Great Western Coffee Shop

Short formed, rather than 8 car HST it was a 3 car turbo, type unknown since I couldnt get far enough into the vestibule to see if the carriages had (non functional) AC.

This is a busy train at the best of times and friday afternoon in summer it is heaving. Today there were cycles propped up against the doors as it entered Oxford.

Wow it must have been packed I caught the same train last week to Slough where I changed in to non A/C 166.

It was still full and standing on leaving Slough which it did at 16:10. The best bit was arriving at Paddington by boat.

This was my return journey my outward journey was Datchet Teddington.

And is normally full and standing beyond Oxford too.

How anyone in FGW control thinks that using a Turbo on this train is acceptable has always escaped me. It is:

1. The first train from London to Worcestershire for two-and-a-half hours (the 14.21 only runs to Moreton-in-Marsh) and the only through train from London to Worcester in a four-hour period.
2. The last Cotswold Line train that off-peak tickets are valid on from London and Reading until the 19.21.
3. The first practical going home from work/school train out of Oxford and if you miss it there's a 45-minute wait until the halts train, so people tend to make damn sure they don't miss it.

Which all adds up to a very large number of people wanting to travel on this train, for most of its journey, well beyond Oxford. It is clearly a case where the argument that something, in the shape of a Turbo, is better than nothing is of extremely dubious merit. If a Turbo appears, it is guaranteed a place in that day's list of most overcrowded trains anywhere on the network, never mind the potential safety issues. It might upset people going to Cardiff or Bristol to nick their HST for a change but they have another train in 30 minutes (and Bristol passengers also have the option of going to Parkway and changing there).

Even redoubling offers only a modest prospect of relief, with the 14.21 likely to run out to Worcester, but that will still leave a 90-minute gap to the 15.51 so this change is unlikely to to actually do much, if anything, to relieve the pressure on that service. Would that there were the odd Turbo spare to slot in another working out of Oxford at 16.20-ish, even if only to Moreton-in-Marsh, which would certainly help, but as accounts elsewhere on this board of the overcrowding on peak Thames Valley services illustrate, that's just not going to happen

And again tonight....22/7/2010

15:51 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill due 18:07
This train has been revised.This train will be formed of 3 coaches instead of 8.This is due to an earlier train fault.
Last Updated: 22/07/2010 14:47

Anyone out there now for definite that these are 'due to an earlier train fault'? Or is it possible that the turbostitution is down to the lack of serviceable HST power cars caused by recent arguments with pointwork and trees?

Well, with my pedant's hat on, those are train faults that happened (a lot) earlier   ;)

It's not a planned substitution, eg the booked HST was on this turn yesterday, but with the 125 fleet stretched to the limit due to recent events, there's unlikely to be a 'hot spare' at Old Oak, provision of which was the reason FGW acquired its 53rd HST some time after the rest of the fleet.

Any in-service failure at the moment is likely to mean it's Turbo time and since they don't go west of Didcot, it's going to be an Oxford/Cotswold diagram that loses the HST so that Bristol/Cardiff/Cheltenham gets its train as booked. While the 15.51 was an HST yesterday, I think a couple of other workings between London and Oxford were cancelled and others short-formed, so it's just the luck of the draw and when/where the failures happen, eg the 18.33 from London was Turbo-ised the other day.

And as irksome as it may be for Cotswold line passengers to have trains substituted by Turbos, I think if there is a shortage of HSTs is it the only sensible option available to FGW control since as you said they do not work west of Didcot. It's either that or cancel a Bristol/Cardiff/Cheltenham etc service outright to provide a Cotswold HST.

There is another option (which was used tonight I think) which is to put a Turbo(s) on the 1D57 17:33 PAD to OXF and return 1P75 19:31 OXF to PAD.  Then you have time to rustle up a HST for that diagrams (IW028) last working, 1C31 20:45 PAD to BRI.  Much preferable in my opinion as the 17:33ex PAD is of course a busy train but for a far less length of time in that most people pile off at Maidenhead.

There is of course other factors to consider; fuel, crew and so on, and you can jiggle things about too much on occasions, but I would personally go for that option given the choice.

But as I said above, there are a number of specific issues with putting a Turbo on the 15.51. It's a rather different matter from the 17.50, where Maidenhead, Reading and Oxford passengers have a number of other options, and where the Cotswold Line passengers have another HST in 30 minutes' time (and one has left 30 minutes before it, bit different from a two-hours-plus gap) - looking at numbers on board Turbo-ised 17.50s past Oxford, I would say many not in a hurry do indeed opt for the 18.22.

With the 15.51, a Turbo isn't up to the job, however convenient it is for the control room. Next time they do this, I would suggest someone from control is sent straight down to Swindon station to catch a train to Reading, where they should (always assuming they can actually squeeze on board in the first place) join the 15.51 and travel at least as far as Moreton-in-Marsh and see how they like it.

I agree with willc's comments above - substituting a Turbo on the 17:50 is much more sensible than on the 15:51.

The earlier comment about this being the last train on which day returns to London are available becomes even more relevant during the school holidays.

Off Peak Return (SVR) tickets to Hanborough and beyond are valid on all services from London and Reading. It is the Off Peak Day (CDS/CDR) and 1st Class Off Peak Return (FSR) that are barred between 1600 and 1915.

EDIT: Having said that, regarding the SVR..... yet again NFM 06 and certain Online Journey Planners disagree. Avantix WebTIS based sites (East Coast, London Midland, redspottedhanky.com) bar use of the SVR to Cotswold Line stations on the 1750 and 1822, potentially overcharging passengers by nearly ^20.

Oh silly me, what I meant was tickets valid at off-peak times as opposed to the ones that were stupidly and confusingly renamed off-peak.

Ones which, due to Cotswold Line easements, despite having off-peak printed on them, are valid in the peak (on the halts train from the halts plus Hanborough, and all stops on the Cathedrals Express, for travel into London, and all afternoon/evening peak return trains when travelling to stations beyond Oxford). And are also bought by people travelling into London off-peak but returning in the peak.

I'm sure someone, somewhere, will know of other easements, which make just as much of a nonsense of this change of terminology, which most certainly did not simplify matters. Hands up anyone who has ever heard a person ask for an off-peak day single at a booking office. What a pity we don't get Cotswold Line super off-peaks as well, to add to the utter confusion.

The term Saver is still alive and well up here (such naughty staff - and naughty passengers, me included, who will persist in asking for them), because it helps indicate the different conditions that apply between it and actual genuine off-peak tickets, for travel off-peak.

*Edit, after seeing bignosemac's edit - See, even the programmers are confused... I hope you've mailed FGW to point this out.

I changed trains at Birmingham New Street yesterday. The platform display for the 09:50 departure to London had a warning that "off-peak tickets are not valid on this service". It's due into Euston at 11:14.

If any other industry tried to get away with such an absurdity, they'd be reported, quite rightly, to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Oh, and the train itself was a 5-coach Voyager.

I didn't email FGW, willc, as it appears to be an issue with those retailers using Avantix WebTIS.

I called East Coast web support after finding an 01 number for them. They agreed it was an error.... but only after my prompting them to look at the ticket restriction code in The Manual. Said they would looked to get it fixed, soon as.

Also e-mailed ATOS Origin (no way was I calling redspottedhanky.com's Customer Support at ^1 a minute!) as they provide Avantix WebTIS.

Isn't it a bit strange that two pieces of related software provided by the same company (Avantix Traveller NFM and Avantix WebTIS) can disagree?

When it comes to railway ticketing in this country, surely strange is the only adequate description.

And that is also wrong on another level - Off Peak tickets are valid on ALL Virgin Trains services if accompanied by a valid railcard. So that notice would be WRONG even if it were for the 0730 service.

Well what the screen should show then is "Off Peak Tickets not valid on this service, unless you have a railcard, and are travelling on a ticket that has been priced by Virgin Trains"

Doesn't apply  ...'on a ticket that has been priced by Virgin Trains' You'll certainly get short shrift on a (non-Virgin) connecting service. Or 'ALL Virgin Trains services'. Example: Holyhead to Chester is priced by ATW. Combine both your posts and you're there!  ;)

NFM 06 says:

Holders of 16-25, Senior, 
Disabled Persons, HM Forces   
and Family & Friends Railcards
, New Deal Photocards and     
Inter-Rail (Code 70) Cards   
travelling with Off-Peak     
tickets may use ANY Virgin   
train service, as long as the
journey being made is priced 
by Virgin Trains.

Well I was more saying my comment in relation to the train in question mentioned. You are of course correct in your quote that it has to be a Virgin Trains service too.

The post I was referring to was about New Street to Euston which is priced by Virgin Trains.

The train in question (an XX50) is a Virgin Trains service.

Therefore, my post was correct. Off Peak tickets are valid when accompanied with a valid railcard.

Ah, but you said 'ALL' and you put it in capitals.  ;)

Exactly they may be boarding at Birmingham but doesn't mean they have come from Birmingham :P

And again today.....

15:51 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill due 18:07
This train will be formed of 3 coaches instead of 8.
Last Updated: 26/07/2010 14:49

When it is necessary to turbo-ise this service, what's to stop FGW running a 2+3 turbo?
Lack of stock?
Would extra traincrew be required for this combination on the Cotswold Line?
The stations that this service calls at, can all take 5 carriages I think.

Not sure...I was going to suggest that it might be an issue of platform lengths, but I'm not that familiar with the calling points or their platforms (one I do know that could be an issue is Honeybourne, if that train calls there, since there is no selective door opening facility on the turbo stock and I think that platform is only around 3 cars long).

I don't know what the rules are as regards operating turbos in multiple outside DOO territory, whether there needs to be a guard on both units or not. Then again, it may simply by the given the refurbishment programme and the fact that this service runs during the evening rush hour, there simply isn't the spare turbo stock to strengthen it to 3+2.

The Turbo only appears in the first place because they are short of a train. To provide the Turbo, the chances are they will pinch a set off a 3+2 or 3+3 combination intended for Thames Valley peak duty and they're not going to remove an entire formation at that time of the day.

More important though is that due to the three-coach platform lengths and lack of SDO on turbos, anything over three coaches can't call at Hanborough, Shipton (westbound only) and Honeybourne unless one set is locked out of use. I'm not sure how long Pershore's platform is.

A 3+2 can run if calling Kingham, Moreton-in-Marsh and Evesham only (and perhaps Pershore), but I've only ever ridden on one once, after a hideous delay at Oxford years ago, when I think the halts set plus the three-car that had come coupled to it from London as the 16.21 from Paddington ran through to Worcester after the then 15.21 from London was cancelled at Oxford.

Hanborough and halts passengers were put in buses or taxis and I think those bound for Honeybourne were going to be sent on in taxis from Evesham. I'm pretty sure a 3+3 is just too long, except westbound at Kingham. 3+3 formations do appear occasionally after a delay/breakdown, to move a set where it is needed, but the rear set is always locked out of use in such cases.

And today, it is the 1122 Paddington to Great Malvern which gets the Turbo treatment!

5-car length.

This was due to the failure this morning of the 0709 Oxford to Paddington service due to a faulty speedo in the leading power car.  The set was turned at Foxhall Jn., Didcot and ran empty to Old Oak Common.  Its diagram was then covered by a Turbo (i.e. 1122 PAD-GMV, 1434 GMV-PAD).  It was hoped to find a replacement HST for the 1750 PAD-WOS but not sure if this happened.

Didn't use the 17.50 tonight as I was working late but given that it features on the current running list of services affected by alterations above, looks likely the Turbo stayed on the duty for the rest of the day.

Replaced by a Turbo again today - Friday July 30

So FGW couldn't find a HST to operate the 1551, but presumably they could to operate the 'additional' 1436 to Exeter St David's. It indicates where their priorities lie.

I travelled from Reading to Pershore yesterday (1321 ex Padd). There were a handful of standing pax leaving Oxford, though perhaps every seat might not have been filled. However with people travelling away for the weekend and carrying suitcases, holdalls etc, it isn't the most comfortable of journeys.

   

The simple fact is that there's no way any intercity services other than the Cotswold Line can be operated with Turbos, so for the Cotswold line if there's an HST shortage then Turbo substitution is a viable option rather than the rest of the system where it'll be an outright cancellation. Not ideal but better than no service at all...?

Anyway, the current HST shortage (are we still two sets down...?) caused by the incidents at Long Rock and Lavington would not have been anticipated when the additional summer service to Exeter was being planned several months ago.

I'm afraid I'm with the locals on this one!

Looking at the frequency of service between London and the Cotsworlds compared to London and Wales / London and the West Country, I believe the impact of cancelling one of the westbound services would have less of an impact than "tubosing" the Cotswold route.

Here's another thought, and I know it would be extended journey times - but why not have a couple of HST timetabled from Cardiff via Hereford and Oxford to Paddington and return!  This would then no missed Welsh service whilst providing a service for the Cotswold line... or is this practical suggestion of mine far too naive?

Still two HSTs down. The one that hit the tree at Lavington and the one that hit the dangling catenary and got 25KVA through the electrics.

In the particular case of the 15.51, no, it isn't, due to a series of specific reasons affecting passenger numbers, noted above. And while the schools are off at the moment, the pupils' places are taken by people visiting Oxford for the day while on holiday in the Cotswolds and Vale.

If you still don't believe me, Insider posted the following in the thread about yesterday's chaos:


Eighty standing would mean that even with an Adelante there would still be at least 50 without seats and in Turbo terms it's absolutely rammed - dangerously so, I would say - never mind all the big bags that many people travelling out of London on Fridays seem to need for the weekend. Good job this particular overloaded Turbo didn't encounter "a bad track bump" at speed.

Just because reaching for a Turbo is a nice easy option for the control room doesn't mean it is one that they should always exercise (and I'm not doctrinaire about it, see my comments on the case of the 17.50, though those going to Maidenhead may well disagree).

I suggested above that the next time they did this, someone should travel from Swindon to see the results of their decision. Sadly, I don't expect there was anyone in the throng trying to squeeze on at Reading or Oxford. I wonder what the loading on that extra train to Exeter is like? Anyone know?

Perhaps the moral of all of this is to take a photo next time anyone's on one of these trains (or others that are heavily-laden).

No - because you'll be arrested under anti-terror laws and your camera will be confiscated and destroyed by the BTP. ;D

Or, to non Daily Mail readers, you won't.

I'll stress as usual that it's 'cabin gossip' but there has been murmurings of HSS Drivers learning Turbos, so that the odd lightly loaded lunchtime train from Paddington to Bristol and return can be operated by a Turbo.  I doubt that'll go down too well if it's true!

Don't read the Mail ...

... here's the Paddington to Great Malvern train that called at Reading yesterday (Saturday) at 15:55

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/gm1555_1.jpg)

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/gm1555_2.jpg)

I'm pretty sure that the loadings are very different Monday to Friday - as it pulled out, I estimate that between 50% and 70% of the seats were taken ...

Er, yes. Plus on Saturday you have an hourly sequence out of London from 13.21 to 18.21, all running to Worcester and most going beyond, not a 90-minute gap before the 15.51 (and with the preceding train only going as far as Moreton-in-Marsh), and then no through service for another 90 minutes, and no issue with peak-time ticket restrictions.

Would like to see a 90mph DMU keep to those timings.

Well next weekend, the 'Big Chill' pop festival is taking place at Eastnor, near Malvern with 35,000 expected (I think), so those Friday trains on the Cotswold Line will be extra-busy.....

Travelled on the 09:17 from Shrub Hill to Paddington today (Sunday Aug 1).

A Turbo.

This one is into Paddington at 11:52. The next one is two hours later. No prizes then for deducing that there will be a certain amount of day out traffic on it.

And indeed, it's standing room only from Charlbury.

At Oxford, sense prevailed, and an extra 3-car unit was attached to the back of the train. But, in the infinite wisdom that characterises Oxford, this unit was only added after all the passengers waiting on the platform had got on. No announcement to the effect that "there's more room in the 3 coaches that we've just added at the back of this train".

Attached photo shows interior shot on departure from Oxford. Do I have to start posting these on WikiLeaks instead of here?

As a result of the engineering work at Reading ("only a limited number of platforms in use"), we formed an orderly queue to get into the station, stopping well outside at 11:07 and then stopping twice more before arriving in Reading at 11:24. The joys of a well-planned timetable...

By Slough, all the aisles were full as well as the vestibules.

No catering trolley, not that it could have got through the train after Charlbury.

Came back on the 17:42 from Paddington. Again no catering trolley. Again standing in the vestibules, but fortunately only as far as Oxford.

I normally avoid travelling on any train on Sunday, but this feels horribly as if it's typical of FGW on a Sunday.

[Note to moderators - perhaps this thread could be renamed as "Cotswold Line journeys operated by Turbos - planned and HST substitutions"?]

Not sure that's entirely fair. Normal procedure should see the set starting at Oxford in the platform first, to soak up passengers joining there before the loaded set arrives, to avoid the situation you describe. Though why they didn't keep the doors shut until the second set had been coupled, with people being told to move up the platform and get on that one beats me, as I've been on trains where that has happened. Annoying if you want to get off at Oxford, but makes sense.

And there aren't any trolleys on Sunday Turbos except for the true horror that is the 18.30 from Hereford to London, three and a half hours on a Turbo (and i think the trolley's only for part of the journey) - is this the longest through service in Britain operated by a train with inner-suburban 3+2 seats?

Done!

CfN.  ;) :D ;D

Obviously if I was planning on catching this train then I would be severely cheesed off to see the booked HST substituted for a Turbo, putting things politely. However I'm not so I can take a dispassionate view on the subject.

Firstly, I suspect this repeated substitution is largely due to the fact that FGW is currently missing two HSTs due to circumstances completely beyond their control and that could not have been anticipated, so I'm sure the plan to run an additional Friday service to Exeter was entirely viable when first envisaged.

Secondly despite being a scientist I am a reasonable human being (no, really) and can see that under certain circumstances the most practical solution would be to can another train to provide an HST for this particular Cotswold service. However given the current DfT performance regime under which FGW operates, I can't see this ever being contemplated because as far as I'm aware there's no penalty for running a train short-formed (or if there is, it's much smaller than a cancellation penalty).

So, run the HST somewhere else and Turbo-tute the Cotswold service = no cancellation and one short-forming on the score card. Penalty nil (or reduced, anyway)? Cancel a Bristol/Cardiff service and poach the HST to run the Cotswold service = FGW pay the penalty for an outright cancellation. Twice, assuming the return working of that set is also cancelled. Here's an important question - what are the loadings on the return working of the 1511 Cotswold service on a Friday? Overall does cancelling an out-and-back Bristol or Cardiff working somewhere else lead to greater inconvenience than turbo-tuting the 1511? I don't know the answer but would be interested to find out from someone "in the know".


Well, it's going back a little way but they did used to scud around the GWML between Didcot and Temple Meads not that many years ago. I'm aware they ate up capacity at the time (that being one of the stated reasons for the service being withdrawn) but it may be a last resort in extremis. Caveat to that comment is that I don't have a good enough memory to know how the HST service then compares with now. Would also need train managers to be trained or refreshed on the Turbo stock seeing as it can't work driver-only west of Didcot.

_{Edited to correct embarrassing schoolboy spelling error. And no, I am not telling you what it was.}

Mon Aug 2 : 15:51 Paddington - Worcester (and 18:48 return) HST replaced by Turbo

Has happened on numerous occasions long before the toppling tree and I have no doubt will continue to happen on occasion after the HSTs are back in action, but it doesn't make it right, unless you don't give a damn about the passengers and their safety and comfort, both of which are seriously compromised every time this happens. But hey, I wouldn't want poor little First Group - pre-tax profit for the year to the end of March ^264m - to suffer a penalty payment.

The train that the 15.51 loses out to is the 15.48 to Cheltenham, not a Bristol or South Wales service. I don't imagine its back loading on the 18.34 is any more impressive than the 18.50 from Worcester any day of the week and I'll bet it doesn't load anything like as heavily, as consistently (especially beyond Swindon, which is also served by two HSTs from Paddington within a matter of minutes either side of the 15.48), outbound from London as the 15.51 does throughout the week, well beyond Oxford.

Gauging shouldn't pose a problem to Cheltenham and if a Turbo is acceptable for a three-and-a-half hour run to Hereford, then a couple of hours to Cheltenham should be a doddle, plus you'd get a super-fast change of ends at Gloucester...

To jump to the defence of the planners, the timetable on Sunday with just 2 through platforms was robust.  However, a signal failure just outside the station at Reading meant that every train had to be talked past by signaller and it was this which caused the delay.  From the time that services started running after the engineering works which probably caused the problem, the first train to run to Paddington on time was about 1630, most operated 10 to 15 minutes late.

Thanks for that very useful background information, Fish - and welcome to the Coffee Shop forum!  :)

The profits made by First Group are something of an irrelevance to this discussion, since no commercial operation is going to choose the option that results in it being hit with the greater financial penalty, regardless of its bottom line.

However, you make a persuasive case for sending the Turbo to Cheltenham in the situation described, and who knows, maybe common sense might prevail and this could happen in the future.

The only other comment I'd take issue with is the supposed "safety" implications of overcrowded trains: this one has been done to death by me elsewhere on the forum, not to mention by the HSE and RSSB in the past, and all serious work on the subject appears to have yielded the conclusion that there is certainly an issue of comfort but not safety. Are passengers really so hypnotized by the herd mentality that they crush themselves into what they consider to be unsafe conditions? I'm not sure. Overcrowded trains are certainly uncomfortable - been there and done that repeatedly. I have travelled on many, many trains that have been absolutely full and standing, especially HSTs on match days at the Millennium Stadium when two London teams were playing during the period that Wembley was closed. These were standing room only, and not much of that. And yes, it sucks having to stand wedged in the vestibule for an hour or more. But despite the discomfort I never felt unsafe at all. We may have to agree to differ here willc, but I am firmly of the opinion that the "safety" card is a cooked-up, tabloid attention-grabbing tactic a la Bob Crow, rather than a tangible threat to anyone's well-being.

Thanks for posting that. I'd've been much more sympathetic had that been announced on the train. Seems odd that this didn't happen, given that the driver is having to be talked through in this way.

I agree with you about little danger from crushing, but I think that there must be an increased risk if someone passes out, has a heart attack or chokes etc if there is no space to get to them and help.

I don't think it is a risk worth doing anything about (compared with driving a car the risk is very low and the risk is one that the passenger freely enters into) but there is a risk and also a conspiracy to aviod acknowledging it becaus eif it was acknowledged lots of non-desirable things would flow from it including - 1) unfair pressure on staff to take decsions on crowding, 2)TOCs being sued,  3) trains kept at stations with passengers refusing to get off to ease crowding etc. 

You introduced penalty payments into this discussion and penalty payments are definitely relevant to First Group's bottom line, incur lots of them and the numbers don't look good.

If FGW was really that bothered about being short of HSTs, why doesn't it borrow one of XC's rather underemployed sets until its own are repaired? But then that would come with a cost, which would affect First Group's profits, etc.

Money flowing out of the business in the form of track access payments must also have played some part in the removal of a series of HST workings from the Cotswold Line last year. If you care to read anything about First Group's results, one of the specific points that they flagged up was the substantial amount of cost-cutting that had gone on. Penalty payments are presumably regarded as a cost to the business.

As for safety v comfort, remember this?

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=7263.0

Yes, the risks of anything bad happening on the railway are low, but I'm sure if you were able to pass through a sardine-can Turbo (eg the halts train when the 15.51 has been terminated at Oxford, been there, got the badge) and ask people if they felt safe, never mind comfortable, you wouldn't get many, if any, answers in the affirmative.

And how many casual customers come back after an experience like that? Which is also relevant to First Group's bottom line.

I understand what you're saying, and it's a cogent argument, but I'm not sure it holds water IMHO: frankly a train is not a good place to suffer some kind of medical emergency whatever the circumstances. Unless you get lucky and there's a medical professional nearby (even then they'll be hampered by lack of equipment) there's not a great deal can be done until the train reaches the next station where it can be met by the emergency services. In those circumstances it really doesn't make a lot of difference whether or not the train's busy, as even in the ideal situation there's not an enormous amount of help can be given before reaching a station where everyone can get off to clear out of the way anyway.


Yes, someone fainted on a busy train. That proves nothing. People faint all the time, and I would bet good money that in the case described it wasn't caused solely by being on a crowded stuffy train but there was some kind of underlying physiological issue. Undoubtedly the train journey won't have helped, but a bit of personal responsibility can go a long way: if I'm feeling peaky, I won't jam myself into a crowded train when there's another one that will take me to my destination within a reasonable length of time. That, incidentally, is a lesson that I learned the hard way whilst travelling home for Christmas a couple of years ago when I was recovering from one of the winter norovirus-type bugs that do the rounds occasionally. As far as Swansea the journey was fine, trains not too busy and, trying to put things delicately, I was able to get seats close to the vestibules. The west Wales connection from Swansea left during afternoon rush and was predictably very busy, but I squished on an ended up standing in the aisle towards the centre of the vehicle with a solid wall of people in front and behind. Do I blame the fact that I had an extremely uncomfortable and stressful journey on the TOC? No, it was my own stupid fault for crushing onto that train given the state of my health, when I could have just waited an hour and caught the next train.

Perhaps slightly controversially, let's try and take a cool-headed look at the facts rather than propagating ill-founded hysteria. I hardly need to point out that the Cotswold line and the 1511 service in particular are not uniquely affected by overcrowding: there are hundreds, maybe thousands of commuter trains every day that run in a similar or worse state, in the UK and around the world (the economics of the commuter railway make this almost inevitable, although that's an argument for another time and place).

If overcrowding really was as much of a safety issue as you suggest, people would be dying every day of the week. As far as I am aware, there is absolutely no recorded incidence of any death or serious injury occurring in the UK due to crowded trains. I'm sure you  can imagine the hysterics there would be in the press if it happened. Barring some sinister international collaboration of transport operators perpetuating a spectacular cover-up, that really ought to tell you something, i.e. the danger posed to passengers by train overcrowding is, at the very most, negligible.


I have no doubt that you're right about putting off casual business, but the perception of safety and its presence or absence are very, very different things. People are notoriously bad at judging just how safe they are: they'll get irrationally scared in an aircraft, but assume a feeling of invincibility when they're driving at 80 mph right up the backside of the car in front in bad weather whilst texting/calling etc etc. No doubt if they've been reading tabloid headlines spouting the kind of rubbish that Bob Crow and some rail users' groups like to put about then they might feel unsafe. It doesn't mean that they actually are.

An idea that's quite sound in principle, but aside from the cost, would probably come unstuck by the fact that XC's HST's aren't fitted with ATP, so I'm pretty sure that would prevent it from happening due to the red tape you'd have to cut through.

Though if FGW's key problem is the rakes of Mk3 trailers with wheel flats from front to back and fried electrics, then surely all you need would be the XC trailers between two FGW Class 43s, as was done with that MML set not long ago. One XC set is, I believe, spare Monday to Friday for the summer, with another spare Tuesday-Thursday and I see EMT has come up with an HST to loan to East Coast to cover for Mk4 overhauls.

Inspector, you talk of taking a cool-headed look at things, so yes, let's, and simplify matters and get right back to where we began. The 15.51 is a very heavily loaded train, such that it needs the diagrammed HST for the series of specific reasons that I outlined above. That FGW's only answer, whenever it has a problem, is to put on a train with half the seating capacity (and that's if one assumes people wedge themselves into the middle seats for want of any other option, while dozens more have to stand in the the aisles and doorways) is not good enough.

Wait another hour. Not if you're at London or Reading and you've got an off-peak (day) ticket, because they're not valid for the next three hours. Not after a two-and-a-half hour gap in departures from London to Worcester. Not at Oxford when you know the next train is a busy two-car Turbo, which, if you're going all the way, takes 100 minutes to cover 60 miles to Worcester. These factors do not apply to the 17.50, which is why a Turbo on that job is a different matter.

Virtually all of which I'd agree with, but none of it backs up your previous repeated assertion that the Turbo on the 1551 service is a safety issue.

Look, for all we may disagree on the details in principle, I wholeheartedly agree with you that this service should not end up as a Turbo. However, I'm trying to look at the reasons behind that decision and understand why it happens. I think one of the reasons that rail users' groups like the CLPG (http://www.clpg.co.uk/) and (hopefully in the fullness of time) the nascent Transwilts CRP (http://www.transwilts.org.uk/crp.html) have a good track record of success is because they make efforts to engage in sober, informed discussion with the railway companies and come up with intelligent, workable solutions to problems that arise. Indeed, I trust that the CLPG has noted what's happening and will be bringing the matter up with FGW, if it hasn't done so already. This constructive approach appears to me to be in stark contrast to, say, SHRUG (http://www.shrug.info/) or MTLS (http://www.moretrainlessstrain.co.uk/), who apparently just bounce around on the sidelines flinging brickbats and shrieking "it's not good enough", which solves absolutely nothing.

I know you have made some good suggestions for solving the problem of the 1551 being worked with Turbo equipment, and in a sane world at least one of them could be implemented immediately. However, as things stand FGW will never cancel the Cheltenham service to switch the HST onto the Worcester service when that can be worked by a Turbo instead because of the financial penalty: you said yourself above that FGW are cutting costs, so I don't think in the current climate there's a snowball in hell's chance of them voluntarily incurring a penalty payment when they can avoid it by running a Turbo up to Worcester. Put yourself in the shoes of the FGW controller who has to make that decision and account for it to his or her bosses who are holding the purse strings, and it starts to become more apparent why it's happening.

The solution of running a Turbo on the Cheltenham service makes good sense but there's no way it can happen immediately: as far as I am aware 165/166 equipment is not gauged to run to Cheltenham, and even if it was I very much doubt there are sufficient drivers and guards available (there may even be none) who have the required combination of route and traction knowledge. Not to mention pathing issues that may arise for the journey as far as Swindon.

I may be mistaken, and please correct me if I am, but I feel there is a subtext in some of your posts above that the Cotswold line suffers uniquely from some kind of targeted FGW intransigence. I would contend that that's not the case, and it simply suffers from being the only route where Turbo substitutions are actually currently possible (leaving aside the issue of their desirability). I really think that the current situation is more a result of cock-up (or unforeseen HST shortage, anyway) rather than conspiracy.

Repeated assertion - no, I used the word safety many posts in, and you then jumped all over it. I acknowledged the odds of anything happening were remote but a lot of it is about perception, as Bob Crowe knows, and this is a train covering 120 miles on a two-hour journey, not a London commuter train where people are travelling a matter of miles. If Mr O'Leary could do this on a plane, people probably wouldn't feel very safe there either.

Yes, the CLPG has politely raised this specific issue with substitutions on the 15.51, and the trend back to Turbos, and been politely rebuffed.

You say the Cotswold Line simply suffers because they can just send a Turbo but among the medium/long-distance routes out of Paddington it is the only one where this option can be used, so yes, it does have a unique status in this respect, not least in the specific case of the 15.51 and the specific factors that influence the large number of people who use it and explain it being allocated an HST in the first place - factors which just go out of the window if it's the 15.48 v the 15.51 - in the "current situation" and on other occasions. I seem to recall the 15.48 was one of the last regular 180 workings west of Didcot, which may be a clue as to its typical load.

And you can bet your life that if they were able to and did send a Turbo to Swindon and Cheltenham, Bristol or Cardiff, someone would be complaining long and hard about it here, because they would find it just as unsatisfactory and uncomfortable on a busy long-distance service as those of us along the Cotswold Line do.

I want people to enjoy satisfactory, comfortable journeys on FGW to this area and go away with good memories, not thinking 'that was horrible, I won't be getting the train again'. And on a route serving key tourist/day-trip/weekend-away territory, such as Oxford and the Cotswolds, that could do a lot more long-term harm to FGW's bottom line than a penalty payment, especially when another rail option between London and Oxford is on the horizon.

And one can only keep everything crossed that a Turbo does not appear on the 15.51 today or tomorrow, when lots of people will be trying to get to Great Malvern to catch the free shuttle buses to Eastnor Castle for the Big Chill. Has anyone warned the control room?

Warned?  I expect so.  Able or willing to do anything about it?  I doubt very much.  The 13:21 PAD-GMV was reported full and standing and has steadily lost time en-route and has left Oxford 12 minutes late.  I dread to think what'll happen if a HST doesn't turn up on the 15:51 today!  That being said, it's the return journey which always causes the most trouble as the great unwashed tend to turn up en-mass!

Oh, sorry I thought that the shortage was with power cars at the moment (i.e. the 'tree incident' etc.)  Mind you, there still might be problems as the XC sets don't have Selective Door Operating as far as I know - not sure, but wouldn't be surprised if that now goes against FGW's safety case?

I've never been able to form a clear picture from anything posted here or elsewhere as to what exactly it is that FGW is short of, given that there are 118 Class 43s in the fleet, with only 53 sets of coaches and what someone said was a requirement for 50 sets in traffic. If they are struggling to turn out 50 sets each day, due to a lack of 43s, that would suggest nearly a sixth of the fleet has been unavailable for assorted reasons for the past couple of weeks, which seems hard to believe, even allowing for programmed overhauls, encounters with trees, or anything else. It doesn't exactly bode well for the notion that the HSTs will just keep going forever if electrification is delayed.

If you borrowed a set or trailers, would the ORR be so hard-hearted as to not allow it to shuttle up and down between London and Bristol or Cardiff, where SDO is neither here nor there?

Yes, the control room's hands are tied to a large degree but if the passengers on the 13.21 were as "disruptive" as those on the 11.22 appear to have been
I wouldn't like to think what they might be like if a 165 or 166 is turned out for the 15.51 today or tomorrow. Happily, with minutes to go, no sign of a notice about the 15.51 today.

Are there other peculiarities associated with the XC HST stock since it was converted from loco-hauled mark 3s, or was the conversion done to make them completely compatible with all HST trailers and powercars?

Think you're right about SDO - I'm assuming the EMT sets don't have it either. In all honesty I can't see FGW being too keen on having the odd rogue HST in the fleet, even as a temporary measure, that doesn't have SDO. Since the safety case will now take SDO into account, it would mean that no HST without the kit would be able to call at any short platform stations. Which would mean a lot of cancelled stops if such a train found its way onto a Penzance service, for example. In fact, are there any HST diagrams now that don't require SDO at some point during the day? Bristol, Swansea, Cardiff services are OK without it, but I think it's needed for calls at Slough, at least in the up direction, which probably rules out any Oxford services. Also required for Penzance and Carmarthen/Pembroke Dock services, plus W-s-M and anything taking the Great Way Round to Exeter or Plymouth. Is is also required for Exeter/Plymouth services using the B&H?


True, but now you're shooting your own very sensible idea down and I don't really understand why. Yes there probably would be people who were unhappy. However, if there was the flexibility, both in terms of route availability and staff familiarity, to run the Turbo fleet across the region then Control would be in a position to make more "targeted" Turbo substitutions onto less busy services where they'll cause the least possible trouble, rather than it always having to be the Cotswold line that takes the hit since that's the only place they can currently be sent. The occasional Turbo substitution here and there spread around different routes and hopefully quieter trains would surely be preferable to repeated Turbo vice HST on busy Cotswold trains.

As a footnote, I'm not aware of there ever having been any particular rebellion when the Turbos were regularly used on Bristol-Oxford services back in the day, and that's when they were in a somewhat more rat-infested state than currently (windows held closed with sellotape, ripped and fraying seat covers, barely functioning toilets, etc etc). I've probably said here before, mea culpa, that I wasn't keen on them and would take an HST alternative if there was a sensible one available, but plenty of others seemed to be perfectly happy with them as every time I caught one it was well loaded. Whilst less comfortable than an HST more often than not the convenience outweighed the moderate discomfort which was hardly intolerable for that journey.

14:34 Great Malvern to London Paddington due 17:27
This train has been delayed at Great Malvern and is now 25 minutes late from Great Malvern.This is due to disruptive passengers earlier.
Last Updated: 05/08/2010 15:11

And neatly illustrating the leisurely nature of the current timetable, but no doubt thanks to good driving, not sitting at Evesham for eight minutes and not actually needing 44 minutes to run between Moreton and Oxford, this train was just four minutes down by Reading, so should be in good time to form the 17.50. Strangely, the CLPG says that in recent discussions of timetable drafts FGW is curiously reluctant to attempt even modest speed-ups from next year.

From what I've seen, from next May, the 1434 will spend a mere 21 minutes at Shrub Hill. It will still arrive Paddington at 1727.

Was up the station end of Moreton-in-Marsh at about 5.30pm and bumped into a long-standing user of the 15.51 and its antecedents who has seen it all over the years and had just returned from Oxford. His summary (even with an HST today): "That wasn't pleasant. Absolutely packed."

Now, I don't know very much about the area or the general running of the railway, but would there be less overcrowding if...

1548 went London - Swindon - Cheltenham Spa - Worcester

1551 went London - Oxford - Worcester - Cheltenham Spa

This would give two trains and a different combination for people possibly?  What do you think?

Unfortunately, bigdaz, you can't take services in isolation. Both the services you mention are just one journey of a particular train's daily diagram. Extending the services as you suggested has knock-on consequences.

The return workings have to be re-timetabled, paths have to be found, staff rosters have to be changed, route knowledge may have be learned, a business case has to be assessed...... Just some examples of the complexities that train planners face.

From FGW live updates:

A "Meet the Manager" session is due to take place on this train in March 2011. I wonder whether whether they'll Turbo it on that day? >:( >:(

1L62 had a little incident in Wales so Paddington was missing 1 HST set at 15:30, presumably something stepped up.

From live updates:

Seem to have three HSTs missing this evening.

I believe there was an issue regarding getting HST's off of Old Oak Common - due to 'staffing issues' I was told.  I bet the 18:50 Paddington to Oxford was fun as a 2-car Turbo and no doubt some of the inner-suburban services were short formed as Turbo's bailed out the longer distance services yet again - I know the 18:57 Paddington to Reading was a 3-car vice 5-car!

1551 Pad to Worcester a 3 car turbo rather than 8car HST again tonight (according to FGW updates)

15:51 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill due 18:07
This train will be formed of 3 coaches instead of 8.
Last Updated: 19/08/2010 15:02


So a change of plans for me tonight. Was hoping we had seen the end of these.

Also the 1750

17:50 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill due 20:23
This train will be formed of 3 coaches instead of 8.
Last Updated: 19/08/2010 15:02

... and again today, apparently - from FGW live updates:

Beaten to it, was just going to add "and again tonight" !

Typical to short form trains on a friday when they are busier anyway.

Both worked by refreshed 165s.

Will be distinctly unpleasant if this is the best they can manage next Friday but given that they apparently weren't expecting large passenger loadings during the Big Chill Festival they probably won't be expecting many people to travel over a bank holiday weekend either.

I gather that all three Turbo services from Malvern/Worcester in the morning and early afternoon on the Monday after the festival were very cosy indeed...

So that would be why the 13:21 was a HST instead of a Turbo then...

Which day was that?

And sadly, something like that is the exception, not the rule, which is the reverse alteration, as happened twice this week on the same day to two peak trains, which are rather more in need of an HST than the 13.21 usually is. Though it would come in handy next Friday, as would the booked 125s actually being provided for the 15.51 and 17.50! We shall see...

5th August - 13:21 HST vice Turbo - according to IndustryInsider was full and standing so lucky it was an HST.
The 15:51 was thankfully a HST as booked, and according to the long standing user you spoke to it "wasn't pleasant. Absolutely packed."

Sorry, Ollie - you've misunderstood my post.  It was a Turbo as usual - could have done with being a HST though!

Was it? I'm sure I saw somewhere about it being HST..me goes to check..

Attached is a bit of the service performance log for the 5th August showing that the 13:21 was an HST.

Ah, well I stand corrected then!

I must admit I never actually saw the train, just that it was steadily losing time en-route and was being announced as full and standing, so I just presumed it was a Turbo struggling to cope as usual.  Due praise must be given to FGW in that case then!

Yeah was also planned to do same for the Friday, but that didn't go ahead due to the severe disruption caused by the Tilehurst cable theft.

Thanks, Ollie, for that very helpful information and useful explanation.  C.  :)

Clearly someone deserves a pat on the back for doing that but once again we find FGW not actually bothering to announce it was making a useful change to its service. And it doesn't exactly square with the statement from the press office in its comments about the pot-heads incident on the 11.22 that same day: "The train was busier than we expected." Make your minds up.

You evidently have... ;)

I don't think it's entirely fair to assume that FGW's operations staff weren't expecting additional passengers due to the festival just on the basis of a talking head from the press office getting a case of foot-in-mouth.

FGW event planners were well aware of the Big Chill and planned additional and strengthened services on both the North Cotswolds and Worcester - Bristol routes, including an HST special from Great Malvern to Padd via Cheltenham on Monday lunchtime. Of course, the Friday plans were frustrated by the cable theft at Tilehurst. Nonetheless, some festival goers were redirected via Bristol Parkway and others routed via Oxford where there was capacity. Coaches were also provided at Oxford. At least one fully laden 100-seater coach left Oxford and went directly to the festival site.

Having said that, most people I have talked to have said that there were more festival goers travelling by rail this year than in previous years.

I was deploying a tad of sarcasm there - because they can't get the story straight. Nor do they seem able to tell the travelling public - who might like to know - what they're doing about things like Big Chill. So they put on an HST for the 13.21, they put on an extra from Malvern on the Monday. Did they promote either? Not that I'm aware of. Search for Big Chill on the website and the only reference to this month's event that comes up is the list of destinations to which Groupsaves are banned when such events are happening. And if you're off to Reading with friends this weekend, you can't get Groupsave to Reading or Reading West from Thursday to Sunday, nor home from Reading on the Monday. The website homepage is currently urging me to travel by FGW trains to an event at Henley last weekend...

It's fine and dandy to put on extras, or put on an HST for such occasions, but what people up here would like is to see HSTs appear on the services they are actually booked for, day in, day out, which seems to be much harder to arrange - and getting worse almost by the day.

The 17.50 was a Turbo yet again yesterday. I don't think a bookie would give me good odds on an HST appearing at some point the rest of this week, when the 17.50 has been a Turbo three times running, with the 15.51 clocking up two Turbos out of three as well. And I see the 11.22/14.34 also putting in an appearance in yesterday's list, so assume that was Turbo-ised too. And no buffet service on the 20.20.

It's starting to feel like the 2004 timetable again.

No sign of stand-in turbos today - well done.

Animals of some sort messed up the morning services, with delays to several trains and the ecs to Moreton for the 09.29 stuck at Oxford due to the delay to the Cathedrals Express, leaving too little time for the Turbo to reach Moreton and turn round, so it was the A44 for me.

Animal on the line the other morning was a deer apparently.

Another Turbo tonight on the 17.50, though, being charitable, might have been due to the problems caused by the failed freight earlier.

From FGW live updates:


CfN ;)

What? All those signalling problems earlier today and they managed to keep the 1551 as a HST? And add an additional stop? FGW are losing their touch!  ;D

EDIT: Oh dear, spoke too soon, it is 68 mins down at Ascott.

Has to be an HST to call at said station!

Eh? The only two timetabled services that call at Ascott-under-Wychwood are Turbos.

2 car turbos & HSTs then ;)

The 1551 (an HST!) from Padd was very late leaving because of the signalling problem. It followed the 162? Padd - Oxford, which conveys passengers for the 1731 Oxford to WOF, the all stations two car turbo. There was clearly going to be a clash - can't put two services down the single line at the same time! So, the decision was made to run the 1551 in the path of the 1731, and have it call additionally at Ascott. For some reason, it was decided not to call it at Coombe, Finstock and Shipton - road transport provided.

Swindon B was instructed not to allow the 1551 to overtake the 162? at Didcot, so the two trains arrived in Oxford in the right order. The 162? was also late, which further delayed the 1551, but at least the North Cots passengers had an HST!

HSTs can call at any of the stations, Combe and Finstock included, thanks to SDO and have done so running in place of the halts train previously. Taxi-ing passengers to Combe and Finstock is more sensible, though seems a bit bizarre to serve Ascott but not Shipton, if that website post was correct.

They even managed to run an HST on the 17.50 but it was started from Oxford at 18.54. Very nice for the two dozen or so of us boarding there but not a lot of help easing the bank holiday pressure on the Herefords either side of it. I suspect the 18.22 was pretty busy as a result.

I would suspect that the HST that ran from Oxford at 1854 was a positioning move for that particular set to get it back on diagram for later/tomorrow.

I travelled on the 1822 from Paddington to Great Malvern last night, blissfully unaware of all the problems that had blighted services earlier, although I noted there were a few delays/cancellations. It was full and standing between Padd and Reading, but thereafter I don't think anyone was standing, at least inside the carriages. It was around 15 late at Great Malvern with signal stops on the single track just beyond Wolvercote Jcn, also outside Moreton and at Newland. The only service I recall passing on the Costwold Line was an HST at Evesham  @2030. No ticket check at all, although the train manager made regular announcements, apologised for the earlier delays and wished everyone a pleasant Bank Holiday weekend.

Definitely. As operating it only added to knock-on delays on the line, as we were just leaving the loop north of Oxford station about the time the 18.22 was due in platform 2 (hence the delay on the 18.22 at Wolvercot). We had to wait for the 17.00 from Worcester to come off the single line, presumably due to waiting along the way for the HST running in the halts path and perhaps the 17.22 as well.

I think it was run from Oxford purely to avoid lack of services from Worcester towards London the rest of the day that would have resulted from the 17.50 being cancelled after the halts train had been subsumed into the 15.51.

The HST from the 15.51 worked back in the path of the halts train at 19.27, with the 18.49 cancelled. Lose the 21.00 as well and there would have been just that one rather slow train from Worcester at 19.27 as far as Oxford (due to pathing problems it has 29 timetabled minutes sat at Evesham) between the 17.20 (assuming it ran vaguely to time) and the 22.34 (21.51 from Hereford).

Back after a week away from the trains....

17:50 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill due 20:23
This train will be formed of 3 coaches instead of 8.
Last Updated: 31/08/2010 16:30

To add to that, the 15:51 from Paddington is 30 mins late (again, due to signalling problems), so it'll do it's 'combine-with-the-halts-train' routine which is already showing as cancelled.  The reliability of the line has started to dip considerably in the last month or so - rarely FGW's fault, but it won't be long before the murmurings of unrest start to be heard!

Isn't this thread currently an eight-page murmuring of unrest...?! ;)

True!

Looks like the strange practice of running the HST in the Turbo's path and removing the stops at Combe, Finstock and Shipton but not Ascott is taking place again.  Given that Shipton has the longest platform of the lot, is off of the single line, and probably edges the other three in terms of passenger numbers, I'm at a bit of a loss to explain the logic!

Almost every time I see a FGW manager (Theresa?) at Charlbury, somebody is commenting about overcrowdig on shortformed trains and delays, six months ago it was to comment on improved performance and how good it was to be able to rely on timetables again.

Revisiting this issue, I notice that retailers using Avantix WebTIS are still barring bookings using the SVR on the 1750 and 1822. I've checked post 5th September as well to see whether the update would coincide with the new NFM, but no. I know Cotswold Line regulars are aware that they can return on the (scheduled!!) HSTs at 1750 and 1822, it's the irregular travellers that may be overcharged.

Despite a call to East Coast Web Support and an email to ATOC (for which I recieved no reply) nothing has been changed.

Later on (at 21:12):

18:49 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington due 21:29
    This train has been cancelled.This is due to an earlier train fault.
    Last Updated: 31/08/2010 16:49

21:00 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington due 23:37
    This train will be formed of 3 coaches instead of 8.
    Last Updated: 31/08/2010 19:45

The only 'logic' that I can think of - and why they have suddenly started doing this in the past two weeks goodness knows - is that someone at Swindon has got it into their head that since Shipton is served by the 17.50 then people can wait to catch that train instead. Why they think anyone would wait 80 minutes (or more, given that the 17.50 has been stuck up the loop line at Oxford until 19.20 on Friday and again yesterday) to get to Shipton escapes me but the reasoning behind many of the decisions made by control often escapes me. Though someone did have the presence of mind to arrange for the 19.27 from Worcester to run through to Paddington instead of ending at Oxford.


Already have been. The CLPG has been asking questions about recent weeks' events and I am getting pretty hacked off with being stuck just outside Oxford immediately after leaving the station, then sneaking into Moreton-in-Marsh just in time to prevent me claiming a refund.

3 HSTs have been stuck in Old Oak with Engine failures. The parts were arriving this week and should be back in service soon, if not already.