IEP - Capacity shortfall or plenty of seats?

[whole diary]

[IndustryInsider]

The second is that there doesn't appear to be much 'future proofing' in the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) order. Sure, you could lengthen the 9-car sets to 10-car but the rest of the fleet has been ordered based on multiple-working which means some sets will already be the maximum 260m length thus you cannot lengthen many 5-car sets before ending up with surplus driving vehicles.

Does the desision to reduce first class suggest they are now feeling that they'll be pushed for capacity pretty soon after introduction?

Not to say that I don't have concerns with capacity on certain routes and certain times of the day post-IEP, but there are at least plenty of options going forward capacity wise.  Many of these have already been suggested, but within the infrastructure that will exist post-IEP introduction you could:

• Lengthen the 9-car Electric sets to 10-car
• Lengthen some of the 5-car Bi-mode sets to anything up to 10-car with additional vehicles
• Introduce more 5-car Bi-Mode sets to ensure that more trains run coupled together as 10-car sets
• Introduce more seating by removing tables and turning them into higher-density trains
• Remove first class accommodation entirely
• Potentially run the odd extra peak 12-car service EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) from Paddington to Swindon

Whether or not any of those will be taken, or need to be taken, is another matter of course.  There's also an option for '30 additional sets' within the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) AT300 proposal for the Cornish services, though the exact details of that option I'm not aware of.

I think the redistribution of 1st/Standard class seating on the new trains was pretty inevitable given the recent extra standard seating installed on the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), and is to be welcomed as (except for a very small percentage or trains) the benefits of such a change outweigh the negatives.

Also, with infrastructure to come over the coming decade or so in the form of ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) signalling, you could create extra paths for additional trains in the longer term.

I also think that summer weekend Pembroke Dock trains will be quietly dropped from the timetable.

[Rhydgaled]

They will order more trains the further the wires get extended, replacing the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) kept on.

I thought that the latest thinking was NOT to retain any HSTs.

Was not the ORIGINAL plan to retain a relatively small sub fleet of HSTs for far west services.
But that the CURRENT plan is to withdraw all the HSTs and to order more, mainly shorter, DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) for the far west services. These being similar to those already ordered, but with uprated or more numerous underfloor engines in order to cope with the inclines.

I'm not sure what the ORIGINAL plan was, it has changed so many times. I think at one point the entire IC125 fleet was to be replaced with the PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-Penzance route worked by new diesel-only stock with bi-modes on shorter routes. Later, electrification to Bristol and Swansea/Cardiff was approved and the diesel-only new trains were dropped, and at some point PAD-Penzance became an option for new trains rather than a core part of the proposal. The PAD-Penzance option under IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) was never taken up, so the current suitation is that FirstGW have proposed replacing the remaining IC125s with their own order of new Hitachi 'Sardine Midgets' (and a handful of 9-car bi-modes) but this is subject to DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) approval so is not yet the DEFINATE CURRENT PLAN.

The new FirstGW order does not have "uprated or more numerous underfloor engines in order to cope with the inclines". They are the same engines, and I believe in the same quantity per set, as under the IEP sets, but the engines on the IEP fleet are de-rated, the FirstGW order apparently will use the full power of the engines and will have larger fuel tanks.

If however more IEP vehicles ARE to be ordered, then I would hope that the priority would be to build more intermediate, non driving vehicles.
If say 25 vehicles are to be built, then IMO^▸ (in my opinion) rather than building another 5 half length trains it would be preferable to lengthen 5 or 6 existing half length trains into full length ones.
An intermediate non driving vehicle contains more seats than a driving vehicle, so 25 vehicles applied to lengthening existing trains to 9 or 10 car would provide more additional capacity than 10 driving vehicles and 15 intermediate vehicles formed into 5 short trains.

I agree, the huge number of short trains doesn't make sense to me at all. Maybe it is just the bean counters realised "Walmsley's law" that it makes more sense to use LHCS^▸ (Locomotive Hauled Coaching Stock) if the train length is 6 or more coaches but DfT said no-locos so we end up with short MUs^▸ (Multiple Unit) that make no sense instead?

Not to say that I don't have concerns with capacity on certain routes and certain times of the day post-IEP, but there are at least plenty of options going forward capacity wise.  Many of these have already been suggested, but within the infrastructure that will exist post-IEP introduction you could:

• 1. Lengthen the 9-car Electric sets to 10-car
• 2. Lengthen some of the 5-car Bi-mode sets to anything up to 10-car with additional vehicles
• 3. Introduce more 5-car Bi-Mode sets to ensure that more trains run coupled together as 10-car sets
• 4. Introduce more seating by removing tables and turning them into higher-density trains
• 5. Remove first class accommodation entirely
• 6. Potentially run the odd extra peak 12-car service EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) from Paddington to Swindon

I've added numbers to your options for ease of reference.
(1.) is fair enough, but doesn't help passengers to/from off-wire destinations,
(2.) sounds reasonable enough expect that the planned use of mutliple-working means that, out of the 50 units ordered under IEP (so excluding) you would end up with more units than you have work for (I estimate 4-7 units) due to over-ordering driving vehicles.
(3-6.) all these options represent further downgrading of standard of service and as such are not in the passenger's best interests

Whether or not any of those will be taken, or need to be taken, is another matter of course.  There's also an option for '30 additional sets' within the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) AT300 proposal for the Cornish services, though the exact details of that option I'm not aware of.

I think the option is a general First Group option, and possibly available to the rail industry as a whole (as with the Southern/GTR order for Thameslink interim units, First Great Western have exercised part of the option for additional sets), not specific to FirstGW.

I also think that summer weekend Pembroke Dock trains will be quietly dropped from the timetable.

I agree that the service will probably be dropped if the Cornish AT300 oder is approved by DfT (please DfT, if you're reading this, approve only the 9-car sets and make First retain a pool of full-length IC125s), unless it turns out the DfT/NR^» (Network Rail - home page) simply forgot to assess the Pembroke branch for clearance issues and it turns out to require little or no work. I highly doubt the latter is a possibility though. I'm not sure about 'quietly dropped' though. If it turns out to be axed without a decent replacment being put in place (4-car 156s on nearly all services on the branch might cover it) I hope that the London service doesn't go quietly.

[IndustryInsider]

I think the key to this, for me, is that FGW^▸ (First Great Western)/DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)/NR^» (Network Rail - home page) must plan for the long distance routes to have a jolt upwards in usage following electrification, the much discussed 'sparks effect', and then for much more modest growth thereafter.  At the same time it should develop strategies for a number of other scenarios, including negative growth and higher levels of growth in terms of passenger numbers so that we're not left with a railway that cannot cope with the number of passengers, or franchises that go under.

I think they have enough options at their disposal to plan for all those eventualities, but whether they will do it properly remains to be seen.  The new franchise from the end of the decade will be important in that respect as recent franchises have suffered from not being flexible enough to cope with passenger numbers that have exceeded expectations, leading to costly and delayed additional carriages being sought from all sorts of unlikely places.

[ellendune]

Not to say that I don't have concerns with capacity on

• 1. Lengthen the 9-car Electric sets to 10-car
• 2. Lengthen some of the 5-car Bi-mode sets to anything up to 10-car with additional vehicles
• 3. Introduce more 5-car Bi-Mode sets to ensure that more trains run coupled together as 10-car sets
• 4. Introduce more seating by removing tables and turning them into higher-density trains
• 5. Remove first class accommodation entirely
• 6. Potentially run the odd extra peak 12-car service EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) from Paddington to Swindon

I've added numbers to your options for ease of reference.
(1.) is fair enough, but doesn't help passengers to/from off-wire destinations,
(2.) sounds reasonable enough expect that the planned use of mutliple-working means that, out of the 50 units ordered under IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) (so excluding) you would end up with more units than you have work for (I estimate 4-7 units) due to over-ordering driving vehicles.
(3-6.) all these options represent further downgrading of standard of service and as such are not in the passenger's best interests

I fail to see how options 3 or 6 can be described as a downgrading of service.

[Rhydgaled]

Not to say that I don't have concerns with capacity on

• 1. Lengthen the 9-car Electric sets to 10-car
• 2. Lengthen some of the 5-car Bi-mode sets to anything up to 10-car with additional vehicles
• 3. Introduce more 5-car Bi-Mode sets to ensure that more trains run coupled together as 10-car sets
• 4. Introduce more seating by removing tables and turning them into higher-density trains
• 5. Remove first class accommodation entirely
• 6. Potentially run the odd extra peak 12-car service EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) from Paddington to Swindon

I've added numbers to your options for ease of reference.
(1.) is fair enough, but doesn't help passengers to/from off-wire destinations,
(2.) sounds reasonable enough expect that the planned use of mutliple-working means that, out of the 50 units ordered under IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) (so excluding) you would end up with more units than you have work for (I estimate 4-7 units) due to over-ordering driving vehicles.
(3-6.) all these options represent further downgrading of standard of service and as such are not in the passenger's best interests

I fail to see how options 3 or 6 can be described as a downgrading of service.

Currently, services are run by 8-coach INTERCITY rolling stock with contiguous first and standard class and the ability for passengers to move along the full length of the train if they so wish (eg. looking for a seat). Option 3 would break the train into two seperate sections meaning passengers would be unable to move to any part of the train and first/standard class areas would not necessarily be adjacent. Option 2 is therefore very much prefrable to option 3. Option 6 implies use of a suburban EMU with wide doors part way along the passenger saloon (rather than narrower ones at the saloon ends) and probably a reduced top-speed (100-110mph), that is not INTERCITY standard. I suppose as an extra service you could argue that it is not a downgrade providing the INTERCITY services are not reduced to make a path available for it.

[broadgage]

Agree that use of suburban rolling stock would be a downgrade on a route at present served by inter city trains.

And as regards building more half length IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), that too would be a downgrade if compared to a full length train. Whilst two half length trains coupled together are an improvement over a single half train, the result is inferior to a full length train.
With two half length units, sods law says that the trolley will be in the other one!
The first class host will be in the other one.
In the unlikely event that a full first class Pullman style dining service survives, that too will be in the other unit.

First class being in two sections, at random locations along the train, suggests a suburban multiple unit and not an inter city train.

[grahame]

6. Potentially run the odd extra peak 12-car service EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) from Paddington to Swindon

Not withstanding the flack I may get for quoting to 4 levels ... 

There used to be an extra service from Bristol Temple Meads in the morning peak - 06:00 and every 30 minutes was supplemented by a train at 06:40.    And I'm sure it was there for a reason, not run just for the fun of it.

A 12 car e.m.u. from Swindon to Paddington - a 4 car portion from Bristol Temple Meads, Keynsham, Oldfield Park, Bath Spa, Corsham, and Chippenham would - well - be a welcome forward development.   Yes - the stock may be less posh (and may also stop at Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough) but there are positives of thought services, avoiding the need to connect, and swapping Reading based units into the Bristol area for the local routes from there to Swansea and Chippenham.

[chrisr_75]

Agree that use of suburban rolling stock would be a downgrade on a route at present served by inter city trains.

And as regards building more half length IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), that too would be a downgrade if compared to a full length train. Whilst two half length trains coupled together are an improvement over a single half train, the result is inferior to a full length train.
With two half length units, sods law says that the trolley will be in the other one!
The first class host will be in the other one.
In the unlikely event that a full first class Pullman style dining service survives, that too will be in the other unit.

First class being in two sections, at random locations along the train, suggests a suburban multiple unit and not an inter city train.

Virgin (West Coast) manage to make this work fairly well with the 2 x Voyagers that split at Chester...

[Rhydgaled]

First class being in two sections, at random locations along the train, suggests a suburban multiple unit and not an inter city train.

While you and me seem to be in agreement in general regarding IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), I'm not sure I would quite go as far as to call IEP a suburban unit, at least the doors appear to be in the right place on an IEP (would be better if they were plug-type though).

6. Potentially run the odd extra peak 12-car service EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) from Paddington to Swindon

There used to be an extra service from Bristol Temple Meads in the morning peak - 06:00 and every 30 minutes was supplemented by a train at 06:40.    And I'm sure it was there for a reason, not run just for the fun of it.

A 12 car e.m.u. from Swindon to Paddington - a 4 car portion from Bristol Temple Meads, Keynsham, Oldfield Park, Bath Spa, Corsham, and Chippenham would - well - be a welcome forward development.   Yes - the stock may be less posh (and may also stop at Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough) but there are positives of thought services, avoiding the need to connect, and swapping Reading based units into the Bristol area for the local routes from there to Swansea and Chippenham.

Are there firm plans for Bristol-Chippenham local services, and/or Bristol-Swansea services (and, if the latter, is it to be run by the GW^▸ (Great Western) franchise or the W&B franchise)? Even without that though, what you suggest sounds like a good idea IF it is an EXTRA service (or an extension of the general PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-Reading stopping services) and is not running in one of the INTERCITY paths AND if the units have UEGs^▸ (Unit End Gangway) (I only mention the latter because of your suggestion of a 4-car portion from further west, although the problem is more with services which split, joining isn't such a problem).

[John R]

If a few 12 car emus running to/from  Swindon in the peak hoover up a lot of Reading and Didcot passengers (which is the intention), leaving the longer distance trains for the longer distance passengers then I think it will be a major improvement. By running the services as far as Swindon, the peak Didcot stops on the IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) could be withdrawn, with passengers from Didcot west having to change at Swindon. I don't think that would be a great hardship if the greater good of segregating shorter and longer distance flows was achieved. 

[Chris from Nailsea]

6. Potentially run the odd extra peak 12-car service EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) from Paddington to Swindon

Not withstanding the flack I may get for quoting to 4 levels ... 

Oh, I wouldn't dare ... 

[didcotdean]

On the currently proposed scheme, Didcot does not have any additional peak time stops on IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) services on the main line compared with the off-peak pattern unlike today. The only additional service goes to Worcester. The EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) service frequency is not specified, but earlier documents than the consultation response suggested hourly.

This does not seem overgenerous, especially for those west of Didcot that specifically pick out trains to stop there for split ticket purposes (!).

[IndustryInsider]

Option 6 implies use of a suburban EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) with wide doors part way along the passenger saloon (rather than narrower ones at the saloon ends) and probably a reduced top-speed (100-110mph), that is not INTERCITY standard. I suppose as an extra service you could argue that it is not a downgrade providing the INTERCITY services are not reduced to make a path available for it.

As a possible option should passenger numbers increase to the extent that it's needed, I would probably envisage it happening purely as a 'capacity buster' two or three times in the peak period with stops at Reading and Didcot (and possibly one of either Maidenhead/Slough, but that would be open to debate).  Using stock with the interior quality of the Class 387s FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are about to receive (2+2 seating throughout and armrests) I can't really see commuters seeing it as a significant downgrade, especially if it means they don't have to fight tooth and nail for a seat (or have to stand to Didcot) like they sometimes do now.

110mph top speed would obviously be slightly slower than 125mph, but really won't make too much difference as I would expect the 387s to have slightly better acceleration and slightly quicker station dwell times - certainly timings under the hour from Paddington to Swindon would be achievable.  That's much less than Warwick Parkway takes with similar stock (excluding the loco hauled trains) and I don't hear massive complaints from Chiltern Railways commuters, just mostly praise for the Clubman trains.

Pathing wise, I don't think there would be no need to reduce any of the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) services planned, the key location would be Paddington to Airport Junction and I would suggest the thinning out of the Heathrow Express service in the peak hours (which I can see happening anyway) would be the best way to create any paths needed.

Anyway, it remains an option, and after all the original point concerned the lack of options available after the IEP introduction.

[Tim]

If a few 12 car emus running to/from  Swindon in the peak hoover up a lot of Reading and Didcot passengers (which is the intention), leaving the longer distance trains for the longer distance passengers then I think it will be a major improvement. By running the services as far as Swindon, the peak Didcot stops on the IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) could be withdrawn, with passengers from Didcot west having to change at Swindon. I don't think that would be a great hardship if the greater good of segregating shorter and longer distance flows was achieved. 

It would be a financial great hardship to those travelling to from west of Swindon who currently split their tickets at Didcot to save much money.

But a ticketing anomaly ought not be a factor in deciding best service provision.

[grahame]

This does not seem overgenerous, especially for those west of Didcot that specifically pick out trains to stop there ....

People also pick our trains to stop at Didcot if they're travelling between Oxford, Swindon and stations west thereof. 

Through journeys such as Bristol, Bath and Chippenham to Oxford were provided on an hourly basis in Thames Trains days, but they were lost at about the time that Thames Trains became part of the First franchise.    The loss of the through service hasn't simply added a change at Didcot - it's added a change at Didcot that often involves a long wait (see the "connection" leave as you pull in) AND an extra change at Swindon; it's changed a commute / journey that many were happy with into one that's only willingly undertaken by the more adventurous / seasoned traveller!