Call for faster, non-stop expresses from Wales to London

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

And of course as well as being publicly owned, British Rail trains were publicly manufactured for far less cost in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), as opposed to the new IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) trains which are manufactured in Japan.

I didn't know Newton Aycliffe was in Japan?

Are they not being assembled in Aycliffe IKEA style after the hi-tech hi-value stuff has been done in Japan?

From the slide used by Ben Rule (Operations Director, Great Western Railway) in his presentation to TravelWatch SouthWest in Taunton on Saturday:

AT300 capacity :
- 648 seats on a 10-car AT300 v 522 seats on a low-density HST^▸ (High Speed Train): a 24% increase
- 576 standard seats on a 10-car AT300 v 458 HST standard seats: a c.26% increase in standard class capacity
 The new trains will be delivered during 2018 and will be built in Japan

Ben confirmed, in response to a specific question from the audience, that these trains will be built by Hitachi in Japan, because Newton Aycliffe does not have the necessary capacity.

[Adelante_CCT]

Yes the AT300s are being built in Japan, my original comment was quoting the IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.).

[Rhydgaled]

From the slide used by Ben Rule (Operations Director, Great Western Railway) in his presentation to TravelWatch SouthWest in Taunton on Saturday:

AT300 capacity :
- 648 seats on a 10-car AT300 v 522 seats on a low-density HST^▸ (High Speed Train): a 24% increase
- 576 standard seats on a 10-car AT300 v 458 HST standard seats: a c.26% increase in standard class capacity
 The new trains will be delivered during 2018 and will be built in Japan

288 standard + 36 first, is that the same as the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) fleet (I only remember the 315 seats for a 5-car and 627 for 9-car IEP but that was before the first/standard ratio was adjusted)?

And of course as well as being publicly owned, British Rail trains were publicly manufactured for far less cost in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), as opposed to the new IEP trains which are manufactured in Japan.

I didn't know Newton Aycliffe was in Japan?

Are they not being assembled in Aycliffe IKEA style after the hi-tech hi-value stuff has been done in Japan?

I'm not sure whether Newton Aycliffe can be described as a 'manufacturing plant'. At what point does an 'assembly plant' become a 'manufacturing plant'? Certainly I've read that all the friction-stir welding will be done in Japan before the components are shipped to Newton Aycliffe for assembly.

[4064ReadingAbbey]

From the slide used by Ben Rule (Operations Director, Great Western Railway) in his presentation to TravelWatch SouthWest in Taunton on Saturday:

AT300 capacity :
- 648 seats on a 10-car AT300 v 522 seats on a low-density HST^▸ (High Speed Train): a 24% increase
- 576 standard seats on a 10-car AT300 v 458 HST standard seats: a c.26% increase in standard class capacity
 The new trains will be delivered during 2018 and will be built in Japan

288 standard + 36 first, is that the same as the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) fleet (I only remember the 315 seats for a 5-car and 627 for 9-car IEP but that was before the first/standard ratio was adjusted)?

And of course as well as being publicly owned, British Rail trains were publicly manufactured for far less cost in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), as opposed to the new IEP trains which are manufactured in Japan.

I didn't know Newton Aycliffe was in Japan?

Are they not being assembled in Aycliffe IKEA style after the hi-tech hi-value stuff has been done in Japan?

I'm not sure whether Newton Aycliffe can be described as a 'manufacturing plant'. At what point does an 'assembly plant' become a 'manufacturing plant'? Certainly I've read that all the friction-stir welding will be done in Japan before the components are shipped to Newton Aycliffe for assembly.

Almost all factories where large(ish) items are built are, these days, assembly plants. Most car plants assemble items made elsewhere - batteries, seats, engines, radiators, dashboards, wheels and tyres and so on. About the only part that is sometimes made on-site is the body with its associated paint shop.

The same is true of train manufacture and, indeed, of aircraft. 'Manufacturing' takes place at the sub-assembly level - engine building, brake valves, wheelsets, traction control equipment, pantographs and so on. There is so much specialised know-how needed to make any of these sub-assemblies that even a top fitter in 'A' shop at Swindon wouldn't be able to do it. The days of manufacturing a railway locomotive or coach from raw materials is long gone.

[Bmblbzzz]

Having perused the thread, here are my thoughts, for what they're worth:

Much is made of fast times to London from Bristol, Cardiff, etc, but while those grab headlines, I think their importance to most journeys might be exaggerated. Not that most people wouldn't welcome faster travel (though they might not be willing to pay for it) but those faster trains don't make your overall journey quicker unless it starts and finishes at one of those major stations affected. If you board first train at, say, a suburban station in Bristol or Cardiff, the Forest of Dean, Keynesham, etc etc etc, then any increased speed on GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) intercities becomes less meaningful than your connection time.

Cross-platform connections were mentioned by a couple of people (in posts I won't quote because, even if I was going to go back through the whole thread to find them, they're several years old!). They sound handy but, apart from the reliance on precise timing, they're only going to work for people on that particular connecting service. For instance, if you travel Kemble to London and don't want to wait for the one-an-hour intercity, will one of the Gloucester ^ Swindon trains connect with one of the other services from Bristol or S. Wales? If so, will there also be a connection for the next one ^ and what about the return journey? Or will you end up waiting for the hourly service anyway?

[TonyK]

Cross-platform connections were mentioned by a couple of people (in posts I won't quote because, even if I was going to go back through the whole thread to find them, they're several years old!). They sound handy but, apart from the reliance on precise timing, they're only going to work for people on that particular connecting service. For instance, if you travel Kemble to London and don't want to wait for the one-an-hour intercity, will one of the Gloucester ^ Swindon trains connect with one of the other services from Bristol or S. Wales? If so, will there also be a connection for the next one ^ and what about the return journey? Or will you end up waiting for the hourly service anyway?

On routes where you know you cannot be overtaken, there is a temptation to get the next train to anywhere further down the line.. But if I catch a Glos-Swindon train when en route to London, will I ultimately get a better deal, or will I end up arriving three minutes earlier, at the cost of having to stand all the way from Swindon? RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website) helps immensely in this decision-making process. Coming home from Bath, I have avoided being loaded bullet-train style into a delayed 153, bulging at the seams, to have a HST^▸ (High Speed Train) almost to myself, and off-loading at BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) at pretty much the same time, so much so that I am out of the station before the last red-faced passenger on the "earlier" train.

[Bmblbzzz]

Good point. But, whether the answer is to get the connector or wait for the through train, wouldn't it be better to have such information available on the platform, through display or announcement, rather than restricted to those "in the know" with RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website)? But then, of course, the crowded train would no longer be crowded and the empty one would be crowded!

[TonyK]

Good point. But, whether the answer is to get the connector or wait for the through train, wouldn't it be better to have such information available on the platform, through display or announcement, rather than restricted to those "in the know" with RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website)? But then, of course, the crowded train would no longer be crowded and the empty one would be crowded!

A splendid answer to your own question!

[Bmblbzzz]

 

[grahame]

I think I personally prefer a train every 30 minutes that takes 85 minutes with 4 intermediate stops over a train every 120 minutes, with the fastest one taking 70 minutes and with no intermediate stops. And the train with intermediate stops serves 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 15 distinct journeys versus the one served by the none-stop, and because it's part of a regular pattern it eats fewer paths.

There is, though, a limit to stops.   A train every 10 minutes from Paddington to Bristol calling at Ealing Broadway, Slough, Taplow, Maidenhead, Twyford, Reading, Tilehurst, Didcot, Wantage Parkway, South Marston, Swindon, Royal Wootton Bassett, Chippenham, Corsham, Box and Bath would offer many more journeys but with 15 intermediate stops would probably take around 120 minutes. Better have such a service with lower top speed / faster acceleration stock, running every half hour, and being passed by the express on the four track sections east of Didcot (or indeed starting from Oxford), and in the loop (platform 3) at Chippenham.

[TonyK]

From the slide used by Ben Rule (Operations Director, Great Western Railway) in his presentation to TravelWatch SouthWest in Taunton on Saturday:

To be known henceforth as the Rule Slide....

[Bmblbzzz]

Ah, yes, that's the other thing I meant to put in my post above. Frequency of service trumps journey time, to a large extent, IMO^▸ (in my opinion). Obviously this depends on the nature of the journey: the longer the journey and the more "attractive" the route, the more important speed becomes and also the more willing you become to wait for a connection from a slow feeder to a fast intercity service. So with Bristol to London, I'd prefer a frequent service at the cost of lower speed. If going to Glasgow or Edinburgh, I'd probably delay my journey or bring it forward in order to get a faster journey, rather than travel at my preferred time but more slowly. The journey becomes more speed critical and less "clock critical". Swansea to London is probably somewhere in between. OTOH^▸ (On The Other Hand), there comes a point where the journey is so long you might as well make into a journey rather than just reaching a destination, eg a sleeper to the Highlands. IMO anyway.

[Tim]

Ah, yes, that's the other thing I meant to put in my post above. Frequency of service trumps journey time, to a large extent, IMO^▸ (in my opinion). Obviously this depends on the nature of the journey: the longer the journey and the more "attractive" the route, the more important speed becomes and also the more willing you become to wait for a connection from a slow feeder to a fast intercity service. So with Bristol to London, I'd prefer a frequent service at the cost of lower speed. If going to Glasgow or Edinburgh, I'd probably delay my journey or bring it forward in order to get a faster journey, rather than travel at my preferred time but more slowly. The journey becomes more speed critical and less "clock critical". Swansea to London is probably somewhere in between. OTOH^▸ (On The Other Hand), there comes a point where the journey is so long you might as well make into a journey rather than just reaching a destination, eg a sleeper to the Highlands. IMO anyway.

frequency of service is good for sure, but is only an advantage to a passenger on a fare that allows travel on more than one train.  If sensibly priced walk up fares are not available, all the time and money put into a high frequency service produces less benefit.

Last time I looked, this seems to be what Virgin have achieved with their London-Manchester VHF service.  A train every 20 minutes is fantastic, but walk up fares are high and advance fares can be absolute bargains.  Having 3 trains an hour is lost on someone who is only allowed to travel on one train that whole day. 

[Bmblbzzz]

Also true. Let's say frequency of available and accessible trains, then. So to sort out the timetable, we need to sort out fare structure too. Not surprising, really.

[broadgage]

Also true. Let's say frequency of available and accessible trains, then. So to sort out the timetable, we need to sort out fare structure too. Not surprising, really.

Yes, I have never seen the merit of the present hugely complex system.