Potential bidders for the next Greater Western franchise

[whole diary]

[John R]

The Bristol commuters are being treated that way now as the layout of the HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s is optimised to the requirements of moving the volume of traffic from Swindon onwards towards Paddington.

Yes 10 seconds a mile on the top speed....  

You're perpetuating the myth that everyone travelling from Bristol to London is a commuter. Many are business travellers, who are not well catered for by the current configuration (nor are families, at the risk of reigniting a regular debate).

4 secs a mile actually, so it takes 15 miles to close the gap by a minute. 

[broadgage]

Such matters as seating layout, we are told have not been decided yet. This is no doubt true, but does anyone really expect a new DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)* to have a proper intercity internal fit out ? I certainly dont, and as for catering, forget it ! Suburban DMUs* dont have catering.

Well, you certainly seem to have already decided  that the seating layout won't meet the requirements of the train technical specification, because you keep repeating this point.  But with no evidence whatsoever, to be honest, other than personal opinion.

The problem with insisting on an 'intercity' spec is that much of the eastern end of the route, such as Oxford, Reading and Newbury to Paddington services actually require a high capacity London commuter type service - because that's what the east end of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) has turned into over the last 30 years.  Effectively, Reading is an outer suburban station, in the same way as a places like Guildford is.

Paul

I grant that I have no actual evidence as to what the internal layout of the new trains will be. I do however have considerable experience of new shorter trains on other routes.
I dont consider that 4 car voyagers are an improvement over HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) or loco hauled coaches, they are too short and have high density bus seats.
I dont consider that the replacement trains used between London and Portsmouth are an improvement over those used previously as they have 2+3 seating that used to be confinned to suburban routes.
And did not a new franchisee recently replace 12 car trains with 8 car, explaining that this was OK as the new shorter trains had higher density seating.
I expect that the new trains will have seating a bit worse than a high density HST, I would expect two tables per vehicle, with the rest of the seats in bus layout, in accordance with accepted modern practice. I will be very suprised if the seats are mainly facing seats with tables as used to be the norm for inter city services.
And as for catering I suspect that this will be limited to a trolley, or perhaps a microbuffet if we are very lucky. DMUs dont have kitchens !

[eightf48544]

I forgot to add another reason as to why this will be a very difficult franchise to run for the first 6 years and the large elephant in the room called ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) which somehow has to be integrated with electrification and new and old rolling stock. Not easy as they've found on the Cambrian and that was not  electrified at the same time, uses one type of rollingstock and probably has less trains in day than between Reading and Paddington has in 2/3 hours..

[The SprinterMeister]

The Bristol commuters are being treated that way now as the layout of the HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s is optimised to the requirements of moving the volume of traffic from Swindon onwards towards Paddington.

Yes 10 seconds a mile on the top speed....  

You're perpetuating the myth that everyone travelling from Bristol to London is a commuter. Many are business travellers, who are not well catered for by the current configuration (nor are families, at the risk of reigniting a regular debate).

4 secs a mile actually, so it takes 15 miles to close the gap by a minute. 

We'll stick with the schooolboy maths and ignore any difference in acceleration between an electric IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and a class 350 then? Your 15 miles figure means IEP will be getting checked down somewhere around the loops at Challow, long before its sat at Foxhall Jn waiting for the 350 to clear the up fast platform at Didcot. There seem to be a lot of signal checks around Didcot now without adding any more trains to the mix.

And yes I suppose it might be said that the current HST saloon layout isn't optimal for all markets but I doubt (with DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) holding the purse strings and having the ultimate say) that any new long distance stock built these days has seating density of less than that provided now in the HST fleet. That seating layout doesn't appear to have deterred anyone from using the HST's.

[The SprinterMeister]

I forgot to add another reason as to why this will be a very difficult franchise to run for the first 6 years and the large elephant in the room called ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) which somehow has to be integrated with electrification and new and old rolling stock. Not easy as they've found on the Cambrian and that was not  electrified at the same time, uses one type of rollingstock and probably has less trains in day than between Reading and Paddington has in 2/3 hours..

Which is probably why the Cambrian was used as a self contained trainset in order to test and prove the concept of ERTMS. You would hope that enough has been learnt from that excercise to enable it to be rolled out with greater expediency across the network. As I understand it the level of ERTMS proposed for the GW^▸ (Great Western) is initially the level one variation which retains the lineside signals. One of the problems being is that you have to install ERTMS in and around the current GW-ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection) system as essentially ERTMS level one is the latterday replacement for GW-ATP. I don't think the health and safety mandarins are going to be to happy with the idea of shutting down and removing GW-ATP before ERTMS is in situ to replace it. Nor do you want to be in a situation of having to put GW-ATP into IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) as the equipment is essentially obsolete and there are already delays in getting things like Trackside beacons and cab displays repaired when they fail.

[JayMac]

I dont consider that 4 car voyagers are an improvement over HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) or loco hauled coaches, they are too short and have high density bus seats.

Voyagers do not have 'high density bus seats'.   A Standard Class coach has a maximum of 66 seats (Coach B). Compare that with a FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HST Standard Class coach B: Prior to refurb with old IC70 seats: 76. After refurb with Grammer: 80 LD, 84 HD.

Voyager http://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/SiteImages/Assets/3/VOYAGER_Seat_Plan.pdf
FGW HST (old) http://www.rail-britain.co.uk/downloads/FGW_HST_Coach_ABCD.gif
FGW HST (new) http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt68/bignosemac/HSTHD.jpg

I've done some 'fag packet' maths. A Voyager trailer coach B passenger saloon is approximately 16 metres long (from door to rear of toilet). A FGW HST Standard Class coach B passenger saloon is approximately 18 metres long (from rear of toilet/luggage rack at each end).

Voyager. Length to seats ratio: 0.24, Or roughly 1 row of seats every 96cm.
FGW HST (old): 0.23.
FGW HST (new HD): 0.21, Or roughly 1 row of seats every 85cm.

I do agree however that Voyager sets are too short. But it must be remembered that the service frequency over the core CrossCountry network is today double that of the frequency prior to the Voyagers introduction. Passenger numbers have also increased way beyond those forecast at the the time of the introduction of Voyagers.

All that said, I'm still no fan of the Class 220/221, but their Standard Class seating density is actually 'better' than FGW's. And they ain't bus seats! 

[The SprinterMeister]

I've done some 'fag packet' maths. A Voyager trailer coach B passenger saloon is approximately 16 metres long (from door to rear of toilet). A FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HST^▸ (High Speed Train) Standard Class coach B passenger saloon is approximately 18 metres long (from rear of toilet/luggage rack at each end).

Voyager. Length to seats ratio: 0.24, Or roughly 1 row of seats every 96cm.
FGW HST (old): 0.23.
FGW HST (new HD): 0.21, Or roughly 1 row of seats every 85cm.

All that said, I'm still no fan of the Class 220/221, but their Standard Class seating density is actually 'better' than FGW's. And they ain't bus seats! 

It would be interesting to actually measure the HST trailer and Voyager interiors up properly to see if your fag packet maths is correct rather than trying to extrapolate too much data from a 'not to scale' seat plan. Also remember that both HST and Voyager have 'priority' seats at the ends at greater spacing than the other seats in the saloons.

I still find FGW HST's more comfortable and less noisey than Voyageurs in standadr class. However apart from that annyoing bit of pointless conduit stuck on the bodyside below the window line which digs into your upper arm AXC^» (Arriva Cross Country - about) HST standard class HST trailers are slightly more comfortable and better lit than the FGW Standard HST trailers

[XPT]

It would be very interesting and a refreshing change for a new operator to take over. Will be interesting to see a new livery and company name, and to see how they would change the timetables, including hopefully bringing back the London-Bristol express services.  However I can allmost gaurantee that it will be First Great Western again and we'll see this into the 2020's and 2030's!  I will be happy to be proved wrong though!

[The SprinterMeister]

It would be very interesting and a refreshing change for a new operator to take over. Will be interesting to see a new livery and company name, and to see how they would change the timetables.

Some of would sooner see First carry on as latterly they seem to be running the show most competently. None of the other names inspire confidence to be honest. And some of have been around long enough to have had direct experience of one of the names on the list and have absolutely no wish to see them back.

[Rhydgaled]

If First do win the contract, there could be a problem with the clash of accronyms with Fishguard & Goodwick station (FGW^▸ (First Great Western)). It might be helpful if they re-named themselves to Great Western - First Trains (or something like that).

[JayMac]

Can't see that being an issue. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) (if they win the franchise) won't be serving FGW. Just like SWT^▸ (South West Trains), who don't serve Slaithwaite, or SET^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)) who go nowhere near Settle. 

Besides that, the official acronyms for TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) are 2 letter codes.

[The SprinterMeister]

If First do win the contract, there could be a problem with the clash of accronyms with Fishguard & Goodwick station (FGW^▸ (First Great Western)). It might be helpful if they re-named themselves to Great Western - First Trains (or something like that).

Not a problem currently is it?

I think only the really confused will enter a CRS station code where they meant to type in a train operator....

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

I think the welsh sence of humour has escaped you lot lol

[XPT]

That's exactly what I suggested in my submission to the franchise consultation. It's currently a very unsatisfactory compromise between the needs of longer distance travellers and commuters from Swindon inwards. I'm sure a few 110mph Class 350s shuttling between Swindon and London in 12 coach formation would soak up much of the demand from Swindon, Didcot and Reading, and prevent the situation whereby full price travellers to South Wales or Bristol have to stand for the first hour out of London.  You could even tempt commuters to use them by offering cheaper season tickets than if they use the HSS^▸ (High Speed Services).       

Yes this is what's needed.  And before electrification too in my opinion.  At peak morning and evening weekday times, as well as the busier times at weekends too there should be additional services introduced.  Swindon-London Paddington services (and vice versa) calling intermedietely at Didcot Parkway and Reading for the London bound commuters.  Whilst some services to/from Bristol/Weston-Super-Mare/Taunton could run non-stop between Chippenham and London Paddington.  And South Wales services running non-stop between Swindon(or even Bristol Parkway) and London Paddington.  This would help segregate all the London bound commuters and the non-commuter people travelling long distance to Bristol, Taunton, Cardiff, etc.   Rather than the way it is now with the Bristol-London services stopping every 10-15 minutes to accommodate all the commuters from Swindon, Didcot, and Reading.

But sadly such a change I really can't see happening, under any operator. 

When electrification is complete in 2017 and the new 4 trains per hour between Bristol Temple Meads and London Paddington, surely though  two of these services per hour will be proper express/limited stop?  I'd imagine that 2 services per hour will probably retain the familiar Bath Spa>Chippenham>Swindon>Didcot Parkway(1 service per hour)>Reading>London Paddington calling pattern.  But for the 2 additional services one of them could run non-stop to Reading from Temple Meads, and the other could call Bristol Parkway and then non-stop to London Paddington.

[Rhydgaled]

On the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) issue, it'd probablly only be a problem on fourms like this, where the acronyms are used quite a bit. Elsewhere there should be enough context to make it clear whether somebody is talking about the station or the train operator.

Not a problem currently is it?

Not a problem yet I agree, but the station code has only recently been revealed and the station isn't open yet.

Can't see that being an issue. FGW (if they win the franchise) won't be serving FGW. Just like SWT^▸ (South West Trains), who don't serve Slaithwaite, or SET^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)) who go nowhere near Settle.

FGW units (though perhaps staffed by ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) west of Cardiff) would serve FGW if I had my way (I think the daytime boat train should be an extension of the Portsmouth - Cardiff service), with it going to Carmarthen (and to Milford Haven every two hours) the rest of the time.

As for calling patterns on Intercity routes from Paddington, I suggested the following (hourly) services in my responce to the franchise consultation:

^   Fast to Swansea calling at Reading, Newport, Cardiff Central, Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway, Neath and Swansea
^   Cheltenham Spa services calling at Reading, Swindon and Gloucester (minor stations between Swindon and Cheltenham served by local trains if feasible)
^   Semi-fast to Cardiff Central calling at Reading, Didcot Parkway, Swindon, Bristol Parkway, Newport and Cardiff Central
^   Semi-fast to Bristol Temple Meads calling at Reading, Didcot Parkway, Swindon, Chippenham, Bath Spa and Bristol Temple Meads
^   Fast to Bristol Temple Meads calling at Reading, Chippenham, Bath Spa and Bristol Temple Meads (if any service is going to pass non-stop through Reading, I suggest this one)
^   To Bristol Temple Meads calling at Reading, Swindon, Bristol Parkway and Bristol Temple Meads
^   As above minus Swindon stop
^   Semi-fast to Oxford calling at Slough, Reading, Didcot Parkway and Oxford (perhaps with one or two extra stops between Reading and Paddington)
^   Semi-fast to Worcester/Hereford, calling at Slough, Reading, Didcot Parkway, Oxford and Cotswolds line stations
^   Semi-Fast to Westbury (with extensions to Exeter) (serving all stations not covered by sufficient local trains, given the following)
^   To Plymouth (and beyond) running non-stop to Reading. From there Westbury stops might be provided in some (perhaps alternate) hours and perhaps occasional Newbury stops, but otherwise non-stop Reading to Taunton also.