A look forward in the South West?

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

Sutrely a 5car is going to be as unavailable as a 9car? I don't see the difference

[grahame]

I know what I'm about to say is not very fashionable these days, but fashions tend to go in cycles. If a train is 5 + 5, what's to stop 5 cars being detached for another destination on the way?  There are statistics out there that say between 40% and 46% of traffic is lost if you make a change of trains necessary along the way, so (looking at the positive) perhaps there's some possibiities? 

Let me try some leading edge (or perhaps bleeding edge) and positive thinking.

5 + 5 from Paddingon.  High speed express, calling at Reading, Taunton, Tiverton, Exeter St Davids. Front portion for Newton Abbott and all major stations to Penzance, with each train calling at a selection of minor stations too (or them being covered by an intermediate unit - wasn't there going to be 2 trains an hour beyond Plymouth?). Rear portion for stations to Paignton.
* Clockface to Plymouth
* Hourly to and through Cornwall, without huge numbers of empty seats
* Hourly London trains from Torbay
- release of some units which would otherwise be running in Cornwall
- release of some units otherwise running Exeter to Torbay

[ChrisB]

How about split at Exeter, front fast PLY^» (Plymouth - next trains), and stations to PNZ, rear slow to PLY?

[JayMac]

These suggestions highlight the flexibility such trains offer. Something not possible if the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) are retained.

I like HSTs. It'll be a sad day when they are all gone from the 'Western'. But I'm also a fan of a progressive forward looking rail network, looking to address capacity and meeting the needs and aspirations of all users. Unlike many I don't fear for the future. I'm looking forward to the Class 800/801 introduction and hope the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) green light the AT300 variant.

[Tim]

I know what I'm about to say is not very fashionable these days, but fashions tend to go in cycles. If a train is 5 + 5, what's to stop 5 cars being detached for another destination on the way? 

I agree that portion working has many advantages in term of stock utilisation and also efficient use of precious paths..  I think that the reason that splitting is out of fashion is that there is potential for delay when worked in the opposite direction when you might be delayed waiting for the other portion to arrive. 

[Timmer]

These suggestions highlight the flexibility such trains offer. Something not possible if the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) are retained.

I like HSTs. It'll be a sad day when they are all gone from the 'Western'. But I'm also a fan of a progressive forward looking rail network, looking to address capacity and meeting the needs and aspirations of all users. Unlike many I don't fear for the future. I'm looking forward to the Class 800/801 introduction and hope the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) green light the AT300 variant.

Totally agree. HSTs will always be the best train I have and will ever travel on but they are tired now. Besides, when I need an HST fix I just need to head to Scotland and enjoy them up there along with the great scenery.

[Adelante_CCT]

wasn't there going to be 2 trains an hour beyond Plymouth?

Yes that's what has been stated.

I'm not saying this is what anyone on this forum thinks however I believe there are SOME people who think that whilst it has been stated there would be 2 tph from London to the South West and 2 tph from Plymouth to Penzance that they think these would be the same through services.

I'm not sure whats in the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) franchise however IMO^▸ (in my opinion) I believe there could be 2tph from London to Exeter/Plymouth with  1 train every 2 hours running semi-fast from Plymouth to Penzance. This being supplemented by a XC service running parallel every 2 hours also running semi-fast, these both being supplemented by an hourly 158 (or whatever is allocated to the region) which stops at all stations between Plymouth and Penzance.

Having 5+5 running in this region I believe to be a good idea, especially with splits to Paignton/Newquay/Penzance.

[grahame]

wasn't there going to be 2 trains an hour beyond Plymouth?

Yes that's what has been stated.

I'm not saying this is what anyone on this forum thinks however I believe there are SOME people who think that whilst it has been stated there would be 2 tph from London to the South West and 2 tph from Plymouth to Penzance that they think these would be the same through services. 

My quote .. and being in a public area, I could have made it clearer that I wasn't thinking of a train with Penzance carriages leaving Paddington every 30 minutes - though in hindsight it wasn't very clear that I wasn't thinking that.   Hmm ... what a negative sentence!

[Rhydgaled]

there's NO point in 9cars going all the way to PNZ

Perhaps not, but I'm sure some posters have said the IC125s do get well used in summer, so would a 5-car unit be sufficient, ALL THE TIME? I personally doubt it.

In lots of respects I consider brand new trains a must now. We can't keep on refurbishing 35-40 year old stock. New trains with a 30+ year lifespan are what's needed. Not Trigger's Broom.

The trouble is the brand-new trains being offered have alot of problems associated with them, such as:

• Underfloor diesel engines, both a discomfort to passengers and potentially an excuse to keep burning diesel and defer electrification for another 30 odd years rather than, at most, 20yrs if we keep IC125s
• Shorter sets, fewer seats, no buffets and thus potentially no hot food for standard class passengers
• Non-gangwayed multiple working and possible portion working (yuck)
• 26m vehicles, meaning they would be unable to operate some services where the GW^▸ (Great Western) franchise's trains currently provide vital extra capacity

So yes, new trains would be nice, but let's have some more electrification first and a design with buffets, at least the 8 carriages currently provided and 23m vehicles that can fit on the whole GW INTERCITY network.

I'm also a fan of a progressive forward looking rail network, looking to address capacity and meeting the needs and aspirations of all users.

I hope my list above makes clear that my objections are based on areas where I beleive the new trains would not meet "the needs and aspirations" of certain rail users. I'm even being forward-looking (see electrification).

Very simplified - I'm guessing many will be 2x5car to PLY^» (Plymouth - next trains), splitting there.

To which I say 'please no'. Portion working without UEGs^▸ (Unit End Gangway) is something akin to the devil's own work in my book.

I know what I'm about to say is not very fashionable these days, but fashions tend to go in cycles. If a train is 5 + 5, what's to stop 5 cars being detached for another destination on the way?  There are statistics out there that say between 40% and 46% of traffic is lost if you make a change of trains necessary along the way, so (looking at the positive) perhaps there's some possibiities?

Fashion has nothing to do with it (in my eyes anyway). I agree with what you are saying about removing the need to change trains, portion working is done day in day out at Machynlleth with class 158s between Birmingham and Aberystwyth/Pwllheli and I think it is a great idea. The difference is class 158s have UEGs, and (generally) helpful guards, so if you board the wrong portion you can correct your mistake. On a train without UEGs you cannot, in which case (assuming you have a helpful guard informing you of your mistake) you basically have to change trains anyway to move to the correct portion.

There's another thing about 158s as well, they are 2-car units. With shorter sets, it is easier to balance the capacity allocated to each route (153s are, in theroy at least, even better in this regard). While I don't know (for sure) of anywhere it is done at the moment, it is plausable to have a 6-car formation with 2 coaches detaching for one destination and the other 4 continuing elsewhere. With the 800/801/AT300 fleets, it is a choice of 5-car, 10-car or 9-car. So, using your example, you have to have 5-car for both Paignton and Penzance even if, for example (I have no idea of actual demand), Penzance trains need to be load 7 and Paignton only 3-car. The 125mph crumple zones and (first-class only) kitchens waste a heck of a lot of space in a 10-car pair of 800s too, just one more seat than a fixed-formation 9-car 801.

I say again, portion working is great for short DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) with UEGs, but for 125/140mph INTERCITY trains it is just plain silly. Just work out how to provide a robust DMU connection without leaving passengers waiting ages on a wet, windswept, platform.

(UEGs = Unit-End Gangways)

[Fourbee]

To which I say 'please no'. Portion working without UEGs^▸ (Unit End Gangway) is something akin to the devil's own work in my book.

I was on a 2 x 5 car Voyager recently, with only 1 working toilet in the portion I was in. If that had gone out of use, then the next station stop & associated dash round would have needed to be sooner rather than later.

[ChrisB]

there's NO point in 9cars going all the way to PNZ

Perhaps not, but I'm sure some posters have said the IC125s do get well used in summer, so would a 5-car unit be sufficient, ALL THE TIME? I personally doubt it.

With the increase in service? Yes, definitely.

[IndustryInsider]

there's NO point in 9cars going all the way to PNZ

Perhaps not, but I'm sure some posters have said the IC125s do get well used in summer, so would a 5-car unit be sufficient, ALL THE TIME? I personally doubt it.

Unlike ChrisB I don't think it'd be quite that black and white on all trains at all times of the year, so I don't think they would be enough all the time, no.

Though if you look at the spreadsheet I posted earlier this year at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=14894.msg173185#msg173185, which shows based on that sample timetable, which provides roughly the frequencies and improved journey times we've been told to expect, you'll see that there should be plenty of scope for many of the 9 or 10 car formations to go through to Penzance if demand dictates.  And that's without taking up the option for more vehicles in the contract if it gets approved.

I do personally think a few more 9-car Electric trains (with the view of extending them to 10 should demand dictate) should be ordered though, but there is scope for plenty of 5-car sets running alone all the way, or coupling up part of the way to another unit, still making sense on many potential diagrams.

[ChrisB]

In lots of respects I consider brand new trains a must now. We can't keep on refurbishing 35-40 year old stock. New trains with a 30+ year lifespan are what's needed. Not Trigger's Broom.

The trouble is the brand-new trains being offered have alot of problems associated with them, such as:

• Underfloor diesel engines, both a discomfort to passengers and potentially an excuse to keep burning diesel and defer electrification for another 30 odd years rather than, at most, 20yrs if we keep IC125s
• Shorter sets, fewer seats, no buffets and thus potentially no hot food for standard class passengers
• Non-gangwayed multiple working and possible portion working (yuck)
• 26m vehicles, meaning they would be unable to operate some services where the GW^▸ (Great Western) franchise's trains currently provide vital extra capacity

Most of these are personal preference frankly. XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) services run full a lot of the time, and I see few complaints about the under-floor engines; no one is eating hot food now, so you're not going to suddenly get an explosion of purchases on the new trains, hence it's a personal choice of yours; pax can & will be trained, it's not rocket science, especially if station staff are more & active, including both train managers!; 26m coaches might mean platform extensions which are easy to do

Unlike ChrisB I don't think it'd be quite that black and white on all trains at all times of the year, so I don't think they would be enough all the time, no.

So in the summer peaks, 2x5car go to PNZ, simples

[Rhydgaled]

Most of these are personal preference frankly. XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) services run full a lot of the time, and I see few complaints about the under-floor engines

I don't actually mind the engines on DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) much*, but others do. Do I have to quote Mark Hopwood again?

26m coaches might mean platform extensions which are easy to do

This isn't about platform extensions. It is about increased over throw on curves meaning carriages would strike infrustructure.

* I think I notice the absence of underfloor engines on an IC125 more than I notice their presence on Voyagers.

[IndustryInsider]

It is about increased over throw on curves meaning carriages would strike infrustructure.

Which might indeed hinder a weekend only, summer only, Pembroke service, but looks like it probably won't affect anything else.  I remember talk on here and elsewhere that the new 26m vehicles would mean widespread platform rebuilds resulting in huge extra unnecessary expense and that Turbos wouldn't be able to go to many places further west without similar spending on infrastructure.  Can't say I've seen too much work so far.  Is it all still to take place or was there an awful lot of exaggeration going on?