New trains for the South West - announcement.

[whole diary]

[alan_s]

Oh, and we already have a topic discussing the AT300 order.

Sorry, I did try searching first but didn't come up with anything.

Admin Note: Don't worry - now moved and merged with the existing topic. Bobm

[broadgage]

But without an internal connection - therefore potentially one half rammed and one half almost empty.  And can you really see FGW^▸ (First Great Western) joining and splitting units as demand requires ?

And the trolley (no buffet on new trains) will be in the other unit.
As will be the first class host.
If the Pullman service survives the downgrade to DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) operation, that too will be in the wrong half. First class passengers who wish to dine wont be able to do so if in the wrong first class section (no gangways between units)
Those first class customers in the dining portion will then complain about lack of non-dining spaces (only 36 first class seats in the half length DMUs)

All this presumes that they do actually run in multiple, despite assurances to the contrary I suspect that single units will be the norm as with voyagers.

[JayMac]

And the trolley (no buffet on new trains) will be in the other unit.
As will be the first class host.
If the Pullman service survives the downgrade to DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) operation, that too will be in the wrong half. First class passengers who wish to dine wont be able to do so if in the wrong first class section (no gangways between units)
Those first class customers in the dining portion will then complain about lack of non-dining spaces (only 36 first class seats in the half length DMUs)

Where's your evidence for any of this?

Catering provision has not been decided for the AT300 fleet.

Yet again, more criticism of trains that haven't entered service. 

All you folk doing the criticising. Can I have a go on one of your crystal balls? 

[broadgage]

And the trolley (no buffet on new trains) will be in the other unit.
As will be the first class host.
If the Pullman service survives the downgrade to DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) operation, that too will be in the wrong half. First class passengers who wish to dine wont be able to do so if in the wrong first class section (no gangways between units)
Those first class customers in the dining portion will then complain about lack of non-dining spaces (only 36 first class seats in the half length DMUs)

Where's your evidence for any of this?

Catering provision has not been decided for the AT300 fleet.

Yet again, more criticism of trains that haven't entered service. 

All you folk doing the criticising. Can I have a go on one of your crystal balls? 

Catering provision has not been formally decided for the AT300s, but is most unlikely to include a buffet. The survey has already been done to show that buffets are not wanted.
The trains are closely based on the SETs^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)) which we now know do not have buffets. For years, I and others critical of the SETs, forecast no buffet. We were answered along the lines of "they have not been built yet" and "do not knock them until you have seen them" followed eventually by "they don't have buffets, but that is fine, passengers don't want buffets any more"

Unless FGW^▸ (First Great Western) state promptly and clearly that "all the new AT300s will have a buffet serving freshly cooked hot snacks, and this buffet will be available to all passengers"
If no such statement is made soon and completely clearly, then we may assume that the AT300s wont have buffets.
What I fully expect to hear is vaguely reassuring statements like "stakeholder discussions" "we are having input into the design" and "catering arrangements have not yet been finalised" "some trains may incorporate a buffet"

Presuming that we don't get a buffet, then it is a fair assumption that the trolley will regularly be in the wrong half of the train, UNLESS FGW clearly state "when two 5 car units are coupled together a trolley will always be rostered for each unit"

Without seeing an AT300 I feel able to state that the majority of the fleet will be 5 car, that unit end gangways wont be provided, and most vehicles will have diesel engines under them.

I also forecast, no buffet, first class to be 36 seats or less, and regular single unit operation resulting in standing.

[JayMac]

The trains are closely based on the SETs^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)) which we now know do not have buffets.

The Class 800/801s can and will have buffets on the east coast.

[broadgage]

True, however FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have already decided that the SETs^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET)) for use on their routes will not have buffets, and have already done the survey to justify that decision.
The AT300s are to be closely based on the SETs already being built without buffets for use on FGW.

If the AT300s ARE to have buffets, then FGW need to state this soon, and in no uncertain terms. Silence, or vaguely reassuring  statements may be reasonably understood as meaning no buffet, as was the case with the SET programme.

[Adelante_CCT]

I agree with BNMs comment, lets not criticise these units just yet.
There are comments about FGW^▸ (First Great Western) not willing to couple/uncouple units and yet they have had plenty of practise doing this with the Turbos over the years and as has been mentioned with other units across the network, and whilst they don't do it now, SouthEastern were doing this with the Hitachi Javelins at Ashford for years.
Also I have run some very rough numbers, and at the moment it requires roughly 14 HST^▸ (High Speed Train) diagrams to carry out the current Devon/Cornwall services, and admittedly whilst there will be an increase in the number of services, there shouldn't be any need for 29 diagrams. This should allow a good number of 5+5 to operate across this route.
With regards to buffets/first class etc, the majority of people want as many standard seats as possible, the minority want plenty of first seats and a buffet, the decision makers can't keep everyone happy.

[paul7575]

... And can you really see FGW^▸ (First Great Western) joining and splitting units as demand requires ?

Well it is FGW that has published a 2018 service pattern that has the 10 car trains splitting at Plymouth, with 5 car going on to Penzance.

The expression that springs to mind is clutching at straws...

Paul

[SandTEngineer]

... And can you really see FGW^▸ (First Great Western) joining and splitting units as demand requires ?

Well it is FGW that has published a 2018 service pattern that has the 10 car trains splitting at Plymouth, with 5 car going on to Penzance.

Paul

Can you quote the link for that if its available please, Paul?

[broadgage]

I can forsee the joining and splitting of units on a carefully planned basis, such as 10 car to Plymouth and 5 car beyond.

What I can not forsee is joining or splitting "according to demand" on an ad hoc basis. If a service is planned to be 5 car beyond say Plymouth, then I predict that 5 car is what you will get, no matter how busy.

[SandTEngineer]

My experiences over the past 30 years of travelling west from Plymouth is that an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) is usually only one third full (if that) but a 2 car DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) would quite often be full and standing.  My gut feeling then is that a 5 car "Intercity" type train is going to be about right.

...and of course splitting trains at Plymouth will be turning the clock back to how it used to work up to the 1970s   

[Richard Fairhurst]

Can you quote the link for that if its available please, Paul?

I'm not Paul but: https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/-/media/pdf/aboutus/ourbusiness/stakeholders%20report/nfgwf.pdf

"Standard pattern hourly service from London running non-stop between Reading and Taunton extending hourly to Plymouth and 2 hourly to Penzance. Depending on stock choice trains may split at Plymouth, with half the train continuing to Penzance"

[paul7575]

To add to Richard's helpful provision of the link just above, there are explanations of the way services will be found both on page 8, in summary, and further back on page 49, where they point out that 12 additional local services each way will be provided between Plymouth and Penzance, with some extended to/from Exeter.

Presumably the theory is that all those local passengers within Cornwall who currently rely on the London trains will be persuaded onto the 158 service instead...

Paul

[ellendune]

To add to Richard's helpful provision of the link just above, there are explanations of the way services will be found both on page 8, in summary, and further back on page 49, where they point out that 12 additional local services each way will be provided between Plymouth and Penzance, with some extended to/from Exeter.

Presumably the theory is that all those local passengers within Cornwall who currently rely on the London trains will be persuaded onto the 158 service instead...

Paul

Since there will be three 158 every 2 hours and one London train, that makes one train every 1/2 hour so on average we might expect 3/4 of the local passengers to want to use the 158's. 

[SandTEngineer]

Can you quote the link for that if its available please, Paul?

I'm not Paul but: https://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/-/media/pdf/aboutus/ourbusiness/stakeholders%20report/nfgwf.pdf

"Standard pattern hourly service from London running non-stop between Reading and Taunton extending hourly to Plymouth and 2 hourly to Penzance. Depending on stock choice trains may split at Plymouth, with half the train continuing to Penzance"

Thanks very much for that.  Interesting reading and not at all 'doom and gloom' as some posters would have us believe