Great Western Coffee Shop

Whilst leafing through a timetable familiarisation booklet for the new timetable I noticed that it states that the 11:21 Paddington to Great Malvern and return working at 14:34 from Great Malvern to Paddington will revert to a 3-car turbo from the December timetable change.  That means that all Great Malvern trains (save for the first one in the morning and last train of the evening) will be worked by Turbos.

So, the further removal of high quality trains from semi-long distance trains looks set to continue.  The train in question loads very heavily between Slough and Paddington as a HST on the return working with Slough to London commuters, but it does also carry around a lot of fresh air for much of the journey.  It has also proven to be more and more difficult to resource a driver for in recent months as there are now 14 drivers outstanding at Oxford depot alone to learn HST's, but an ongoing union dispute is preventing it from happening.

Will a Hereford be next on the list next May I wonder...?

Yes, I & others are aware of this.

You are right in saying that for 95% of its journey, it carries around fresh air.

There are no plans (which would anyway be heavily resisted by the Customer Panel) to tubo-ise any Herefords - do not fear.

Good.  Although to be honest the 08:21 Paddington to Hereford and return 13:11 Hereford to Paddington probably load to a similar level as the 11:21/14:34 - busier on the outward journey to Oxford perhaps, but noticeably quieter on arrival at Paddington on the return.

yes, we're watching that one....

I know I'll make myself unpopular in some quarters by saying this, but on the face of it the decision appears sound to me. I really don't think there's a commercial or environmental justification for running a largely empty 7- or 8-car train to Moreton and back just for the benefit of a few commuters between London and Slough.

Now of course, in an ideal world there'd be something a little more suited to the journey length than a Turbo, like a 17x variant, although sadly that ain't happening any time soon. But maybe something called it an "Adelante", which has a nice ring to it, don't you think? ;)

Which costs pretty much the same as an HST, but seats the same as a three car turbo.

I don't think so.

Just because a lease used to cost a certain amount in the past doesn't mean a new one will cost the same.

And I do wish you'd stop spinning this line about the number of seats on an Adelante v a Turbo, because I will have to keep pointing out that people do not use all the seats on a 165 or 166 unless in dire extremis because it's so bloody uncomfortable, which is not the case when all the seats in a 180 are in use. Plus an Adelante actually has about 20 more and more comfortable seats than a 166 (which has fewer than a 165 due to the extra first class compartment, extra toilet and the area of tables in standard in the centre coach), plus the perch seats in the vestibules.

Good to see FGW doing yet more to renege on its pledge in December 2004 of "delivering InterCity quality and comfort to the route throughout the day". For the full press release see http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/NewsItem.aspx?id=203


Really? So why are the Sunday 14.42 from London and 18.30 return from Hereford operated by a Turbo then? And if it's like the first phase of HST withdrawals in February last year, what makes you think they would tell the customer panel anyway? Or care what anyone thought. They didn't bother to tell the CLPG and just stuck up posters at stations a few days before it happened.

Certainly wasn't a press release boasting about them turning back the clock. Though they did have the brass neck when the 09.29 from Moreton was introduced at the end of last year to say "Our customers are at the forefront of everything we do and the decision was made to introduce the extra service after listening to what they had to say.^ But only after we gave them no opportunity to say anything earlier in the year...

On current trends - and going by my own recent experience of loadings when using them for all or parts of the journey, the 08.22 and 13.11 are sure to follow suit at some point - that would be a good way to celebrate redoubling! After all, the forerunner of this service was a 166 (hired by FGW from Thames up to spring 2004) for some years before the 180s arrived.

Fair comment.


And just *when* are all seats taken on this service? If they were, you'd still have an HST. It's use it or lose it....it's very difficult to back a call to retain an HST if it's carrying fresh air around for most of the journey.


2004? That's 6 years ago. I bet you're no longer doing things you promised six years ago too!


I said 'plans' - i.e. in the near future. Not current. Journalists....!


They told the Panel about this one. Can't comment as to whether they told the CLPG, as I'm not on the committee. They do seem to trust us, and we've signed a confidentiality agreement, hence me being unable to post here until the news came out. The amount of air it carrys around prevented any serious campaigning. We heard the ticket statistics, and they weren't good.

A scheme to raise patronage during the day is what this line needs, then a campaign to reinstate HSTs when sales improve.

But you have a catch 22 - when I lived in ludlow if I wasn't going in the peak I went via newport as the off-peak cost was not as prohibitive as the peak. 

Reason - apart from the something past three there was nothing direct to London with decent accommodation - so I didn't use it

Is it pax first then the service or the service then first then pax

pax first these days....

I don't think that's fair, Chris ... First made a number of pledges leading up to them being awarded the franchise for the next seven to ten years in 2005, many of them as part of the franchise agreement.  I think they should keep promises made as part of their bid to run services up until 31st March 2013 or 31st March 2016 until those dates - otherwise, what is the point of making a promise?

If a promise is made for 10 years and you consider it reasonable to break it after six, how long should it be kept for?   Four years?  Two years?   Or just until it can be quietly forgotten?

I wasn't talking specifically about this service - because you don't use your Turbo v Adealnte v HST capacity point specifically, just every time anyone mentions a 180. In the case of this latest service to lose an HST it is lightly loaded - but then so was the off-peak HST that BR/GW ran to Malvern and back for many years - indeed it was the first HST service on the route.


Too busy to remember - but then i never put out a press release about it. And name me one other FGW service that in the past six years has seen the quality of the rolling stock provided go backwards? Apart perhaps from Reading-Gatwick, which has lost the far more suitable 166s (lots of luggage space) back to the Cotswolds to replace the HSTs.


So what did the panel do when the change to stock on that Sunday service was made? And if it did say something, it clearly had no effect on FGW's decision.


A point that was made to FGW when they announced that the 180s were going and that they would acquire HSTs to replace them on the services they were then operating, the cotswold Line included. Everyone was well aware that there was a yawning gap between the number of seats in 180s and HSTs but FGW did nothing at all to promote off-peak travel on the line, nor the Cotswold Line and Network Railcards, despite the many months that they had to get something organised while the 180 fleet was being wound down.

I don't believe for a minute that HSTs will be coming back off-peak, because even with a carpet-bombing level of publicity and promotion, you will never generate enough bodies to fill them, because the number of people living on the line is not massive, despite what some in worcester believe, and there is a limit to how many need to travel to Oxford, Worcester or London.

That was why the 180s were ideal for the line. The right capacity for all but the very busiest services, combined with the right level of comfort for the length of journeys. As we know full well, the 166s are cheap to operate. And so what if they're a bit crowded after Charlbury? The passengers will use the service anyway, so why make the effort to provide a better but more expensive train?

And when I say the CLPG weren't told about the February changes last year, that's because they weren't, otherwise I wouldn't have said it. But then I'm just a journalist... so why would you believe me anyway?

Here is an extract from a story I wrote last year:

"CLPG chairman Derek Potter said: ^We were told last year we could expect to see most trains on the line operated by HSTs.
^We understand that situations will arise where, in order for the service to run, it^s a case of a Turbo or nothing, but we would expect to see the advertised type of train provided wherever possible. We weren^t consulted about these changes and are asking for a meeting with FGW managers to find out what^s going on.^

The full story is here http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2009/02/24/Oxford+news+%28om_oxfordnews%29/4151598.Payout_vetoed_despite_rail_crush/

That's a fair comment - I hadn't realised that it was from a press release referring to its new franchise.

BUT, having read the whole release - there is no pledge there at all. It doesn't say, or intimate that at all.
What it says, is this....

There are many improvements for customers, including the majority of services between London Paddington and the Cotswolds being operated by new 125mph Adelante trains delivering InterCity quality and comfort to the route throughout the day.

This says that the majority of services will be operated by Adelantes. It just so happens that those have that quality...

Now, by all means take them to task for not having them running those these days (or something similar in replacement, but that's a different argument in my book.

It does not say that the majority of services will be provided by *any* stock that has InterCity quality.

Semantics, I know.

And we all know that economics have changed, and no one can justify running HSTs around carrying mostly air these days.

So, for a majority of its journey (lets say for over a hour continously), which trips are currently  seriously overcrowded? I think a 166 is reasonable for journeys of less than an hour as they are elsewhere. Are there any that one could justify even running a 7car HST?

How do you suggest we make the case.....? IN the peak, all stock is utilised, so a different route would be losing out to gain one for the Cotswolds. Off-Peak, yes, there is stock available,but it needs to be justified.


Exeter - PNZ, I believe, and some journeys between the two - operated at the start by HSTs, now 158s and below. And wasn't there a Bedwyn HST once?


I'm not sure I said that I didn't believe you.

The problem over HST v turbo usage has been exacerbated by the wish to increase services along the line, thus spreading out the number of passengers / train. There might have been a small increase in numbers attracted by the increase in services, but nowhere enough to fill one HST, never mind several.

So - as I see it there are 4 options....

1. Reduce the overall service so as to decently fill an HST for each trip;

2. Put HSTs on all Oxford fasts, and use turbos to provide a regular service along the Cotswold Line as feeder services into these HSTs

3. Raise the fares to generate enough cash to pay for running half-empty HSTs

4. Increase the patronage severely.

With the advent of Chiltern's Oxford to Marylebone service threatening even the current level of patronage on this route, the days of HST usage I feel are severely threatened. Everyone needs to work *with* the operator to counter this threat and keep the current patronage and even raise it.

All I'm seeing at the moment is a general welcome for this new service to London. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways.

Discuss.

How about:  5.  Bring back Adelante's on selected Cotswold Line trains on a cheaper lease deal than before, to avoid them sitting in sidings rusting.

Though Chris does make a strong case for the bleak reality of options 1-4 if that doesn't happen!

Going back to the press release, you'd have thought that someone might go through the website quietly deleting stuff that looks embarrassing for FGW a few years down the line (so to speak!) - not only the triumphant talk about InterCity quality trains on the Cotswold Line, but also all the faff about improving punctuality by keeping 90mph trains off of 125mph tracks.  There's nearly as many Turbos on the main line as there ever has been - perhaps even more as the hourly Bedwyn's now run main line when in the Thames Trains era they ran relief line.  So, what's changed?

There's also the cost of running the train on Network Rail's rails to take into account!

5 coaches is 66% dearer than 3 coaches....cost is per axle, I believe.

Crickey - someone replace those 166's with 2-car 165's quick then...  ::)

ho, ho, ho!

A 2-car Pacer would be cheaper...  :P

On a more serious note, are track access charges really only calculated by number of axles? I thought they were weighted (no pun intended) to take into account the axle loadings of different vehicles and consequent wear on the track. This is certainly one oft-quoted reason why loco-haulage may be a prohibitively expensive option compared to DMU/EMU usage, since a loco axle-loading is generally much higher than for a unit. I can't believe that track access charges for a class 67 running light are the same as those for a 153, and if they are then that's crazy!

Oh no, quite possibly as you state....but as there is a weight to axel ratio, a 5 coach anything will cost more than a 3car turbo.

The biggest downside to the turboisation of the Cotswold line is it reduces the number of turbos that should be used to bolster the TV line services from 3 car to 6 car the TV route is recognised as being one of the most over crowded routes in UK

I think there's enough turbo availability off-peak. No one is suggesting any peak trains be turbo-ised.

But no one wants turbos on the Cotswold Line, nor for the line to become a 'branch' line either.

If track access charge is worked out by the wear to the rails by the rolling stock, then the 14X class railbuses should be the most costly stock going!

I don't see much point in talking about "Turbotisation" (hmmm - always thought there was something fishy, rancid even, about 165s and 166s) of the Cotswold Line in isolation.

FGW won't ask for five Adelantes because it wants to give us Cotswold passengers a more comfortable ride. And even if they did, DfT wouldn't agree.

But FGW may well ask for five Adelantes because its whole fleet is overstretched, and these five Adelantes are pretty much the only affordable stock looking for a home right now. No matter where on the FGW network they're deployed, five Adelantes will free up other units to provide much-needed extra capacity.

It just happens that the most suitable place for these five Adelantes is, indeed, the Cotswold Line. But the "HST vs turbo vs Adelante" debate is pretty much incidental to whether we'll ever get them.

As usual with the railway industry the methodology for calculating track access charges is ridiculously complicated!

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/regulatory%20documents/access%20charges%20reviews/consultations%20on%20future%20charging/variable%20track%20access%20charges/c%20-ttci%20draft%20methodology%20report%20december%202007.pdf (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/regulatory%20documents/access%20charges%20reviews/consultations%20on%20future%20charging/variable%20track%20access%20charges/c%20-ttci%20draft%20methodology%20report%20december%202007.pdf)

Couldn't that HST set that whizzed down to Plymouth yesterday be used for the Cotswold Line?  ;D  ;D

Indeed. No-one made FGW come out with all the hubristic stuff in that press release, they did it of their own free will. Unlike the subsequent back-tracking in the past two years, where their only public pronouncements on removal of HSTs and the subsequent appearance of the 09.29 from Moreton (despite the 166 on the 08.58 having "the right level of accommodation" just months earlier) have been as a result of questions from me and other journalists.

FGW's ability to offer 180s for Oxford and Cotswold services was widely understood at the time of the bidding to operate the Thames Valley services from 2004-6 to have been the knockout blow that put Thames Trains out of the running, since all it was offering was two more years of Turbos and a cost-cutting regime to extract every last penny going.

.

Unless they are running miles and miles as empty stock between Bristol and Hereford, or working back to London after operating the 15.51 and 17.50, for example. Maybe we should Turbo-ise them too?

.

How do you define overcrowded? If you mean a 166 on the 08.58 from Malvern where people are somehow wedged into every seat past Charlbury and those boarding at Hanborough have to stand to Oxford then no, there's no problem at all. But I'm afraid Joe Public doesn't see it like that. They remember being wedged into seats with nowhere for their arms to go. I would avoid the 09.54 from Malvern like the plague south of Oxford as it's a lone Turbo with no extra seats added at Oxford to soak up passengers joining there. And any journey between the Cotswold Line and London is more than an hour - or doesn't overcrowding on the leg between London and Oxford count because it's not too bad on the bit of the journey further west?


But it doesn't matter that we lost out last year so someone else could have an HST?


Eh? Since when has it not been possible to catch an HST between Exeter and Penzance? I really can't be bothered to count how many there are each day. There have always been dmu stoppers on that route and they are used by people making short journeys, not the full run, plus the dmus used are all refreshed, not the ragtag band FGW inherited from Wessex. Bedwyn still has a couple of HSTs a day each way, much as it always did. What I am talking about is the wholesale removal of better quality stock from a service, which is what has happened to the Cotswold Line.


What wish? The current pattern and frequency of services is quite clearly descended from that provided by FGW and Thames pre-2004, with minor extensions/tweaks here and there (and no-one is going to object to Turbos on a few extra short workings in future out as far as Moreton). By 2004, it was obvious that the 166s had become victims of their own success in driving up traffic over the previous decade and could no longer cope with demand on the peak and shoulder-of-peak trains they were being used on. Hence the attraction of the 180s when the franchise bids were being assessed. A better quality environment for passengers with a handy few extra seats, which made all the difference on a number of services.

As for the four options, even our cost-cutting Tory MPs wouldn't wear 1, number 2 would wreck Cotswold Line patronage at a stroke and waste two decades of improvements, never mind the redoubling investment, and if someone actually put some time and effort into marketing (which is something FGW is still struggling to get right) then you would fill more seats and get more money in without needing to increase the fares - maybe they should ask Julian Crow to tell someone up here what he is doing down in the West Country, since it seems to be working.

No-one is suggesting HSTs on everything, just that there are services, in particular the 08.58 from Malvern, that need a high-capacity train throughout the journey, especially if it is moved forward half-an-hour next year, back to its old slot, thus putting 40-50 people currently using the 09.29 from Moreton back on the same train as all those from further west. And if FGW hadn't done such a thorough job of driving off Moreton, Honeybourne, Evesham and Pershore commuters into Worcester with appalling timekeeping in 2006-8, then they might find a healthy number of people using the balancing early service out of London, at least on that part of its journey.

You seem to be suggesting FGW might as well throw in the towel between London and Oxford (and the eastern end of the Cotswold Line) and submit to the mighty Chiltern. Where what I'd suggest is that they go back to providing a genuine express service between Oxford and London, taking full advantage of what an HST can do, ie more than 100mph, without a thunking great engine under the floor of each coach. 45 minutes to London looks a lot better than 65, even if 65 comes with a cheaper fare attached.

I'm pleased to report that, at the very least, common sense prevailed and on the return journey the 3-car Turbo does attach to an empty 2-car at Oxford making a 5-car formation for the busiest stretch of the journey between Oxford and Paddington.  A Train Manager told me that it's reverting back to a HST at the summer timetable change, though we'll have to see whether that happens or not.

I find this debate so depressing and demonstrates exactly why I can never see FGW providing a satisfactory service on the Cotswold line other than to commuters.

There are basically three seating configurations and have been for many years:-

These apply to either suburban / commuter travel (suggest up to 1 hour) or to longer distance journeys (1 hour +)

2+1 for First class ^ long distance
2+2 for First class Suburban / Standard class for other travel
3+2 for Standard class suburban / commuter travel.

Great Malvern ^ Paddington falls clearly into the long distance category well over two hours yet FGW clearly are happy to provide commuter levels of accommodation. I guess the rot started when some geographic illiterate decided that the Thames franchise extended to Worcester / Malvern and the class 180 was procured to resolve the problem inherited with the Turbos. I imagine this is one reason why FGW won the franchise (I^m sure there are others).

FGW were then allowed to ditch the 180s with no suitable replacement other than to use HSTs which are not really fit for purpose off-peak. They have then reneged on that commitment to return to the Turbos in an underhand drip fed basis.

As far as I can see there are several options

1). Honour the original agreement & provide 180s (using the argument put up by Richard Fairhurst if needs be). They were budgeted for in the franchise tender so sorry but ^they cost to much to run^ argument is irrelevant, the time to do the costings was then not now.

2) Refurbish Turbos with the appropriate long distance seating configuration for Cotswold services (I know they won^t do that!)

3) Get a similar configuration to WSR and run a push-pull service with loco/DVT configuration.

4) Can they split a couple of HSTs to run with a class 43 + DVT or DBSO plus 4 or 5 coaches?

5) Remove the Cotswold line from the old Thames/FGW franchise and put it out to tender.

Out of interest what additional stock are they planning to get when the line is re-doubled?
 

ummhh....just to clarify a few points for some of the previous posters there are in fact DMU trains that run each morning from Bristol to Penzance and these normally take the shape of a 2 car 150 or if its a bad day a single 153....sometimes refurbished sometimes not, very seldom are class 158 used.
this journey is close to Three hours and i expect if asked regular passengers would see the use of a Turbo on this route as a step up.
Also you would probably get the same answer from passengers bouncing up to Barnstaple on a 142 and from would be passengers at Melksham who would love any train at a reasonable time.
Turbos might  not be ideal for the cotswold line but they are better than what some passengers in other areas have to put up with.
And as for The 180s i understand the avaliabilty of spares for there units are now becoming a problem

Short memory...? The rot set in when BR decided to operate the Cotswold line more or less entirely using the Thames Turbo fleet in the 1990s, nothing at all to do with FGW. I know others will bounce up and down complaining about FGW's promises in 2004, as happens every time i make this point, but in fact since FGW have been the sole operator on the Cotswold Line there are now significantly more "intercity"-quality services than pre-2004, when there were two return HSTs a day and that was your lot.

And dog box's point is a good one, there are many other examples all over the national network of DMUs which are (debatably) inferior to Turbo stock operating services of a similar length. Because line speeds are relatively low and staff have the appropriate traction knowledge, the Cotswold line has a fair bit of operating flexibility - you can stick a Turbo on a service rather than cancelling it, for example. That's not (currently) the case with routes to Bristol/Swansea/west country etc, where staff aren't trained to operate Turbo equipment and one of them bumbling around at 90 mph in the middle of a 125 mph railway causes big capacity problems.

I know there's a tendency from some (but not all, of course) Cotswold line users to have a chip on their shoulder about how FGW seems to deliberately neglect them with a ridiculous subtext that it all seems to be done largely out of spite. However, the current situation has arisen because of a confluence of lots of different events that have happened at various stages in the line's history and would appear to this unbiased observer to be coincidence rather than some kind of conspiracy.

Edited to fix quote. bignosemac  ;)

"The rot set in when BR decided to operate the Cotswold line more or less entirely using the Thames Turbo fleet in the 1990s, nothing at all to do with FGW"

And where exactly did I say that it had anything to do with FGW?

If you are suggesting the FGW are woefully inadequate in other parts of their franchise so be it. Hardly something to be proud of !!

I think the rot set in far before then - in fact the introduction of the Turbos was, at the time, gratefully received by most users of the line.

Remember what preceded them?  Those lovely Class 155's that ran as far as Oxford, with the odd, infrequent service in-between operated by loco hauled or HST's!  I think the rot set in during the early 80's when the line was deemed unsuitable for anything loco-hauled due to the poor state of the track - fortunately the Cotswold Line Promotion Group, and others, stepped in to stop the decline into what may well have led to closure.

Has anyone, I'm thinking of Willc in particular, got a timetable for the early to mid-80's, so we can compare?

And exactly how many people do actually sit on a 150 for two or three hours all the way across Devon and Cornwall? Not many, I'll warrant. They are operating a local stopping service on a line shared with hourly XC Voyagers/HSTs out to Plymouth, plus assorted FGW HSTs. For large chunks of the day, for large chunks of the week on the Cotswold Line it's just Turbos.


None of which are operating nominally express services to and from London on routes which were promised - and let's just say it again, since it was a cornerstone of FGW's bid dislodging Thames Trains in 2004 - "InterCity quality and comfort throughout the day" as a step up from the previous service dominated by Turbos.


Maybe this is meant to be ironic, but I'm not really sure. What actually happened in 1993 was that BR scrapped the old timetable where everything except the two Hereford peak trains (plus the old off-peak Malvern and back HST which often gets overlooked, even though it was the first HST service on the route) stopped at Oxford by extending most services through to and from Paddington.

There wasn't the money at that stage to produce a more bespoke train than a 166 (a cut-price conversion of a basic suburban dmu design), nor to justify four cars, as the new timetable was bit of a shot in the dark, but based on some educated hunches by NSE, which proved to be entirely correct, as traffic took off.

Long before the end of Thames, the inadequacy of the 166s on a number of services, due to ever growing passenger numbers, was plain to see but with a short franchise they had no incentive to do anything about it. Come 2004, FGW's ability to offer 180s, with the far better passenger environment they had, plus a handy few extra seats, which were normal human-sized, tipped the balance when set against two more years of the same from Thames.


And every time you make it, there are fewer HSTs running on the route. Yes, there are more than at the start of 2004 but FGW moved over the next couple of years to a position where there were HSTs or 180s on pretty much everything that moved, bar the halts trains (and associated workings such as the last London-Worcester of the day) and a pair of out and back off-peak Turbo workings, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. The late-evening services out of London today are HSTs for stock positioning purposes and the first couple of trains towards London in the morning are HSTs because of the loadings from Oxford, not because there are huge numbers of insomniac commuters living in Worcestershire.


But so many duties have gone back to Turbos now that it's just a Turbo, full stop. Substitutions are all but unknown because there's precious little left to substitute. You can't substitute the evening trains running west because you would have a riot on your hands if a Turbo rolled into Oxford of a morning.  


What? FGW decided they didn't want to pay the running costs of 180s and told us they would get more HSTs instead, despite people telling them they were far too big for off-peak duties, even if FGW put some effort into marketing off-peak travel on the line, which it never has. Then they realised what they had been told was true and decided they didn't want to foot the running costs for the HSTs either. So what was left, oh yes, the Turbos, which FGW had branded inadequate for the route when bidding for the Thames Valley services in 2003-4.

Hardly a confluence of events. More a series of volte-faces by FGW's managers, leaving the quality of service most of the time off-peak and at weekends back where it was under Thames. And yet you still seem to suggest that we have nothing to complain about, despite all the things FGW said - openly and unprompted - in 2004 about the quality of service we could expect.

While I agree with much of what you say here Andy, what was wrong with taking a decision to align the management of the line with where the main passenger flows are headed? Ie to Oxford and London. Rather more logical than it being run from Birmingham, as it was before NSE took over.

Insider, I will delve into my CD of back issues of Cotswold and Malvern Line News to see if I can find some timetable details from the 80s but it may have to wait a while as work will be pretty hectic in the run-up to Christmas. Certainly there were just eight trains each way in the 1978-9 service (Terry Worrall quoted in John Boynton's OWW book from 2003). I think off-peak then was a mix of dmus west of Oxford and a loco-hauled Paddington-Worcester or two.

Willc your prob right not many folk travel from BRI to PNZ on a unit..but there again i have not really ever seen severe over crowding form Hereford to Worcester. sure the turbos can load up from Evesham into Oxford.
The point i am making in passengers down in the West would Revel in the use of A Turbo vice 142,143, 150. 153 , the class 165/166 is a far better unit than this collection of BR Stock.
New units are needed, but thats another can of worms, and as for class 180 these things were poorly designed ,poorly built, expensive to run, expensive to maintain, prone to faults etc etc

Thanks, Will - I may be able to get hold of an old timetable from the 70's as well.  I'll see.

Brilliant posting, Will.

155s are much more suitable for Hereford-Oxford than Turbos, though I'll grant you that the 75mph top speed makes them unsuitable for Oxford-Paddington (158s, on the other hand...). 2+2 seating and proper full-width tables - yes please.

If I recall it correctly the original intention was for Worcester - Oxford to be worked by 158s.  Then NSE needed new stock for Waterloo - Exeter and the last of the 158 order was diverted and converted to the 159s with the agreement that 166s would cover the cotswold line.

Quite so, and that's where the capacity of the 180s was so helpful, as they have seats designed to fit a full person in them, and more of them, than a 166, not 2+3s that were designed for people with no arms doing short suburban journeys.

And really not sure I can agree that a refurbished 150 with 2+2 seats is that inferior to a 165, and definitely not to a tatty, unrefreshed 166 with broken air con.

As for 180s, HT and GC do now seem to have got the measure of the things (and where are HT's sets maintained, why, Old Oak Common), they were absolutely ideal for all but the busiest Cotswold Line services (indeed could almost have been purpose-built for the route) and as for bad design, in what way? The passenger environment is far superior to their contemporary the Voyager. Maybe you mean the silly positioning of bits of the engine cooling kit but that's not something that passengers on the Cotswold Line were worrying themselves about, they just knew they were a far superior train to travel in than a Turbo, refreshed or not. I, for one, would have them back like a shot if FGW and DafT could agree a deal to bring the five EC sets back to these parts.

I have 2 Pocket Timetables for the Cotswold Line - the Summer 1974 timetable and Summer 1984 timetable.

In Summer 1974, on weekdays, there were through services from Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill departing at 1005, 1235, 1505, 1715, 1815 and 2125, as well as a 1925 that went via Swindon. The 1235, 1505 and 1715 went through to Hereford.

From Shrub Hill, there were direct trains at 0700, 0745, 0905, 1150, 1615 and 1855. An 0654 service went via Swindon.

By Summer 1984, through services from Paddington were reduced to only a 1025 (arriving Shrub Hill at 1222), 1705, 1807 and a Fridays Only 1903. From Shrub Hill, through trains departed at 0653, 0753 and 1400 (which took just 1 hr 54 minutes).

So, just three direct trains a day.  Back in the old days when things were much better!   :-\

Clearly more than you are aware of.  Plenty of folk do the trip, hence the filthy looks we get when asked where the buffet car is.  Plenty of cheap advance tickets are taken up on these trains.

Units are full and standing a lot of time for peak connections from Penzance into Plymouth-Paddington services too.

Anyone arriving into Penzance before 1300 has no choice but a 150 or 153, as the first HST arrives ~1315.  After that, every other hour pretty much is a unit from Plymouth-Penzance.  (I can't comment on XC services, but precious few continue to Penzance.)

Plymouth to Penazance is a TWO HOUR journey, so yes, plenty of travellers have to travel on units that are substandard compared to a turbo for an unreasonable amount of time IMO, so there would be pretty much zero sympathy for you or any other Cotswold travellers.

I understand no-one is going to be happy with a downgrade of traction, but it occurs all over the South-West.  158s do not venture west of Taunton (unless they are on a PGN-CDF once a day service.)  A downgrade from 158s to a 142 on Barnstaple, Exmouth or Paignton services is a joke at times and comparable to a HST/180 down to a Turbo, but we're stuck with them.

With respect, I would appreciate you not dismissing points when you clearly have limited knowledge on other areas of the network.  We are dismissed enough as it is by the DfT and Government as it is, without journalists assisting the bandwagon.

a. I am writing here in a personal, not a professional capacity, so please don't bring my job into it, unless I have chosen to do so, which I have on occasion, usually when someone takes a cheap shot at journalists.

b.

Which units are these? The weekday timetable says there is one dmu among a string of HSTs and Voyagers from Penzance towards Plymouth from 5am until 08.45. In the afternoon, HSTs at 16.00 and 17.39 sandwich a dmu at 16.44. Maybe you mean the summer timetable, when it wouldn't exactly be surprising if West Country trains were busy? And on the Cotswold Line our issue is not peak capacity, though another southbound train wouldn't go amiss post-redoubling, it is post-peak capacity on weekdays, especially in the mornings towards Oxford and London, a number of Saturday services, and on Sunday, especially the 6.30pm from Hereford. A Turbo all the way.

c.
And were there lots of express sets in use previously? just as we were told by FGW that putting Turbos back was the result of matching the capacity of trains in use with passenger numbers, I'm sure they would say exactly the same about morning demand from Plymouth towards Penzance.

d.
But nothing like the numbers here, and not all year round, which is the case here, due to our proximity to London.

e.
Been on any unrefreshed 165s and 166s lately? And those 150s and 153s have 2+2 seats, rather more suitable for two-hour journeys. Turbos don't. They have inner-suburban 3+2. And kept in proper nick, your 150s and 153s are perfectly adequate for the length of most journeys people are doing on a regular basis. Unless every seat on your services is taken through from Plymouth to Penzance... up here 200-plus people doing 100 minutes between Moreton and London is not unusual, with plenty of that number doing the two hours plus to/from Evesham and Worcester

f.
And very soon, you will be getting lots more 150s. Tired around the edges and needing a good makeover, but a sight better than a 142 under any circumstances. We are stuck with what we've got, for years, unless the 180s do make a surprise comeback.

And the local services in the West Country were never told they would be getting "InterCity quality and comfort throughout the day"

Fair enough.


The original point made was BRI-PNZ unit, so I was talking about travelling West.  From EXD units to Penzance are as follows:  0655, 0813, 0936.  The first HST of the day leaves EXD at 1015 arriving 1317.


I don't disagree at all with you, my point was not to dismiss another area of the FGW network that traction has gone backwards and that the line is well used.


We've been told forever and a day that 142s are "going back up North soon" (end of next year now i've heard)... and 150s are on the way... It'll hopefully happen at some point, but it really feels like PR spin at the moment  ;)

It's been widely reported that the delays are purely due to 172 production problems.  The 9 additional 150s are about as certain as any planned recent cascade - so something a bit more than spin...

Paul

The 153s yes, but not necessarily the 150s. Many PLY-PNZ diagrams have utilised Class 150/1s and they are 2+3 and are a darn site less comfy than a 165.

In what way is


?


I don't dispute that for a moment, but as I said, I seriously doubt that the stopping dmus along the main line in the West Country are carrying 200 (and sometimes more) people on journeys lasting 90 minutes or longer, which is what happens here. And while 158s are a sight better than your average 15X, the gap in quality is nothing like as stark as from an HST or a 180 down to a 165 (which seem to be increasingly prevalent here, despite the policy supposedly being to operate the maximum number of diagrams possible with 166s). Here there are six-and-a-half and five-and-a-half hour gaps in the timetable between HST workings on weekdays and a six-hour gap on Saturdays out of London. Nor was the carrot of 'InterCity quality and comfort throughout the day" for West Country stoppers dangled in front of the SRA at franchise bidding time, which it most certainly was here.

That the LM 150s haven't arrived is entirely down to the 172 production line being shut down for months while they tried to work out whether the exhausts on the LO batch were faulty. It has been running again since mid-November, so I would expect the first train to emerge next month, with output ramping up after that. If they work better out of the box than the LO units, then FGW may well be shot of the 142s by May.

About as many yhat make the journey from Worcester off-peak....

And there-in lies the problem. If the number of pax warranted a 7car HST, they'd run one.

So now every seat has to be occupied throughout a journey does it?

I didn't actually have Worcester in mind, as should be obvious from the 90-minute marker. As you know full well Chris, the 08.58 is a heavily loaded service from Evesham onwards - hence the addition of a second Turbo at Oxford - standing from Charlbury is commonplace and prettty much inevitable for anyone boarding at Hanborough.

During school half-terms it is grossly overloaded. If, as appears to likely be the case from September, the current 09.29 from Moreton is pushed back to become an 09.50 departure, with the 09.2X starting back from Worcester instead, the problem will only get worse, as many of the 40-50 people on the 09.29 want to be in Oxford for 10am - they will transfer on to the first train, along with all the people heading to London who currently use the 09.50. I have a pretty shrewd idea of what it will be like on board if the service continues to be worked by a three-car Turbo.

But I'm sure FGW will have done some passenger count proving definitively that there won't be a problem, like it always does...

The problem there is that is starts at a time when all HSTs are already heading into, or have just left London. To have an HST at Worcester for 8am rules it out of use during the peak.

Now, where would you use it?

Unfortunately, I can't see an argument that doesn't utlise all HSTs during the morning peak, i.e. arriving PAD between 7 and 10.

(Sorry, picking up on a point from last month here...)


Except that the 180s had no mains sockets, Voyagers do.  I was really surprised (and disappointed) when they first came into service.  I take a fairly powerful computer on every journey so that I can usefully work - therefore travelling is not 'time lost'.  (Whilst battery technology is better these days, they still wear out and you still need to remember to charge them up!)  I was regularly putting the computer away with 30min+ of the PAD-WOF journey left.  (I have even sat in Costa at PAD for 2hrs, first table on the left for the mains socket, to wait for an HST instead of a Turbo: at least I can use a computer so haven't 'lost' any time!)

On the subject of computer friendliness, I blame the early demise of the hard disk in my old laptop on the 166s.  Heaven knows why they put the (only) tables above the wheels and not in the middle of the carriage to reduce shaking.  As for the the pull-out supports in the fold-down tables in refurbished HSTs - they are a stroke of genius.  However, the back-of-seat TVs prevent larger laptop lids opening fully, but it's only one carriage so not a huge issue.

Anyone know if mains sockets in Turbos are on the horizon?  (Or 180s if they are coming back?)

P.S. I realize there are mains sockets by some vestibules in the Turbos but, given the quality of everything else, I wouldn't plug a computer in...

The plug sockets which are in the vestibules or on the turbos are not to be used by the public.
a) they do not have additional surge protection
b) they often do have very variable voltage.
c) are mainly for use for cleaners while stationary.

I have seen someone plug a laptop into a "not for public use" on a class 365, after a neutral section their laptop switched off, and the battery pack made quite a nice fizzing sound. It wouldn't turn on afterwards. The plug socket also had fused.

I have often wondered just *how* far away from an acceptable voltage / spike free those "not for public use" sockets are (and, no I have never used them).    Many thanks for the post - what it reports is disappointing, but that report is for an electric unit, where there is likely to be a lot of macho-voltage electricity about.  Can it be really that bad in a diesel?   Is the main problem the actual power supplied,  health and safety concerns with cables, or passengers fighting over limited outlets which would make table-jockying look like a walk in the park?

The Cleaner socket voltage on an HST Set fluctuates from 110v to 415v on the move ...you have been warned.....and as for bad design on a 180 .thats worthy of a complete new thread

When I said the 180s were ideal for the Cotswold Line, I meant in terms of seating capacity and comfort, for all but the busiest trains, in line with FGW's pledge in 2004 to provide "InterCity quality and comfort" throughout the day. Plug sockets weren't uppermost in my mind.

And the absence of sockets is hardly bad design - just that First Group presumably didn't ask for them to be fitted when the trains were ordered.

If the five 180s that will be free once Northern gets its 142s back and Hull and Grand Central finish overhauls were to return to FGW as a pre-electrification stopgap, they might have to wait get a heavy-duty facelift, depending on what happens over the franchise, with the seven-year break point looming in 2013. But Old Oak Common is certainly getting improved reliability out of the Hull Trains sets which they look after, according to figures in Modern Railways, though they still have a way to go to match Voyagers/Meridians.

The 180s would certainly help, given FGW's leading spot in the overcrowding league, noted here http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=8288.0 and the fact that according to the latest issue of the ORR's National Rail Trends, FGW leads the way for PIXC (passengers in excess of capacity) around London in the peaks, and the problem got worse in FGW-land between 2008 and 2009 (the latest figures they have.

From the introduction to the new Chapter 2 of National Rail Trends, issued on Monday

PiXC
^ The PiXC data shows that within the sample collected,  2.2% of passengers were travelling in excess of capacity in 2009, a decline from 3.0% in 2008.
^ During peak morning and peak afternoon hours, First Great Western operated 8.2% above capacity during 2009, an increase from 6.5% in 2008. London Overground, London Midland and Southern services also increased their proportion of passenger in excess of capacity. Six TOCs had reduced levels of crowding in 2009 compared to 2008 (c2c, Chiltern, First Capital Connect, National Express East Anglia, Southeastern and South West Trains).

Full chapter is here http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/nrt-ch2-railperformance.pdf

The only other operator that came close to FGW's percentage was LM at 5.9 per cent.

So Chris, I accept FGW do need lots of HSTs heading towards London but they also need to lose the collective corporate amnesia about things they promised their passengers up here back in 2004, which was not overcrowded Turbos with uncomfortable inner-suburban 3+2 seats.

Five 180s would come in very handy, releasing two Turbos to strengthen Thames Valley services from the 05.48 and 06.48 departures from PAD and providing a coupled pair of 180s for the 07.09 (07.59 from Maidenhead) or 07.33 from Oxford, both services where even an HST is short of seats much of the time. Which would give you something over 1,000 extra seats heading towards Paddington in the peak. But probably far too sensible for DafT to authorise it.

I^ve not been going down to London (from Pershore) for the past 12 months but last Thursday I needed to go down. Again, as I^ve said before, I invariably used the Chiltern line from Warwick.

Now I realise WillC that you don^t believe me when I talk about the number of Worcester travellers that don^t use FGW but here^s the maths.

Firstly I^ve ^snow on the roof^ and recently hit the requirements for a senior railcard, I needed to be in London for 09.00 returning sometime in the afternoon (flexible).

My options were
 
FGW from Pershore, Leave home 06:25, dep 06:35, arr 08:51, fare ^66
Chiltern from Warwick Parkway, Leave home 06:35, dep 07:19, arr 08:54, fare ^45
Virgin B^ham Int, Leave home 06:40, dep 07:41,arr 08:49, fare ^29

For Chiltern add ^12 for petrol & parking
For Virgin add ^18 for petrol & parking

Now which one do you think is the best choice?

The maths does get better for FGW later in the day ^ Chiltern leaving PM returning in the evening can drop as low as ^10 with some planning (^5 each way) Virgin advanced ^14.85 for PM departure return evening ^ the cheapest on FGW is ^23.75 OK but not compelling.

Now if you add Annie and Clarabelle into the equation plus the attitude ^if you think this train^s crap you should see what they put up with elsewhere!!!^ The decision not to use FGW becomes quite easy.

So ChrisB ^ I can assure you that the degradation of the rolling stock will further ensure that at the western end of the line there will be even more fresh air than passengers. In all a self fulfilling prophecy ^ so use it or loose it ^ decision made.

I've never disputed that people drive over to Warwick or International - just that no-one ever seems able to quantify how many do so.

And while you may have got a good deal with Virgin (the need to fill all those seats on Pendolinos may have a lot to do with it *), the comparison in time elapsed and fare between FGW and Chiltern is pretty marginal, never mind that plenty of people may not be as keen as you to hit the M42 of a morning to save ^20.

It may well be the case that those who do this are saving FGW from having an even worse overcrowding problem to deal with - or more likely, not deal with. Quite what they will do if there is a redoubling dividend, in terms of extra passengers, which seems a reasonable possibility, is anyone's guess.

* In the documentation for the new West Coast franchise bid process, DfT floats the possibility of allowing bidders to propose cutting service frequencies.

You've hit the nail on the head with this paragraph....it's the DfT, *not* FGW who have the control on what stock is offered on the Cotswold Line.

I do know that FGW continue to talk about stock with the DfT - witness the FGW30 project to cascade extra stock over in the West, units of which have started to arrive - in exchange for further Revenue Protection spend by FGW down there.

I'm sure FGW are trying for more, but the DfT is juggling with more than just FGW demands on other stock availability - and we'll just have to wait & see what else, if anything, FGW get allocated.

But until they do, there's going to be little change in stock offering.

However, the doubling will produce further journey oppertunities in September.

The quoted fares seem a little unusual, in that without a railcard the cheapest fare on the Virgin service quoted (at least for the next couple of weeks) is ^74 (anytime), but with a senior railcard it is ^28.40 (off-peak). I'm not sure why off-peak tickets are allowed for senior railcard holders when it's peak for everyone else, though then again I'm still a few years off studying the particular terms of the senior railcard.

Thus whilst the fare comparison would seem to favour Andy W, for the majority of people travelling at that time into London (under 60), it's not at all obvious that it would be cost effective to take that option, even putting aside the prospect of an hour's travelling in the rush hour.

Also the ^10 allowed for motoring costs (parking is ^8) works out at 49mpg fuel cost only for the 82 miles. A more realistic 30p per mile makes the round trip ^24, thus eroding the benefit still further.

  

Virgin allow all Railcard holders to travel at peak times with off peak fares on journeys they operate and set the fares for.

Thanks. Gosh, that's generous, particularly if peak services are overcrowded.

With 1,300 seats per hour to fill between the West Midlands and London from 5.30am, Virgin can probably afford to be generous to a few railcard holders, especially when those without railcards will pay ^149 for an anytime return from International to Euston, or about ^100-110 using a pair of advance singles - which is to say most people likely to be travelling at that time of the day and is a rather fairer comparison of the typical costs of doing a Worcestershire-London journey that way at that time of day, as the average business traveller is unlikely to be toting a railcard.

Hence my continued scepticism about this never-quantified number of people from Worcestershire who drive to Warwick or International for non-existent journey time benefits to avoid the robber barons of FGW - who, of course, give passengers from Worcester (120 miles from London, ^66 anytime return*) a considerably better deal fare-wise than Swindon, where you pay ^109 anytime return (for about 80 miles), while the best peak journey combining advance singles tomorrow is ^84.50. And in Swindon, you can't get a ^45 Saver (aka off-peak) return for an 07.35 departure, which is also valid for return travel in the evening peak, nor use a Network Card off-peak - a railcard which is available to all ages.

* And that's in the context of a ^51 anytime return between Oxford and London.

Oh, and before we get the usual stuff about allowing Cotswold Line time, things do go wrong on the WCML and the M42 too, you know.


Er, no. The DfT did not tell FGW to take off all the off-peak and weekend HSTs that have disappeared from the Cotswold Line over the past two years. That was entirely FGW's operational decision, to cut costs on the line. They have not got rid of those HSTs from their fleet, have they? Just as it was FGW's decision to get rid of the 180s and tell us and DafT that it would all be fine, because they would get more HSTs instead. And if First Group took it into their heads to do so, they could probably work out a way to remove the HSTs they own from the FGW fleet, never mind what DafT thinks.

A little disengenious, Willc, as I thought we were talking about trains around 0850, weren't we? So peak / shoulder-peak stock provision is the subject, when all the HSTs are in use delivering people into Padd. My point stands in the context of the discussion at that point in the thread.
 Just as it was FGW's decision to get rid of the 180s and tell us and DafT that it would all be fine, because they would get more HSTs instead. And if First Group took it into their heads to do so, they could probably work out a way to remove the HSTs they own from the FGW fleet, never mind what DafT thinks.
[/quote]

This quote from the government covering stock hints that there will be something for FGW:

The Government will now enter into commercial negotiations with the franchised operators about the allocation of the unallocated element of 650 further carriages for delivery before 2014. Subject to those negotiations, the Government expects additional carriages to be added on services into Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Liverpool, Newcastle, Birmingham, Bristol, London Paddington and London Waterloo.

In what way is it disingenuous?

Show me an order from the DfT telling FGW to take off the HST on the 05.48/08.58, or any other service at any other time of the week on the Cotswold Line over the past two years - such as the latest to lose an HST and the one this thread began about, the 11.21 from London and 14.34 return from Malvern, which is most assuredly not a peak shoulder service.

The pool of rolling stock available to FGW (either leased with the agreement of the DfT or owned outright by First Group) in the Thames Valley has barely changed since December 2008, at which point pretty much everything that moved on the Cotswold Line bar the halts trains and a couple of Malvern out and back Turbo trips were HSTs or one of the last few Adelantes (it also meant the Reading-Gatwick service got 166s, with lots of luggage space) - providing that InterCity quality and comfort FGW said we would get throughout the day back in 2004. We certainly aren't getting that now, are we Chris? And that was a point I made only yesterday and elsewhere back up the thread.

The 08.58 - and increasingly the 09.52 - are the two weekday services without a doubt where crowding is the biggest issue (though not forgetting the Turbo on the Sunday 18.30 from Hereford, 3hrs, 35 mins in inner-suburban seating for anyone doing the full trip), but there is the broader issue of the 2004 announcement and what was said about the service enhancements FGW could offer during the bidding process against Thames Trains in 2003 - enhancements which we enjoyed for several years but which have been chipped away at over the past two.

This thread is going round in circles. There is not the public demand for a 7 coach train at that time, as well you know & have agreed.

May not be the numbers to fill an HST - though something like an attempt at marketing off-peak travel on the line, as opposed to absolutely nothing of the sort being done for years, might help fill more seats* - but we would still like that InterCity quality and comfort FGW said we would get and which it used as a carrot to dangle in front of the SRA, something you will never ever get with a Turbo, whether there are 25 or 250 people on board.

* It's not as though they don't have the tools for the job available already, with the Network Railcard, the Cotswold Line Railcard (which wasn't even mentioned on the FGW website for several years), the Oxford Evening Out ticket for Oxfordshire stations (try finding it mentioned on the FGW website, it's not under special offers, which would seem the obvious place), and the LM ^3.70 evening out ticket valid west of Moreton-in-Marsh (the only notices about this that I have ever seen at the stations have been produced by the CLPG). Try promoting that little lot properly - and collect the revenue, of course - and the numbers might look a bit different.

I don't really want to shake the hornet's next any further, but a thought occurred to me earlier on. Now it's possible my memory is not correct, but wasn't this oft-cited carrot dangled in connection with 2004-2006 extension of the Thames Trains franchise which First were awarded? If that was indeed the case then my understanding is that First have fully discharged that promise, since Adelentes were in squadron service on the Cotswold Line during the First Great Western Link era.

The Greater Western franchise was, I believe, let on substantially different terms from the FGW Link franchise extension, and wasn't one of the tenets that the 14 Adelantes would be handed back to their leasing company and replaced with five additional HSTs? What I don't know is whether this was a DfT requirement or a suggestion that First came up with; either way the 180s were got shot of with the full knowledge and approval of the DfT, perhaps even at their insistence.

As has been mentioned elsewhere in Cotswold Line threads passim, in many ways the ideal solution for those off-peak services when operating an HST is not commercially justifiable would be some kind of high-quality 170-, 175- or 185-like DMU but there simply aren't any of those around at the moment, and although there was the appealing prospect of 172s being introduced this has apparently been nixed by HM Government for the immediate future at the very least. So I assume the bottom line from FGW's point of view is that they're not in breach of their franchise obligation by operating Turbo stock vice HSTs and can therefore do so at times when passenger numbers don't justify a seven- or eight-car train.

One thing I'm not clear on is what's happening to the HSTs that have apparently been released from Cotswold Line duty by these changes; are they needed to cover for poor fleet reliability, have they been redeployed to services elsewhere or do they now just sit in sidings at the times when they would have previously been travelling to Worcester or Hereford?

There are some of those available at the moment, of course: five 180s. Just right to run a slightly expanded Cotswold Line service.

I don't think anyone's arguing that FGW have broken a formal franchise obligation. The contention is rather that they've broken their promise to Cotswold Line users - and that, irrespective of what they might or might not have said, 16xs are objectively inappropriate stock for London to Worcester and Malvern, let alone Hereford.

(Post-electrification, could Oxford become a Turbo-free zone? 319s to Paddington; Chiltern to Bicester and Marylebone; a 153 would be plenty for the Banbury stoppers; just leaving the Cotswold Line...)

Who called the FGW robber barons? They do not promote 'special fares' in the way either Chiltern or Virgin do hence they make no effort to fill seats.

How on earth do you expect a passenger to come up with those figures? What I can tell you is that of the people I know fewer than half of those who use the train to go to London use FGW.

Non existant travel time benefits? - Look at the full journey time which often includes waiting for a train in the first place. The maximum wait for a Virgin train is 20 mins, for Chiltern 30 mins, now look at the timetable from Paddington. Should you get to Paddington at 13:30 to return to Pershore how long do you have to wait?

I can't find any mention of this offering but do notice that the off-peak return from Honeybourne/Evesham/Pershore to Worcester is ^3.70


Actually around 52mpg - if you drive a car that does 20mpg that's up you, - clearly no need for to you to check fares.

And the price for the trains quoted is around ^38 without a railcard not ^74. It's nothing to do with off peak and everything to do with advanced purchase (which I did the afternoon before I travelled).

Out of interest what incentives are there on the Cotswold Line for any advanced purchase - a good way to fill seats (particluarly off peak)?

Cheapest one way non-railcard fares to London are:-
Virgin ex Birminghan International - ^7.50
Chiltern ex Warwick Parkway - ^5
FGW ex Worcester - check for yourself

Now to the substance of this thread:-
Virgin use Pendilinos - found it comfy enough (but prefer an UNREFURBISHED Mk III)
Chiltern 168 - pleaseant enough, good 2+2 seating, aligned to windows, many tables, not as refined as an HST but seat layout makes up for the extra noise / door locations etc.

Now look at the Turbo - frankly not fit for purpose in this long distance market.

As Richard Fairhurst says there are 180s available at the moment - and with some active imagination & marketing FGW could easily increase the patronage on the western end of the line.

Indeed - and again, the DfT will allocate those as it sees fit. It is not within a TOCs ability to take them on....the DfT will be looking for the best deal it can get - and as tax-payers money is involved, wouldn't we agree with that?


As are 90% empty HSTs if you consider the green issues. Inspector Blakey, I think, is correct - in that FGWL made that promise when taking over from Thames Trains. This is a completely different franchise, where different promises were made.


And we have to be very hopeful that the DfT order IEP stock that can be split - i.e. 5 or 6 car units that join to 10- or 12-car units ex-Pad in the peak. Then a 5 or 6-car front unit can be split at Oxford for the Cotswold Line with either a dual-fuel or loco engine attached. God forbid they order 10/12 car units that can't be split - they'll never run along the Cotswolds.....(except maybe two peaks)

For this part of "we": given the amount of taxpayers' money that's being frittered away in bankers' bonuses, PFI deals and wars in the Middle East, I find it hard to get worked up about the leasing costs of five trains. But I may be going off-topic here.  ;)


Yes - for the current Cotswold Line usage, 180s are much more suitable trains off-peak than either Turbos or HSTs. (Though Will is correct that off-peak usage is seriously under-promoted on the Cotswold Line.)


Not "completely different" at all. It was always clear that FGWL was the first step of incorporating the Thames area into Greater Western: indeed, Richard Bowker was famously caught saying "When First gets Greater Western" before hastily correcting himself to "If First gets Greater Western". FGW was even planning to continue branding the three constituent parts of Greater Western separately (FGW Link, FGW Local and FGW High-Speed IIRC) at one point.


To be honest I don't see much sense in second-guessing IEP, especially with electrification on the cards - it might comprise a Pendolino-Pacer hybrid running on pineapple juice for all DfT seems to have decided. But given that DfT has no problem with diesels running under the wires (e.g. Birmingham-Glasgow Voyagers), I wouldn't be at all surprised if we and similar lines end up with Voyager/Adelante type stock. MML electrification could open up interesting possibilities for cascades...

Yes, a completely different franchise that completely different promises were made to obtain it. Might be the same company - although I understand a new company was formed by First to run it. (First Greater Western) The only thing that remained was the Parent company, I undertand - First Group.

But neither here nor there, as it is a different franchise for sure, with different promises.

Are people here really seriously suggesting they promised to make the Cotswold Line's service worse, two years after improving it to loud fanfares, yet still won the Greater Western franchise?

All the spin in 2007 was that bringing in more HSTs was as a result of the tremendous successes enjoyed under FGW Link, which meant that the 180s were struggling to cope with demand between Oxford and London much of the day. It was presented as a straightforward swap of one train type for the other and another improvement in FGW's service offer, with yet more seats in nice trains.

And let's get away from the notion that FGW Link was in some way a separate entity from the wider FGW operation. It wasn't, its invention merely reflected the short-term, stop-gap nature of the two-year franchise. Your average passenger never understood the difference anyway - it all said First Great Western on the tin. Changing the names of subsidiary companies along the way is not a substantial or meaningful change, and the same faces were in place in FGW management across the franchise change.

I would refer people to the famous (here at least) December 2004 press release for a bit of a memory refresher, which, apart from a certain pledge, talked proudly about integrating the two operations' timetables and quotes Alison Forster, the "managing director of First Great Western and First Great Western Link". It presents the whole operation as a seamless, integrated package. See http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/NewsItem.aspx?id=203

The removal of 125mph InterCity stock from Cotswold Line services did not start until January 2009, after a year when HSTs had gradually supplanted 180s, with just a few 180 trips lingering on until that spring. Making a change of rolling stock one month into a timetable hardly suggests an organised policy decided years previously, does it? Never mind the underhand way in which it was implemented, with a few posters stuck up at stations days before and nothing being said to the CLPG until the deed was done. And at pretty much every timetable change since, a few more HSTs have gone.

I accept FGW aren't in breach of the strict letter of the franchise, because they are using specified stock, but that specification is widely drawn, allowing them as it does to use 67s plus coaches pretty much anywhere on the network, should the mood take them. And it doesn't make what they have done right.

As for we had something better, it was called a 180. A four-car anything else with 2+2 seats would offer better comfort but no improvement in seating numbers on a 166, where a 180 gives 284, though I expect a high-density refresh could push that up to 300-plus. And what we need off-peak here is something with more seats than a 166 but fewer than an HST and which can go like stink on the fast lines east of Didcot. Remind you of anything?


Give the leasing company a big enough cheque and you could do what you like with them. If an operator, even a franchised one, wanted to take them on at its own commercial risk, I don't think the government would or could stand in their way. Can you imagine the headlines? The 180s are not the property of the DfT. Just as the HSTs that First Group owns are not the property of the DfT.


The robber barons bit was a joke, though you were quite clearly asking people to compare and contrast the costs involved among the options you had.

Why shouldn't I ask a passenger who tells us lots of people go to catch trains in Warwickshire? I wasn't expecting precision, just something more than an oft-repeated assertion.

What time benefits? Your journey options involved leaving within a 15-minute window and arriving in a five-minute window. Hardly substantial differences - and what happens if the M42 is a mess?

And are you really suggesting that the Cotswold Line and Worcester should get the frequency of service that the West Midlands conurbation and the places along the way from London can sustain? The last draft post-redoubling timetable I saw shows the 13.21 would end at Moreton-in-Marsh, with the 14.21 extended to Worcester instead. Definitely not ideal, though spreading services out more, and definitely a Turbo.


It's the same thing - it's just described as a super off-peak return so that it has a name that the gobbledegook ticketing system can understand. Its time validity in no way matches that normally used for a super off-peak.

The reasons why FGW doesn't offer advance fares on the Cotswold Line are pretty straightforward - the fares are already low by comparison with journeys over similar distances, the Network Card is valid all the way out to Worcester, backed up by the Cotswold Line Railcard for local trips, you don't need the help of advance fares to fill the peak services (unless you wanted to encourage contra-peak travel and a Saver/off peak return is already valid from Paddington on the 05.48 and 06.48 for journeys on to the Cotswold Line) and you wouldn't want to completely fill up off-peak Turbos off the Cotswold Line with people travelling at rock-bottom prices, as people boarding at Oxford might struggle for a seat, especially when they do offer rock-bottom off-peak advance fares (down to ^4 single) from Oxford as part of their fight with the M40 coach operators.

Cotswold Line passengers can benefit from these tickets if they use them in conjunction with a Cotswold Line Railcard fare west of Oxford, especially for a one-way journey in the evening peak out of London. You can find ^8 singles on the 17.22 and 18.22 and sometimes down to ^6.50 on the 17.50, which, used with a Cotswold Line Railcard single past Oxford would give, for example, a London-Moreton fare of ^12.05, compared with a peak single of ^30.50.

On a return trip to London, a Network (or Senior, etc) Railcard return fare, especially if a London Travelcard is factored in, probably has the edge, unless you do strike lucky with those ^4 fares, though these seem to be mainly confined to HST services that start at Oxford 

While they did drop that promise, and made no other for this line, I guess that yes, you might think that equates to 'making the service worse'. But there was no other 'worse' promise, I think.


And then came the recession. FGW are now on Revenue Support - so passengers did flee most of their network. So of course they'll cut costs - it might be a requiremernt of the terms of this revenue support?....


Oh, I think it was. It would certainly have had to be revenue-independant as one franchise can't support another, legally. While Ms Forster was indeed MD of both, the Management Board was indeed separate, if I remember correctly - so separate that when FGW took over, the new management that the Customer reps noticed weren't aware of what the old ones had been doing....


I certainly agree there.


But not here - see above. I think you're memory is slipping. Assuming you were with the Oxford paper at that time, who was your contact back then, in management?


c.f. the recession....


I completely agree that their customer info was really awful then....


Or wrong, either. And what's wrong with a 67 & coaches? I'd be happy riding in them!


Your quite likely correct - but in a recession (or post-recession with negative growth if you prefer), who in their right commercial mind would? And why's it a commericial decision - because the Government / DfT say so. So yes, I again refer you back to the DfT, not FGW to sort this problem out.

You then go on to refer to all the cheap offerings on the Cotswold Line & that it benefits over fares for equivalent distances elsewhere on FGW. So would you prefer HSTs and equivalent fares, or what you've got & current fares? Because that question will have to be answered as part of any package to improve the stock allocation, for sure.

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree on our interpretations of events then, won't we. But the notion of Alison Forster having one corner of her office to be md of FGW in and another to be md of FGW Link in, to maintain the necessary technical separation of franchises, gave me a good laugh. One guiding mind - plus another in Aberdeen, of course - tells you all you need to know about the overall relationship of the two operations.

As for me flagging up all the ways you can save money, that was in response to Andy's comments about the lack of advance fares. And all those ways of saving money were also available when there lots of Adelantes and HSTs running around, so we got a high-quality train and a good deal. But FGW's marketing of these tools they have available to attract custom to the line has been non-existent throughout. Had they made an effort, they might have filled some of the empty seats, as I pointed out previously.

They might also make an effort to avoid situations like the one I heard about last night, where the TVM at Hanborough was on the blink on Saturday and friends of a friend never saw a conductor on their way to Moreton-in-Marsh or on the way back, which makes five passengers who paid nothing and will never appear on a computer record of supposed journeys made on the line.

And isn't anyone going to speak up in defence of Turbos and say what an ideal train they are for Oxford and Cotswold services...? But they are cheap, so that's okay. And nothing wrong with a 67 and coaches but apparently they're expensive to run too...

Indeed they were, and the recession hasn't helped anyone. But I do agree with the rest of your paragraph concerning marketing. Maybe that's something the CLPG can take up?


And the day return fare Hanborough to MiM is?.....And with a railcard is?
I agree there is a stock issue, don't get me wrong. All I was arguing is that it is for the DfT to sort out the stock allocation at FGW correctly together with a reasonable (i.e. similar mile-for-mile costs as elsewhere on FGW) fare structure to provide a reasonable rate-of-return. Then for the next franchise to contain the 'right' stock allocation for the line - again for the DfT to get right. Something else for the CLPG to diarise & campaign for when the franchise spec comes up for consultation.


Less expensive with a 'reasonable' fare level - you can't have (or expect from a commercial organisation) cheap fares without getting 'cheap' stock. Now, the CLPG Have a hard choice to make there....

This isn't a leasing cost argument.

158s are, I suspect, not appreciably more expensive than Turbos. They can operate at 90mph, like Turbos. They are well-proven, reliable trains, like Turbos. First Great Western has a bunch of them kicking around, like Turbos.

Unlike Turbos, they have air-conditioning (that works), 2+2 seating, and tables throughout. Unlike Turbos, they have a corridor connection so can be sensibly worked in multiple, balancing train length to demand. Unlike Turbos, they have local door operation, so 2x158 could work a service and still stop at even Finstock and Combe if required. All of these are highly relevant to the Cotswold Line. I can only think of one advantage of a Turbo - the bike space is better.

So FGW already has a train suitable for the less well-loaded Cotswold Line services.

And also in use elsewhere on their network.

There's no local depot / fuelling point. The turbos can't be swapped as they aren't cleared for the West. They also run far further where they are currently (Cardioff-Portsmouth on a turbo anyone?), than they would on the Cotswold.

Sorry, Richard, but that doesn't add up.

All of which can be fixed: they go to Worcester already (on the ex-Wessex services) so diagrams and fuelling shouldn't be impossible, clearing Turbos for Wessex region services is already on the cards (because that's where they're going post-electrification), and yes, Cardiff-Portsmouth is long, but there are fewer people making the end-to-end journey than there are Worcester-London.

But, again, the point isn't specifically about 158s or 180s or pineapple-powered IEPs specifically. The point is simply that 3+2 outer-suburban trains are unacceptable for any Cotswold Line service other than, perhaps, the Halts stopper. Solutions exist with a bit of willpower... all FGW needs to do is apply some.

Let's not overestimate the difficulty of this. We're talking about, more or less, three weekday diagrams. At most, you'd need five trains; at the least, three, with Turbos to substitute when required.

More than willpower - and that's money.

Commercial decisions have been taken - if you don't like them, with only three years to the end of this franchise (unless FGW qualify & request an extension, which isn't a given) - togerther with a recession and them being on Revenue Support means it just ain't going to happen this side of 2013 / 2016.

Everyone would be better to stop griping & start working on a campaign to better produce the next franchise spec, IMHO.

I believe it was discussed that the Class 166's should be refreshed with 2+2 seating throughout.  This wasn't possible due to the number of trips they do on peak time suburban duties out of Paddington.  It's a shame that there isn't a little bit extra stock about so that this would have been possible, or that perhaps half of the fleet could have been modified in that way.

The Cotswold Line services and maybe the Bedwyn and Gatwick trains could have then been operated by 2+2 Turbos, and as there's plenty of Turbo's kicking around at Old Oak and Reading off-peak any capacity issues could have been solved with a 2 or 3 car 165 attaching/detaching at Oxford.

It's a bit of a paradox that there's plenty of Class 142 and 143's out there with 2+2 seating, but not a single Turbo.

Oh where to begin...? As has already been pointed out, the 158 fleet is fully utilized elsewhere already. I'm not sure exactly how many 158s FGW has but I don't think it's much more than 10-15, so once you have taken "at most five" for the Cotswold Line you have removed 30 - 50% of the west fleet that's used on CDF-PMH. As has been noted elsewhere on the forum, there are non-trivial numbers of 150 substitutions happening on this route as it is, so there aren't enough 158s to go around already before you've nabbed half the fleet.

Incidentally, I'd love to see your figures showing that fewer people travel CDF-PMH than from Worcester to London because I suspect you've just made that bit up.

The lack of DOO equipment on the 158 fleet may be a further issue, although potentially could be mitigated by driver/guard working south of Oxford. Except that I don't think any drivers or guards currently have the requisite combination of traction and route knowledge.

Yes there are suggestions that Turbo stock will be moved west subsequent to any electrification, but as things stand they're not gauged to operate on those routes. I'm no expert but I would guess that because of the Turbos "fat b*st*rd" loading gauge there would have to be some alterations made to trackwork, platforms and other bits and bobs of infrastructure along the way, which would cost further money. Now, you might be able to make a business case for that as part of a whole suite of improvements and mass rolling stock cascade that would accompany electrification, but good luck trying to make it a goer just so that a few Cotswold Line passengers don't have to suffer the "indignity" of travelling on a Turbo. I'm sure anyone who's endured a 150/1 unit from Temple Meads to Weymouth would happily switch their train for a Turbo though.

Incidentally, why did it apparently only become "unacceptable" to use Turbo stock on the full length of the Cotswold Line recently when for years previously it was the only equipment used with the exception of the odd HST each day?

You tell me. I've never thought it's acceptable.

The Sunday Hereford runs are, I believe, the longest workings in Britain booked for units with  3+2 seating. Has 3hr25 in a Turbo ever been acceptable? I don't think so.


Of course I have, and I'm very open to being proved wrong. You're going to tell me there's a significant number of Cardiff-Portsmouth commuters, whereas the Cotswold Line is being dualled not because of high demand (and its consequences for reliability) but because Network Rail just fancied something to do, right?  ::)

As for the 158s - no doubt you're right, though IIRC FGW's Jon Porter has posted on uk.railway passim that 16x gauging issues across FGW territory are greatly overstated; a 165 has been to Weymouth and, reputedly, the reason they're not officially passed to go via (for example) Trowbridge and Melksham is that Network Rail lost the paperwork.

But that's not what I'm getting at. My point is that with however many thousand rail vehicles in Britain, which are regularly cascaded from franchise to franchise, a solution can be found which doesn't involve running outer-suburban stock on long-distance/regional lines. The 180s are the obvious solution, but if for any reason they're not available, they are not the only solution.

I wouldn't pretend for a moment that I think running Turbo stock all the way to Hereford is an ideal situation (although it's a mathematical certainty that the longest diagram for 3+2 stock has to be somewhere in the country) but as ever it's a question of cost versus benefit. The 180s are (or at least were) notoriously expensive to lease.

Given what ChrisB has already pointed out regarding FGW being on revenue support, the way the current franchising system operates really means that FGW has absolutely no incentive to lease the 180s at significant cost because on paper there's little to choose between a 180 and a 166 in terms of seating capacity, whilst the 166s are already on the books and cheaper both to lease and operationally.

You would probably have been looking at a Groupsave from what I gathered - but what it costs is neither here nor there.

In a context where FGW is getting cap and collar payments, it should surely be making a determined effort to get in money that it is due for providing a service. If a conductor sees people getting on a train at an unstaffed station, even it if has a TVM, which may or may not be working, surely finding out if they have tickets is an obvious thing to do? A deal less revenue support might be needed if this was being done. And on a three-coach platform it's not hard to work out which bit of the train they are likely to be sitting in, is it?


It became unacceptable when by the early 2000s they were unable to cope with the number of passengers travelling on them much of the time (the 15.2X from London rammed most of the way to Moreton-in-Marsh, the 16.2X turned over to a three-car set due to its loading, with the halts service knocked back an hour as a result, the 08.XX from Worcester going over to a 180 just three months into the franchise in 2004 because of its loading...) because they had done such a good job of building traffic since 1993. And lots of the services originating and terminating at Oxford were in the same boat, especially in school holidays and the tourist season. Remember all that coupling and uncoupling and shunting of Turbos at Oxford? A state of affairs which FGW said it had the answer to, aka the 180s, and duly won the Thames Valley franchise.

I have nothing against Turbos for my 35-minute journey to and from work, so long as they are not jam-packed and I'm wedged into a corner, but I will avoid them like the plague for the 95-100 minutes run to or from London unless I have absolutely no choice. Even if you get lucky and the train doesn't fill up at Oxford, those seats are vile to sit in for that length of time. I pity anyone using that out and back Sunday Hereford service. Perhaps some customer panel members might like to try it one weekend?

I'd do it..

There's an often mentioned argument that as long as they're getting the C&C payments there is actually an incentive to manage their income to make sure it stays within the threshold where payment from the Government is due.  Witness barriers at Reading/Oxford often closing early last year and the several months at Paddington when recently installed barriers on the overbridge and covering platforms 10-14 were often left wide open throughout the day.  Staff recruitment to cover those shortfalls was at best lethargic and at worst designed to ensure that C&C payments would be due.  If anyone on here knows the ins-and-outs of the system then feel free to refute that argument, but I've heard it talked about by several people!


If I remember at the time First got the 'Link' franchise (and a subsidy of around ^100m, with Thames Trains' bid not requiring subsidy), the argument was two-fold.  Firstly there would be an improvement of service levels with the 180's replacing the Turbos as mentioned, but just as big a reason, if not bigger, was that all of these Turbos running on the main lines from Didcot to Paddington was having a serious effect on the PPM of the route as 125mph trains were having to follow 90mph trains which also stopped at Slough.  Funny how that all of a sudden doesn't seem to matter any more!

Also, when I was mentioning 2+2 seating on the Class 166's earlier today, you'd only actually lose 24 seats per 3-car set if you did exactly that.  Not as many as you might think.

Unless they want to leave Paddington at 1442, arrive Hereford at 1801 and spend precisely 29 minutes there before heading back to Paddington, I doubt there are many who do ;)

A bit more seriously though, and assuming FGW's pdf timetable still accurately reflects the distribution of equipment on the Sunday service, anyone returning from London to Malvern, Worcester, Hereford etc has the choice of HSTs at 1342 or 1842 (there's no through Hereford service between the 1442 and 1842), or in the up direction at 1430, 1633 or 1830 so there are reasonable alternatives for anyone who want to avoid it.


I was interested to read that comment "up thread" - I like the idea of fitting 2+2 to the 166 fleet. Slightly surprised that is was dropped because of the inner suburban diagrams that they operate though, when more modern thinking on the issue seems to be to admit that people will end up standing, cut down numbers of seats slightly and try and make things a bit more comfortable for the standees. I'm thinking in particular of the new LOROL 172 fleet, various 150/2 and Pacer refurbishments, and didn't Merseyrail refurb their fleet with 2+2 seating a while back for just that reason?

The reason I've seen quoted for the 166s not getting 2+2 seating was that it was physically difficult: there's some equipment under the rows of three seats that would have to be re-engineered in order to move the gangway to the centre, and that would be prohibitively expensive. My mechanical knowledge is pretty much nonexistent but no doubt someone here will be able to cite chapter and verse.

For what it's worth I catch the Sunday Hereford Turbo once every couple of months or so (though from Hereford to Charlbury, not all the way to Paddington) - I'm not just bellyaching for the fun of it. (I have family in Church Stretton and fairly often pay a Friday pm-Sunday visit, and sadly, the Turbo is the train at the most convenient time. On the most recent journey we actually cut our visit short to get an HST instead, as we wanted to get some work done.)

It's the problem in a nutshell. It's clearly nowhere near busy enough to justify a 7/8-carriage train. Yet it's just as clearly too long a journey for the 3+2 seating. Maybe I should try going via Shrewsbury and W&S to Banbury instead... oh bugger. :(

Incidentally, http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi-responses/698001/698004/f0007261.pdf appears to suggest that the fate of the 180s is still up in the air. It states that the cascade will see Northern Rail hand the five back to East Coast (who are still nominally the lessees) but it fails to state what they'll do with them - unlike other stock mentioned in the document, where the cascades are clearly detailed.

Quite possibly the case, and even if it wasn't it would still be more expensive as instead of new seat covers, new seats and supports would also be required.  Still, I wasn't holding out any hope anyway!

Thanks, for the FOI link: This passage caught my eye...

Of the 72 Class 150 carriages, 26 of them are currently yet to be contracted to be used by any Train Operating Company (TOC).
The Department is currently engaged in discussions with three TOCs (London Midland, Northern Trains and First Great Western) about the possible use of these trains.

With the DfT stating they want to increase the number of carriages on trains into London Paddington, how about some of those 150's working the Windsors, Henley's, Marlow's and Greenford's releasing Turbos for the main line services?  Wishful thinking again probably!

Re 166s, it wasn't just a question of the equipment under the seats (coolant header tanks, I think). It would also have needed a complete readjustment of the braking system, as the weight distribution would have been altered quite a bit apparently. So with all that and a limited budget to work with, the idea was dropped

And a train with fewer seats isn't what the Cotswold Line needs for the busiest services now in the hands of Turbos, even if they would be able to accommodate people with arms, unlike the existing design.


The speed segregation was another proud boast in that December 2004 press release, so probably just as easy to forget as all the other great benefits to mankind that FGW was offering at the time.

As I said, it would have gone arm-in-arm with additional sets (normal 2+3) to couple up to at Oxford.  If you look at the 2nd, 3rd and 4th busiest Turbo trains of the day, the 09:54 ex Malvern, the 12:06 ex Worcester and the 14:35 ex Malvern a 3-Car 166 with 2+2 seating coupling up to a 2-Car or 3-Car 165/6 at Oxford would provide enough seats - and critically more comfortable ones for the longer distance journeys - at a time when there are Turbos available and with ample time in the schedules for it not to impact on the current journey time.  The same problem doesn't really seem to affect the down journeys as much, though the 13:21 ex Paddington sometimes gets a little cozy.

I still think the 08:58 ex Malvern should be a HST, with the Turbo that currently works it from 05:48 at Paddington being put to good use in the morning peak.


Yep, design issues, a bit of engineering waffle, and most tellingly, cost, is enough to put paid to it ever happening!

By the way, if anyone wants to have a read of the current Franchise Agreement for FGW it can be found at www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/publicregister/current/fgw/fgwagreement.pdf (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/publicregister/current/fgw/fgwagreement.pdf) - some interesting reading in there about all sorts of issues, although some of the information is missing if it's commercially sensitive.

THis is what FGW has told me.

I can't comment on the afternoon services, as I use them once in a blue moon, but the idea of the 09.5X from Malvern having something in the region of 220 seats would make it distinctly cosy much of the way to Oxford, especially in the summer holidays, when it is very popular with the type of tourist with two enormous suitcases each. Standing from Charlbury and Hanborough most of the time methinks. And the amount of time that could be lost at Oxford splitting Turbos and getting people from the rear set into the front one to go further west in Thames days could sometimes make a call by an HST look like a grand prix pit stop, especially in those happy times when the halts train was worked by the front set of a five-car combination from London.

Good news, just had a look through the new Rail magazine out today, theres an article about a few Class 180's are to transfer back to FGW for Oxford/Cotswold services presumably to eliminate most of the remaining fast services which are turbos.    These will be  from the now aborted ECML lincoln services, also mentions it on Wikipedia for Class 180 - possibly up to 5 units to transfer back (3 of which are presently on loan to Northern).

There's a thread specifically on this./...but then again, not everything in Rail is correct either.

Does anyone know why most of the HST's (off peak) have been removed from Cotswold Line and some Oxford services in recent years from 2009?

I can recall when FGW started using Class 180's for the line it promised high speed (comfort wise) stock.   The HST's replaced them like for like, but most services have since been reverted back to Turbos which are rather unsuitable for long distance services e.g. from London Paddington to Geat Malvern.

I agree that running a half empty HST off peak is not economic, and surprised that so many services were HST's back in 2009.   What I don't understand is that sometimes FGW run a London to Oxford (HST) with the longer distance Cotswold Line service being a Turbo  ???.   Are the missing HST's a result of becoming less reliable? more services to the South West/Wales?

Anyway Turbos aren't that bad to travel in as it could be alot worse say a class 150 or Pacer!!!

Sorry if this post is slightly unrelated to the subject but didn't want to start a fresh topic for just a random question.

Money.

The recession coupled with the major increase in the cost of fuel.
Couple that with the fact that everyone still gets a (not so comfortable) seat & they meet framchise requirements.

Agreed with Chris, but off-peak HST's are so under occupied on the CL and for many off-peak services Turbo capacity is adequate. Turbo ride is very acceptable but 3 x 2 seating is not for the longer CL journeys and when a 3 car Turbo is replaced with a 2-car Turbo and over 100 people standing for many miles and minutes and the single toilet out of action because of so much use, conditions are diabolical. Adelantes were ideal for the CL in terms of capacity and suitability for longer journeys but reliability was a problem, so we were told. It is hoped that DfT consent will be given to FGW bringing back 5 Adelantes (180s) in time for the December 2011 timetable introduction.

...but until then, Turbo(t)isation of the Cotswold Line continues apace. The 07.04 from Charlbury this (Saturday) morning, publicised as an HST in the current timetable, was once again a Turbo; the conductor reportedly said that the diagram, publicised as an HST in the current timetable, has now been permanently assigned to a Turbo.