole of the Thames Valley, so I hope they will learn to be patient when their train arrives at Maidenhead.  Hopefully there will be a driver travelling in the lead cab of the second unit to make the uncoupling as slick as possible. 

I agree - perhaps they'll built the new south facing bay platform in record time and plan to shove it in there...  ;)

I wonder if these changes are as a result of trying to allow two sets to be away for refurbishment as much as anything else?

As this discussion has developed, and widened, since my original post about an apparently one-off incident back in November 2009, I'm happy to comply!  C.  :)

They're not just replacing an HST with a turbo.. They're replacing an HST with the addition of two extra carriages on a turbo which already runs...so even cheaper I imagine..

Incidentally we had a nice turbo instead of our HST this evening, from platform 13 which meant a lot of hot people (from running) on a very full up train.. It was three carriages and was packed to overflowing yet all these people (and I'm sure there were more who missed the train) are expected to fit on two carriages from May.. Hhmm.. that is a scary prospect..

Have FGW at any point said anywhere why they are removing this service?

I have asked them on March 21st.. I'm still waiting for a reply..

Okay, I will try do some digging too :)

Might be that it's very lightly loaded beyond Reading. If you get on the 18.18 or 18.22 and change at Reading, you comfortably beat the 18.33 to the stops between Reading and Didcot, while the 18.48 from London is hard on its heels along this stretch.

On the odd occasion I have seen it arrive at Oxford - obviously not its key destination - you could be forgiven for thinking it was an ecs working, so few people get off.

I suspect they have done some passenger counts - much in evidence on the Cotswold Line lately - and decided that this service is not paying its way once those bound for Maidenhead have got off.

I wouldn't like to guess too accurately how many get off at Maidenhead, but it's LOTS.  About 50 get off at Twyford, 20 at Reading (most of which who've boarded at Maidenhead and Twyford), then 10-25 at all the Thames Valley stations (often including Mr. Hopwood himself at Pangbourne) - again probably most have joined it at Reading. Then maybe 5-10 leave at Didcot and also at Radley.

To be fair to FGW (and I don't often say that) last night the 18.30 Weston Super Mare service made an extra stop at Maidenhead and this was announced so I guess most of the M'head passengers were expected to join that train.

Making that a permanent alteration would surely make sense when the 18.33 is withdrawn.  Together with the additional stop at Twyford by the 18.47 Cheltenham service that would account for most of the current 18.33 users.

Going back to the original point of this topic (the now almost regular substitution of a 3 car turbo from HST) - perhaps this is FGW's way of getting the M'head passengers used to the "cosy" travelling experience they are about to enjoy.  :)

By the way does anyone know how full the 18.47 Cheltenham service is currently?  Will it accommodate the additional 50(?) for Twyford ?

I'm sure (well I hope) FGW looked at stopping the 1833 (ie retimed from 1836) Padd to Exeter HST at Maidenhead from May for the displaced passengers off the current 1833 Padd - Oxford, but maybe it's full already. From the timings point of view it might as well call at Maidenhead as be stopped at red signals at Reading Gasworks every night waiting for the 1830 Padd - WSM to clear Plaform 4.

If there was room on this train there would be lots of happy Maidenhead passengers and FGW could save a  2-car turbo in the evening peak by not having to strengthen the 1836 Padd - Bourne End.

As you say, I rather suspect it is full with passengers for Newbury, Hungerford and the stations in Wiltshire.

Was later than usual heading home this evening, so saw the 18.33 arrive at Oxford three minutes late at 20.19. It took five minutes to get it off to the sidings, with the 20.22 for Hereford sat just outside the station. We eventually got out of Oxford at about 20.30.

And they want us to believe they will shift four trains through that platform in 16 minutes from May...

I arrived at Paddington about 18.27 and didn't hear/see the announcement but seeing the amount of people that got onto the 18.33 on platform 13 I guess either a lot of other people missed it too, or the 18.30 was too full up as I can't believe they'd have all chosen to run to platform 13 if there was another train nearby..

The 1830 to WSM is always pretty full...but about 40/ 50 got off at Maidenhead. how about stopping this train Maidenhead, Twyford, Didcot..

Problem is the retimed 1833 Padd - Exeter is right behind, so you can't put stops in the 1830 Padd-WSM before Reading.  That's why I suggested the 1833 Padd-Exeter should have the Maidenhead stop - it can stop on the DM and still have a margin in front of 1845 Padd-S.Wales at Reading.

And picking up Devon Metro's point about 1833 ex Padd being full of Berks and Hants passengers, I wonder if it's any more crowded than other HST's between Padd and Reading in the evening peak? I don't know, I don't travel on it, but I just wondered.

Well I finally got a reply (slightly longer than 5 working days) from FGW...

"Thank you for your email.

We are aware of concern that the removal of our 1833 Oxford service from May has created but our timetable team has taken care to provide good alternatives. Twyford passengers will now be able to use the 1848 fast train to Cheltenham, and Maidenhead passengers will be able to use a retimed Bourne End service, which will run at 1836.

This train will be accelerated to run as a fast service (27 minutes to Maidenhead) and will in future run as a five-car turbo train.  I know that its not the HST that many hoped for however it will be fast and the two extra carriages will give 186 extra seats. 

Just to let you know we've been able to add a Maidenhead call into the 1947 Paddington service.  This means we now extend the pattern of fast trains to Maidenhead right through to 8pm, something Maidenhead passengers have asked us to do in the past.

We will also be making an immediate improvement in seating capacity in the morning peak with an extra carriage on the 0703 from Maidenhead, and a new stop at Maidenhead at 0610 on a retimed 0559 departure from Reading. This adds a further fast morning train for Maidenhead.

Our Turbo refresh programme is already underway and this will much improve the quality onboard these trains. This includes the provision of a more reliable air-conditioning system.

Thanks again for your email and for the chance to explain."

This totally ignores the problem of fitting all those people into two carriages (they hardly fitted into three the other day) and also says it will be 27 minutes to Maidenhead whereas NR website is saying 30.. Either way it's adding an extra 11 or 14 minutes onto our journey which they've also ignored.. The bit about us hoping for an HST is weird too.. We'd just like a train really, any type will be fine.

They also didn't tell me why they'd done it so if you can find out who is getting our train Ollie that would be good?

I should email them again to challenge them on these points but I know it won't make a difference so I won't.

Hopefully Theresa May might do some good instead..

I sent an e-mail to a colleague in train planning, but at the time they would have been busy with planning the strike, I would hope that I get a reply after Easter, will let you know Jo.

Thanks Ollie. I guess the imminent (as was) strike was probably what delayed their reply to me in the first place too

Will this new 1733 Pad - Oxf be stopping between Paddington and Reading? As otherwise it will delay the Paignton service following behind.

I think I'd prefer them removing the 18.42 then..  I really don't need to be home 14 minutes late every day.. My poor children get their dinner late enough as it is without this added daily unwanted delay.. >:(

I think 1733 Padd-Oxford will go DM to Maidenhead East then cross over to the DR for its Maidenhead stop (like 1833 Padd-Oxford does now), then stays on DR all the way to Didcot.  So the 1736 Padd-Exeter (or wherever) gets a clear run on DM to Reading.

In a classic case of internal spin, the changes for Maidenhead in the summer timetable are given a small article in First Great Western's 'Westernlines' internal newsletter with the headline 'Maidenhead services get a boost as part of our May Timetable change' - buried deep within is a mention of the 18:33's withdrawal, but otherwise it's all sweetness-and-light for Maidenhead commuters from May.  Apparently.

Marvellous.. The best bit is that I think many people don't realise it's being withdrawn.. I know people I've mentioned it to who currently get the train and they don't know. So there will be a lot of unhappy people on the first day of the new timetable if that is the case..

Just when FGW seemed to be getting it just about right.. They mess it up again..

At least we can't accuse FGW's MD of ensuring he never has to endure any hassles, as Mark Hopwood is often on the 18:33 from Paddington travelling home to Pangbourne.

Maybe he doesn't know yet either  ;D :D
I wonder what train he'll end up getting instead..

Only 3 more days of this train running left to go... I still haven't quite worked out which alternative train I'd like to be squashed on to next week.. Decisions decisions  ;D :D ???

And i got this train for the last time today.. Several hundred (my estimate) people got off as they usually do.. This train is no more.. Several hundred people need to find a new train (and that's just the Maidenhead passengers)... Thanks to FGW's new timetable...

May have been even more popular than usual on its final day, as the 17.50 to Worcester was shown on the website as being Turbo-ised, with the Maidenhead stop dropped to avoid an almighty crush.

Well yes.. it didn't seem more busy than usual but then it was Friday which is usually a bit quieter and also it usually takes SO long for everyone to get off the train (the train we no longer need remember  ;)) as there are so many people. that I'd left way before everyone was off...

Well.. the first day didn't go at all well..

The train had three platforms in the end (one being platform 13) so there was a lot of trekking around Paddington by several hundred people before they finally settled on platform 11 being the one to use..

And, as I knew FGW would, they had put on one of the lovely sauna air conditioned carriages.. It was, as I expected, very overcrowded.. Very very hot and uncomfortable, sweat was literally pouring off of people.. Hundreds of very hot people got off at Maidenhead at 7.12pm (8 minutes late and 20 minutes later than the 18.33 would have got us back)

Did anyone get the 18.18 today as that's  the other train that will gain extra people from this fiasco and that train is already very very busy..?

Thanks FGW (not).. I will be complaining...but only anticipate a(nother) standard reply

Jo, I did think of you yesterday, when I noticed it was Platform 13 (knowing how much we all love that platform) then seeing it change to 11.

I did think FGW weren't doing their best to make it as stress free as possible particularly with the weather as it was yesterday.

I'm sure there are perfectly good operational reasons why the 18.33 was withdrawn but it does make you wonder how the logic worked on this particular decision.

Hopefully with the government cut backs our new Home Secretary will need to use the train more often and have to experience the "Bourne End Sauna Express"

As ever, there are winners and losers - just to report as a Twyford user (with no smugness intended), the 18.47 Cheltenham train was a marginally better experience than the 18.33.  Yes, we arrive a few minutes later than we used to but there were still some seats available which was rarely the case before.

Today I left work before I should to test out the 18.18.. From what I can remember it used to be 3 carriages and today it was 6 which was sensible. It was still very overcrowded though and not pleasant.. There are just too few fast trains at that time of day now serving Maidenhead (and I'm sure other places).

And I agree.. there may be reasons why the train has been withdrawn, but I've asked twice now and it's been ignored both times (I will post my (very speedy) reply from FGW seperately in a minute).. I have asked them a third time now..

And here is my reply from FGW to my complaint.. It's a mixture of a standard email with the odd incorrect fact thrown in (the bit about re-timing the 18.33.. if only! ;D) and some apologising..

"Dear Ms Hoare

Thank you for your email of 24 May 2010. I was sorry to learn how unhappy you are with the new timetable, and the re-timing of our former 18:33 service.

Planning our services is always a difficult balancing act, as we are trying to satisfy as many customers as we can. Our timetable is the best fit we can achieve between improved journey times and opportunities, and a schedule that reflects changing customer demands. This means that timetable planning decisions are inevitably a compromise and at each review we examine a wide range of factors such as:

^ The number of passengers and journey patterns
^ The types of customer on different routes - business, commuters and leisure
^ Customer feedback

I also realise that you hold concerns about how busy our 18:36 service now gets in view of the new schedule. I am genuinely sorry that you've had such an unpleasant journey, as I realise how uncomfortable such busy conditions can be, particular on hot days.

We try very hard to provide the best service possible and constantly monitor our services to identify areas where improvements can be made, this includes reviewing our timetable and looking at the type of trains we use on each journey. We also use customer feedback to help us identify how we can do better and I have registered your comments as part of this. It is however inevitable that some services will be more popular than others and can become crowded.

Running more trains may seem like an obvious solution but there is a limit to the number of trains we can run at peak time. The track between Reading and London Paddington is operating at its full capacity and there are no additional timetable paths available to us. The Department for Transport is now working with Network Rail on the long-term plan to expand Reading station, which will give the extra capacity needed to run more trains at peak time. For now though this is our position and I understand how frustrated you must be.

The schedules we decide on meet the needs of as many customers as possible, but we do know we can never satisfy everyone, however much we'd like to. I have, however, recorded your comments and these will form part of a report that will be used to plan our future timetables. Specifically, I'll highlight the details of your case in direct support of re-introducing a service at 18:33.

I was also sorry to hear how you feel the conditions of our 18:36 service are made worse due to the reliability of our air conditioning units. We do thoroughly check each train overnight, and put right any problems before the train goes out again. There are times though when faults develop once the train has left the depot, and we do realise how uncomfortable this can be. On the rare occasions it does happen we believe that passengers would rather we kept the train running, than delay or cancel it, or have to send a replacement. So I do apologise that we had the fault, but hope you agree that keeping the train in service was the best course of action in the circumstances.

As a rule, if the air conditioning fails in one carriage we try and move passengers into others wherever possible. Even if the train's whole air conditioning system were to fail, we would normally keep the train running until we could repair the fault. Naturally we'd do that at the earliest opportunity, which may not be until the train returns to the depot that evening.

Because we realise how important the right carriage conditions are, we have been working hard to upgrade our air conditioning. We know there have been some problems with the units on Turbo trains and we wanted to replace them all. So in our most recent negotiations for the franchise we entered one bid that included the cost of new units. That bid wasn't successful and the one that was did not cover the costs of a wholesale change. As a result we cannot implement the one-off refurbishment we would have liked for our customers.

Instead we have been steadily working through the fleet, overhauling our air conditioning units so they're now more efficient and much more reliable. Clearly it will take longer to bring all the units up to scratch doing it this way, but we are doing our best to finish the work as soon as possible.

We are currently refreshing our Turbo fleet and when this is complete, our customers will benefit from cleaner, more modern trains. The first refreshed vehicles have now entered service, with plans to complete the project by March 2012.   We are very pleased to be making the following modifications, which will improve the overall comfort of our customer's journeys:

- Fitment of laminated glass with anti graffiti film.
- Provision of a new public information system.
- Renewal of flooring in the saloon, vestibule and toilet areas.
- Upgrade of the toilets and the installation of more reliable equipment.
- Provision of new signage and magazine racks.
- Repainting of ceiling, wall panels, bulkheads and toilets.
- Renewal of seat covers, seats trims, dado panels and waist trims.
- An upgrade of the air conditioning system.

Thank you once again for bringing your comments and concerns to our attention. We welcome feedback from customers, which highlights areas in which we can improve any aspect of our service."

Wow! Such a full and detailed response from an email which it appears you only sent yesterday!!

I could be rather cynical and suggest that it was only such a speedy response because FGW were merely copying and pasting 'standard fob-off paragraphs' numbered 3, 7, 5, 19, 58 and 247 into their reply.  ::)

It's pretty accurate - I'm sure they'll relook at the reintroduction od the 1836, especially if the new TT results in worse overcrowding than before.

The inaccuracy was when they said that the 18.33 had been re-timed.. It hasn't.. It's gone totally from the timetable.. It's the 18.42 that has been retimed.. I didn't write it very well first time.. sorry  ;D

So which paragraph number was this one..?

"Running more trains may seem like an obvious solution but there is a limit to the number of trains we can run at peak time"

In my reply I did point out to them that they managed perfectly well running that train last week and lots of weeks before that  ;D :D

I think that's true about their response to the complaint about the air-conditioning particularly as it's very long and rambling. If they're going to use a standard reply why not be more succinct and say something like "yes we know the air-conditioning in the 166s is cr*p but we've no money to replace the a/c units, you'll just have to cross your fingers that 166 201 with its better a/c turns up now and again, or else a 165 with opening windows (but in that case be prepared for the 90 mph hurricane inside the train when it's at full speed...)"  ::)

What that standard response doesn't cover is the situation my son faced on Tuesday this week travelling from Filton Abbey Wood to Trowbridge on a particularly packed peak-time evening train. Not only was the air-conditioning not working, but the heating was switched on as well! Lucky really that nobody fainted - apparently it was extremely uncomfortable for all concerned.

Interesting concept on a full to bursting train


Not quite sure how most of these address the "more modern" aspect.  Cleaner, possibly until they get as dirty as before. I travelled on a refreshed 165 this morning which effectively puts it back to where it was when first introduced - hardly "more modern".  Did notice that the upholstery on most seats was already coming away on the corners of the seats.  Hope they didn't spend too much.

Its easy to criticise I know but coupled with the frankly dangerous overcrowding which occurs in the morning peak at the exit/access to platforms 10-16  it all makes for a thoroughly miserable daily experience

And a complete and utter lie too.  Maybe on a HST or perhaps in the old days an Adelante, but the 166's air-con is so utterly useless that it's a completely impractical idea - especially on a driver only service.  I await this new air-conditioning system with interest, though unless some fix to the passenger opened windows is addressed it won't solve the problem no matter how good it is.

I agree.. Mind you HSTs don't need opening windows as their air con works so if the y can make it work on the turbos they can somehow seal the windows shut hopefully.. Mind you if the air con works, people don't look around for windows to open  ;D

Incidentally the train was less crowded today. It was also a train with windows and no air con so much better.. I am wondering which train everyone now gets.. I'm guessing the 18.18 since that was so busy yesterday.. Or maybe everyone was just in the pub because they couldn't face the train  ;)

Not so - There are many fresh-air freaks around - who insist onm oppening windows even in depths of winter.....

Well.. I think I've found a lot of displaced passengers from the long gone 18.33... I've been on the 18.36 a couple of times but it keeps getting to Maidenhead late which has put me and I guess other people off of getting it as it's so much slower than the 18.33 even before it's delayed..

I think most people are doing what I am doing and getting the first non stop to Maidenhead train after the 18.18 which is now the 19.06... Tonight it was packed.. I got to Paddington nearly ten minutes before it left and already it was standing room only and only 3 carriages.. And yes.. it was a (non) air-conditioned train so yet again we were heated up to a lot hotter than the outside temperature.. Sweat was dripping off people.. We were all packed in like animals.. Oh.. no.. animals wouldn't be allowed to travel like that..How can this be acceptable day after day? I just don't understand it.. ???

get the slower 1836....

...which must arrive before the 1906. Or the 1845 (not non-stop but is that important?)

The 1906 used to be a very nice train for Twyford (arriving on plat 4) but the last couple of times I tried it was over full well before departure - which now makes sense if as Jo reckons additional M'head passengers are on it.

IMHO a couple of non-stop to M'head and Twyford (and Reading) trains in peak morning and evening would relieve the pressure on all the services and make the journey bearable.  (3 car would do)

I know - there's a whole region to administer, everyone has there own wants, cash is an issue, why run trains with a bit of capacity when a full to bursting is better VFM etc. etc.

I assume the Health & Saftey issue has been debated already about overcrowded trains.  Presumably the principle is that if everyone is jammed in they don't all fly about the carriage in the event of an emergency stop or (god forbid) a crash

Been discussed with the FGW timetablers many times, and you're pretty much on the button, except to say that there just isn't any more stock to be had in the peaks and if there was, a lack of paths would still prevent it unfortunately - without making poor soles at other stations suffer further.

All stations are considered every timnetable, that's a promise - I sit on a tiometable committee, so I am aware of this....


yes, that certainly is one principle....


[/quote]

The 18.36 is scheduled to get to Maidenhead at 19.03 but the few times I've caught it it's been a lot later than that (it's not scheduled to leave Maidenhead until 19.14 so the fact it arrives late doesn't spoil any FGW performance figures..) That is why I don't get it.. The 18.33 was scheduled to arrive in about 20 minutes..

I did find the rest of the 18.33 passengers tonight on the 18.18.. That was horrible and overcrowded too..

I just wish, as do a lot of other people, that we could have our 18.33 back...

There is now a 48 minute gap with no non stop service from Paddington to Maidenhead.. I've never known it be as bad as that and I've been commuting for many years..

Incidentally, a nice hot train again.. Being one of the (non) air conditioned ones.. It really isn't pleasant or fair that we should pay money to be treated worse than animals.. but still.. we pay.. >:( ???

Better than what Slough has in the evening peak..

I must have got lucky when I got the 18:36 to Maidenhead last month, as it only got there one minute late, and surprisingly it wasn't that overcrowded, if I remember correctly it's a 5 car turbo, so it was fairly evenly spread.

The dwell time at Maidenhead is to take into account the rear turbo is detached at Maidenhead before the front portion continues to Bourne End,

Well I braved the 18.36 tonight as I had no other choice..

The bad news is that the heating was on or seemed to be (well in the front train of the two bits anyway).. The good news is that someone mentioned this to the train despatcher on the platform at Paddington.. The bad news is that either he did nothing, or nothing could be done.. he certainly didn't give us any feedback so we have to guess here..

When I got off (incidentally 7 minutes late on a train that already gets us home 11 minutes later than the 18.33 used to - so another 18 minutes FGW has stole of my time  >:() I bumped into a friend who was in a different carriage but she said it was so hot she felt very faint..I tended to agree with her on that one..

When I got back to my car the temperature was registering as 25 which felt cool compared to what we had just been through as it was between 5 and 10 degrees (my estimate) hotter than this on the train.. maybe more..

I will be asking FGW to take this train out of service or at least to turn the aircon/heating off until it is mended..

Question - would you have rather travelled as stated or had the train cancelled?

Because, unfortunately, that was probably the only other option. I would suggest that the heating would have ben off if it were possible to turn it off...

If I had known how hot it was going to be, I'd have waited half hour for the next train (so I wouldn't have minded if it were cancelled..It really was very unpleasant if not dangerous.. I am waiting to here back from FGW in the hope that they sort that train out. Oh and all the other ones that are the same..

Now if only they'd not taken the 18.33 off the timetable and forced us all onto this very unpleasant and generally late train..

I think I've said this before, but it's better to speak to the driver rather than the dispatcher.  If it's the front carriage then the driver just needs to look back over his/her shoulder and flick a couple of switches to knock out the heating (on a 166 this will also switch off the air-con).  If it's another carriage then the driver will need to go back to that carriage to isolate the heating, but if there's a few minutes to go before departure, and it's not one of the lazy grumpy ones, then it should be OK!  ;)

Remember though, that if it's really hot outside, even with the heating off it will still feel warmer than the outside world due to the greenhouse effect - especially when the train is stationary so there is no air flow through the windows.

Discussion of Turbo aircon (or rather the lack of it) is currently in full flow on this thread in Across the West:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=6176.60

The 1551 To the Cotswolds is a turbo today...again

Why do we put up with and pay huge amounts for this (*expletive removed*) service?

Oh yes, because there's no alternative!

The 165/166 fleet and local service is in my opinion shameful - refreshed or not

How do FGW have the nerve to use part of the name of a once great railway?

Rant over!

(before anyone gets upset - the comments relate to the trains, not staff)

Simple - that's what they inherited from British Rail (you should have seen some of the scrap metal that used to operate local trains in the Thames Valley before the Turbos came along), they're only mid-way through their life expectancy and there isn't a whole lot of money sloshing around at the moment to replace train fleets en masse that have at least 10 years' use left in them. You can't really blame the Turbos on FGW - in fact under their stewardship there are now more HSTs working shorter distance Thames Valley services than there were 6-7 years ago under the auspices of Thames Trains.

So where is all my money (and everyone elses) going then? The train fares are pretty extortionate and seeing how many hundreds of people who got off my train tonight (not the 18.36... I totally refuse to get that one anymore) even that one train was quite a money spinner no doubt..

And yes I agree with your point about more HSTS doing maybe not shorter distances but stopping at places like Maidenhead..

That is why it is SUCH a backward step to remove the 18.33 HST 20 minute to Maidenhead service and replace it with the 18.36, very hot, turbo, that is timetabled for 27 minutes but usually takes a lot longer...

Fortunately this is my last week of going into work late due to Junior school starting times so I will never ever have to get the 18.36 again hopefully as I can leave work earlier.. However it still doesn't make the situation right...

Sorry Jo but realistically most fares, especially season tickets, aren't extortionate. They actually represent a realistic proportion of the cost of your journey. You can't legitimately compare to other European railway systems since, for the most part, government policy there is to subsidize their railways to the hilt. Policy in the UK is that they should pay their way as far as possible, which is an issue that can only be changed by the government, rather than the TOCs. But even now most TOCs still receive a goverment subsidy because fares do not cover the actual cost of their operation.

Now, I'll happily admit the structure of the industry as it is now does no-one any favour when it comes to keeping down costs and is long overdue for some streamlining. However, even if you took out the different layers of Network Rail/contractors/subcontractors/TOCs/rolling stock companies that we have at the moment, railways are still very expensive to run. You need to pay large numbers of staff (some of whom, including signallers and drivers, can command a relatively high wage due to the skilled nature of their jobs). You need to own and maintain a fleet of trains (which, bought bew at current prices come in well north of GBP 1 million a carriage), as well as dealing with ever-increasing energy costs, be they for coal or electricity. Then there is the vast task of maintaining and periodically upgrading thousands of miles of track and signalling. All the while you're operating in an environment where safety is the absolute priority, so there can be no corners cut when it comes to maintenance either of trains or infrastructure. There is nothing inherently safe about 500 tons of metal running at 125 mph: the reason the railways have such a good safety record is because a lot of money is spent on staff and equipment to keep them that way.

Getting back to the Maidenhead point, I know that it's been a huge pain for you personally, but looking at it in the context of the whole FGW operation it's a fairly minor timetable amendment. The train planners did not make it thinking "here's a good idea, if we do this it'll completely screw over the commuters from Maidenhead who use this train every day" but will have done so for good reasons to allocate limited resources elsewhere where they may actually benefit more people than are inconvenienced by the change. The staff who make these decisions are professionals acting in the interests of the majority and not out of spite against the commuters of Maidenhead, although it may feel that way to you sometimes.

_{Edited to amend typos}

Thanks Inspector_blakey.. I can totally understand what you say.. I will just say though that it's not just me it's a pain for.. It's several hundred people who used to get that train to Maidenhead alone let alone the other stops en route.. I think they've replaced it with a 18.33 to Exeter as I'm sure that never used to be on the timetable.. It would be nice if it stopped off at Maidenhead en route.. ;)

Anyway as I say.. after this week it's not my problem.. But it is still a problem for several hundred people who used to get that train...

It still doesn't excuse FGW for nearly making people pass out last night.. I was on the 18.18 tonight.. I'd walked for about half hour so yes the train felt hot when I got on in the usual air con carriage but not half as hot as last night when I'd not walked far before getting on the train.. But once we got moving it became much more cool and bearable.. Last night they were definitely blowing hot air on to us.. Does no one check the train before it leaves?

It isn't new. It used to depart at 18:36.

Aah thanks Ollie.. I still haven't found where the train that used to be the 18.33 has ended up then  :D

Do you mean the stock that formed that train went to?

Thanks Inspector_Blakey.   Of course I do appreciate it is a huge logistical operation and money is an issue. And I acknowledge the point about HST working some local stations

In moments of selfishness we all naturally consider our journey to be the most important at the expense of others.  To illustrate the point whilst I share a lot of JoHoare's frustrations about the turbo fleet, personally I have no problem with losing the 18.33 as Twyford now is the first stop on the 18.47 Cheltenham Spa service which is generally easier to find a seat on as its not full of hundreds of pesky Maidenhead people!  ;)

However in the interests of selflessness - Jo, if you're now able to leave earlier and can make the 17.33 Oxford HST - very pleasant, lots of spare seats.   It does make you wonder though that when they were looking to redeploy stock - comparing the usage of the 17.33 with the 18.33 Oxford services - they chose the more popular one to axe!

I also accept the point about the cost of season tickets being relatively reasonable.  But nearly ^1000 pa (and more without a season ticket) to part my car on a tatty piece of open space outside the station?  That is taking the proverbial. (yes, I know, not FGW's responsibility)

Hmmm - depends at which station car park you are parking at....they may well set the tariff!

Oh if only I could leave earlier I would.. But yes I agree.. removing the much more popular one of the two trains is very strange indeed..

Twyford - fairly sure it was ^600+ last year, ^900+ this year

I think that station car park fees are set by FGW....

It's currently ^980 for an annual car park ticket at Twyford.  :(

Sounds about right and was at least a 40% increase on on the previous year.  Now almost a third of the cost of the rail season ticket - where's the justification of that?

(gone a bit off-topic, sorry)

Whoever sets the price, I believe I'm right in saying that there is absolutely no regulation of car park prices at all, so it really is a 'through the back door' way of getting more income.

Correct. A completely commercial decision.

Bonus points for anyone why can manage a segue that gets this thread back on topic... ;)

It would be interesting to see if car park revenue has fallen, with fewer people choosing to use the train, as a result of the removal of the 1833 service from London?

 ;)

From FGW live updates:


 ::)

There are some rumours that 6 sets of Adelantes are to return for Oxford services.  It is believed that East Coast may no longer require them for services to Lincoln and FGW are to get them back into their fleet.  Hopefully, the HST's can run through to Hereford with 180's for the shorter services.

Can't be six, there are only the five ECML sets not accounted for (three are on hire to Northern).

I can't believe this rumour though, FGW were pretty keen to get rid of them before, they justified the purchase of all those spare HSTs by First Group on the basis of allowing the 180s to go.  There'd be quite a few top managers having to retract earlier 180 ctiticism if this went ahead, I think...

Paul

We've had rumours like that posted here fairly recently...

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=6956.msg71727#msg71727 (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=6956.msg71727#msg71727)

AFAIK it seemed to be based on some gossip or other on RailForums, I'm not aware that there has been any corroboration of said rumours from any reliable source that's not just internet/messroom chatter, although I stand to be corrected if anyone knows better!

From FGW live updates:


 ::)

I was on the 18.18 Paddington to Maidenhead earlier.. It was six cars but still horribly overcrowded.. We want the 18.33 back... pppllleeeaseee FGW  ::) ;D

The HST set which was planned for the 18:33 was used on another service.

Sorry - the 18:33?  We were rather more concerned at the 17:33 (or even the 18:18) today?  ::)

There used to be an 18.33 first stop Maidenhead.. It was removed (as I'm sure it says earlier on here but there are a lot of pages to read so I'll say it her too).. So there is no 18.33 to Maidenhead any more.. resulting in the overcrowding (and hot overcrowding) on my train home tonight :(

Whoops my mistake, yeah I meant the 17:33.

When your dealing with loads of trains every day, which have problems on every day, when upstairs decide to change things every day, set swaps every day, you kinda get tired and hit submit before you think.

Just as well you don't do that in your line of work, eh, SDS Pad.....?

:-\

The 19.06 (two carriages - I'm sure it used to be 3) Paddington to Maidenhead was packed tonight when I got on at 19.00.. by the time it left it was far too overcrowded...Again conditions that cattle wouldn't be allowed to travel in yet fare paying passengers are allowed to be..

Yet still FGW are unable to work out that an intercities worth of people (the removed 18.33) just cannot fit onto the trains that already ran before and were already busy... I really do think they should travel on the 18.18 and 19.06 departures in particular to see what they have created.. It really isn't nice...But still they take my money..


HHmm I have just had a good idea.. Maybe we could pay our fares calculated by train length divided by number of passengers? That would have made my train tonight very very cheap.. Yes ok there might have to be a bit of factoring in of extra fuel due to extra weight of people on busier trains... but it would still have been a bargain for me today I reckon  ;D ;)

I just repeat my suggestion near the beginning of this thread that a Maidenhead stop be put in the 1833 Padd-Exeter.  This train follows the 1830 Padd-Bristol, and from a timing point of view might just as well call at Maidenhead as sit at Reading gas works every night waiting for the 1830 Padd-Bristol to clear P4.

Depends how full the 18:33 currently is I suppose?  I mean, it might look good in the timetable pages, but there's not much point if there's 'no room at the inn' already.  Anyone know?

I will try and get to Paddington for the 18.36 tonight, firstly to see how that is these days and secondly to see what the 18.33 looks like as it leaves...

Oh well.. I just about got the 18.36 but since it was decided it should run from platform 13 to give us all some exercise (the second time yesterday I had to run for a train) I didn't get a chance to see if the 18.33 had enough room for some of us Maidenhead people..

Incidentally the 18.36 was quite full and although only a minute or two late arriving at Maidenhead it was still about 13 minutes later than the 18.33 used to arrive.. :(

I have put this problem forward for the May11 timetable review. There's nothing being done for Dec10 though.

Thank you.. I don't hold out much hope though.. I complained about the 19.06 journey on the 20th and got a fairly standard reply (today) which I've seen before as well as an apology.. But twice since then I've had to travel in similar conditions so I am thinking of writing back to tell them that too..

The service they are providing is definitely getting worse at the moment which is a shame as they were doing so well