New trains needed for GWR local areas

[whole diary]

[simonw]

Recent announcements for Northern, Transpenine and East Anglia leave me wondering why the ancient, crowded GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) local trains are not being replaced with capacity increases.

Over the past few weeks, the only train I've been able to get a seat on is the 0623 BPW^» (Bristol Parkway - next trains) to Penzance, and to describe this train as needing an upgrade is an understatement.

Would I be right in assuming that the cancelled franchise renewal a few years ago has made investment unlikely, or is the dual nature of GWR (Intercity and Local) more of an issue.

[IndustryInsider]

If this isn't investment I don't know what is!

https://www.gwr.com/about-us/modernising-gwr

[chrisr_75]

There is a whole plethora of very well frequented threads in this forum (quite easy to find!) discussing the electrification of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line), new electric stock which is currently starting to be delivered and the subsequent cascade of existing, newer stock to the periphery of the network. I'm sure you will find the answers you are looking for if you seek them out!

[simonw]

So, the only reference to 'local' improvements is replacing diesel with electric trains in The Thames Value and relocating diesel trains to Bristol, Bath and West of England.

All other improvements are intercity.

It will certainly help, so many local trains need an extra carriage, or two, and many more journeys could benefit with a higher frequency. The funny thing about train services is that more frequent and reliable they are,  the more passengers they get. In Bristol compared to buses they are stunningly reliable, and overcrowded is almost throughout the whole day.

[grahame]

One of the problems with passenger train provision is that the requirement for more grows (or for less shrinks) continuously, but that provision is based on occasional step changes.

The same trains that were running through Trowbridge in 2007 are still running through there in 2016.   People look, they see "no change" (not quite right - there are more trains, and many or most are longer) and as 10 years has elapsed they sense steps backwards as the trains are now 10 years older, and because the passenger numbers have grown faster than the provision, they see more overcrowding on those busy trains.

When new trains are ordered, there's a blaze of publicity, and they'll tend to be deployed on the highest profile, busiest and most profitable routes.  But there's much more to it because those lines are likely to be the ones that have the perviously most modern stock, and as it's released it cascades down to the next level, and so on. 

So, the only reference to 'local' improvements is ..... relocating diesel trains to Bristol, Bath and West of England.

All other improvements are intercity.

It's sad what a big change is hidden in that re-location.

Many current trains are 1974 to 1977 vintage, top speed 75 m.p.h.   On the line I use most, six out of the nine daily are a single carriage that often gets packed.   Indeed it looks like no change.  But there have been the change I describe above.   And there are to come.   A cascade isn't sexy though and doesn't get so reported.

Simonw - you are not alone in missing the changes there have been and what's to come ... reference a letter in our local paper which I replied to yesterday which reported "no change" on Trowbridge via Swindon journeys in the last three years.  See [here] for an explanation from yesterday to a similar set of concerns in the Wiltshire Times.

[TaplowGreen]

One of the problems with passenger train provision is that the requirement for more grows (or for less shrinks) continuously, but that provision is based on occasional step changes.

The same trains that were running through Trowbridge in 2007 are still running through there in 2016.   People look, they see "no change" (not quite right - there are more trains, and many or most are longer) and as 10 years has elapsed they sense steps backwards as the trains are now 10 years older, and because the passenger numbers have grown faster than the provision, they see more overcrowding on those busy trains.

When new trains are ordered, there's a blaze of publicity, and they'll tend to be deployed on the highest profile, busiest and most profitable routes.  But there's much more to it because those lines are likely to be the ones that have the perviously most modern stock, and as it's released it cascades down to the next level, and so on. 

So, the only reference to 'local' improvements is ..... relocating diesel trains to Bristol, Bath and West of England.

All other improvements are intercity.

It's sad what a big change is hidden in that re-location.

Many current trains are 1974 to 1977 vintage, top speed 75 m.p.h.   On the line I use most, six out of the nine daily are a single carriage that often gets packed.   Indeed it looks like no change.  But there have been the change I describe above.   And there are to come.   A cascade isn't sexy though and doesn't get so reported.

Simonw - you are not alone in missing the changes there have been and what's to come ... reference a letter in our local paper which I replied to yesterday which reported "no change" on Trowbridge via Swindon journeys in the last three years.  See [here] for an explanation from yesterday to a similar set of concerns in the Wiltshire Times.

Grahame - are you able to articulate the quantity of additional seating capacity these "cascades" represent in local areas, as opposed to it simply being a case of replacing very old stock with slightly less old stock, and as someone who is closer than most to the subject/organisation, what is Firsts plan to substantially increase capacity on these routes year on year to match growing demand(assuming they win the franchise)?

[chuffed]

I have read Graham's letter to Mr Tedman, and think that it is an excellent response, straight from someone who has his finger pretty much on the button most of the time. We all make sweeping generalised statements from time to time,caused by  frustration with the system and the trains we find ourselves saddled with. It's good to have these challenged by good old hard facts and not just waffly conjecture. There is light at the end of the tunnel, we just have to curb our impatience ....tho it's hard not to wish the trains would hurry up and come to Portishead!

[simonw]

Whilst formulating my initial reply, I held back from adding a comment on 'old' stock being continually redeployed from other parts of the country to the West Country.

Whilst there is always an argument that stock can be 'reconditioned' and re-used, what age must a train/carriage be before its is decommissioned?

The trains that are likely to be relocated here are probably 25+years old. No one would suggest that a well kept 25yr old car is a safe as a 5yr old card, so is it wise for the Rail Industry to keep cascading rolling stock to other areas?

Finally, I fully accept that improvements have been made, but the  occasional releasing of an odd train does not reflect growth in demand.

[onthecushions]

Whilst formulating my initial reply, I held back from adding a comment on 'old' stock being continually redeployed from other parts of the country to the West Country.

Whilst there is always an argument that stock can be 'reconditioned' and re-used, what age must a train/carriage be before its is decommissioned?

The trains that are likely to be relocated here are probably 25+years old. No one would suggest that a well kept 25yr old car is a safe as a 5yr old card, so is it wise for the Rail Industry to keep cascading rolling stock to other areas?

Finally, I fully accept that improvements have been made, but the  occasional releasing of an odd train does not reflect growth in demand.

Passenger stock is heavily built and has a near indefinite life if maintained (moving parts and corrosion). That's why carriages cost £1.5M each and have to last. The usual reasons for withdrawal are obsolescence (such as slam-doors) or unsuitability. Modern (post 1976) stock has remotely operated doors, modern maintainable suspensions and brakes, upgradeable traction control etc so can be expected to last at least 60 years with equal safety.

I've had this debate over the 319's which Northerners have called "clapped out" but which I contend are still state of the art.

A lot of 165/6's will be available to move West once the wires are sparking. A pity it's taken so long, though.

OTC

[grahame]

Grahame - are you able to articulate the quantity of additional seating capacity these "cascades" represent in local areas, as opposed to it simply being a case of replacing very old stock with slightly less old stock, and as someone who is closer than most to the subject/organisation, what is Firsts plan to substantially increase capacity on these routes year on year to match growing demand(assuming they win the franchise)?

Because there are cascade delays and various ideas being floated, and because it's unclear to me whether 2+3 seating will be switched to 2+2 on certain units, I can't give accurate number.    But we are looking at least 33% additional capacity and probably significantly in excess of that on Cardiff - Portsmouth, and at least 45% additional on Swindon - Westbury.  On Swindon  - Westbury, current capacity is out of balance with when it's needed (2 cars on the 06:12 and 1 car on the 17:36) so the 45% is worth more than that).   If CDF^» (Cardiff - next trains) -> PMH moved for 3 car 158s to 5 car 16xs with 3 + 2 seating - perhaps in 2 steps - you would end up with more that 100% more (over double) but also lots of complaints about the seating.

Whilst formulating my initial reply, I held back from adding a comment on 'old' stock being continually redeployed from other parts of the country to the West Country.

Whilst there is always an argument that stock can be 'reconditioned' and re-used, what age must a train/carriage be before its is decommissioned?

The trains that are likely to be relocated here are probably 25+years old. No one would suggest that a well kept 25yr old car is a safe as a 5yr old card, so is it wise for the Rail Industry to keep cascading rolling stock to other areas?

It's more maintenance costs with "good" old trains rather than drifting safety.  Where safety does come in, it tends to be a "big hit" on a particular feature, and it may not really be safety. I'm thinking toliets discharging onto the tracks and the need for disabled loos.

Older doesn't necessarily mean 'less good' or 'less liked'. The ancient loco hauled stock won out over the unit trains even with non-informed users on Cardiff - Taunton, and I think I've seen a couple of comments about people wanting to travel on the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) diagrams with Cross Country rather than the more modern Voyager ones.

Finally, I fully accept that improvements have been made, but the  occasional releasing of an odd train does not reflect growth in demand.

Agreed. The need is there for a dramatic capacity increase.

[Noggin]

Recent announcements for Northern, Transpenine and East Anglia leave me wondering why the ancient, crowded GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) local trains are not being replaced with capacity increases.

Over the past few weeks, the only train I've been able to get a seat on is the 0623 BPW^» (Bristol Parkway - next trains) to Penzance, and to describe this train as needing an upgrade is an understatement.

Would I be right in assuming that the cancelled franchise renewal a few years ago has made investment unlikely, or is the dual nature of GWR (Intercity and Local) more of an issue.

I'm sure the franchise direct award has led to a more conservative approach, but lets not forget that the extent of the Anglia franchise renewal of rolling stock is pretty much unprecedented, and before that the Northern/TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) renewals seemed pretty generous.

Those west of Taunton may feel a little neglected, but the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) are being completely replaced on HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services)) services by IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and AT300s, the Thames Valley is seeing the Turbos almost completely replaced by 387's and AT300's. The Turbos are being refurbished for Bristol, with the surplus 15x being refurbished and sent west as reinforcements. Sure, the 15x are 30 years old, but when cleaned, refurbished and with working aircon I suspect the average punter would find it hard to tell you how old one was.

 

[broadgage]

In many cases I agree that old trains can be at least as good as new ones and sometimes much better.
As has been posted above, many prefer the about 40 year old HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) to the much newer voyagers, I certainly do.
I suspect that I will prefer the old HSTs to the new trains due to replace them.

Also, as has already been posted there is some disgust "up north" about the allegedly old class 319s to be transferred. Until a couple of years ago I travelled on them regularly, and whilst I had a very low opinion of the then thameslink franchise, this was not in general due to the rolling stock.

In my view, capacity is a huge problem, age of rolling stock is a non problem.

[grahame]

Those west of Taunton may feel a little neglected, but the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) are being completely replaced on HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services)) services by IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) and AT300s ...

With some of the HSTs headed off for a new life in Scotland.  Cascaded upgraded stock isn't the special preserve of the South West.   I suppose in a "fair" world, stock would be made for a line / line group, and then stay there until it needed replacement with the next generation.  But that could mean no electric trains for Taplow or Iver until the 165s and 166s were withdrawn, or new electric trains provided only to increase capacity and so a mix of electric and diesel on the line for the next 20 years. With different acceleration profiles, [sarcasm]that would do wonders[/sarcasm] for the capacity of the line.

Transport Focus have done surveys as to what passengers want - and (as I recall from reading it) it comes up with the same sort of thing I would, and passenger I talk to would, about what they want in a train service:
* Affordable fares
* Clean
* Comfortable ride
* Decent lighting and heating
* Enough and comfortable seating
* Frequent trains
* Good clear information
* Helpful staff
* Long operating hours
* Reasonable journey time
* Safety
* Ticket on departure availabiity
* Trains on time
and none of these are directly related to the age of the carriage you're travelling in.  There are also other factors which are very important indeed for certain travellers, but won't come out as high in a general vote as:
* Wheelchair Access
* Lots of luggage space
* Electric power and WiFi at seat
* Catering
* Toilets (and disabled ones)
* Cycle space
* Multilingual waymarking

The only capacity increases I quoted earlier were on the TransWilts line and the Cardiff - Portsmouth with which there is a partial route share and potentially much more of a share into the future.  Numbers for Devon / Cornwall are, I understand, to be rather impressive too, but I'm not going to attempt to be specific out of my personal knowledge.  For Chippenham to Swindon, the number of extra seats is dramatically lower - somewhere in the 10% to 20% range.  "Oops" - except that through traffic from Bristol and west thereof to Swindon and east thereof should be abstracted by additional trains running via Hullavington. And I suspect there may be other instances where a percentage quote is misleading due to other changes like this, to instances where imbalance of supply (longer trains in marginal time) is being corrected as on the TransWilts, or where extra capacity simply isn't needed.


 

[Rhydgaled]

If CDF^» (Cardiff - next trains) -> PMH moved for 3 car 158s to 5 car 16xs with 3 + 2 seating - perhaps in 2 steps - you would end up with more that 100% more (over double) but also lots of complaints about the seating.

Older doesn't necessarily mean 'less good' or 'less liked'. The ancient loco hauled stock won out over the unit trains even with non-informed users on Cardiff - Taunton, and I think I've seen a couple of comments about people wanting to travel on the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) diagrams with Cross Country rather than the more modern Voyager ones.

The usual reasons for withdrawal are obsolescence (such as slam-doors) or unsuitability.

Regarding the topic title (need for new trains), I would argue that if new trains are needed for 'local' areas than the reason for that is (un)suitability of existing rolling stock, rather than age. As has been said, the cascade of class 166/165 units will provide a much-needed capacity boost, but even if they are all given 2+2 seating (if I recall correctly the plan floated at the franchise award was that 166s would be converted mostly to 2+2 seating, but that 165s would remain 2+3) I still don't feel they are well-suited to the Cardiff-Portsmouth service. If somebody suddenly discovered that BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) had built another 50 or so 158s and had them hidden in a strategic reserve in a tunnel somewhere then, despite their age, I wouldn't see a need for new stock as the 158s could provide the capacity boost. As it is though, there are no spare regional express DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) lying around, so perhaps we need to build some new ones (or use the new 5-car AT300 series bi-mode units on regional services, instead of the planned short IC125s, and keep full-length IC125s for the PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-PLY^» (Plymouth - next trains)-PNZ Intercity route).

Transport Focus have done surveys as to what passengers want - and (as I recall from reading it) it comes up with the same sort of thing I would, and passenger I talk to would, about what they want in a train service:
* Affordable fares
* Clean
* Comfortable ride
* Decent lighting and heating
* Enough and comfortable seating
* Frequent trains

Are those passengers' top 6 priorities according to the surveys? If so, I note that compromising seat comfort and/or number of seats in favour of wider doors openning directly into the passenger saloon to allow faster boarding/alighting doesn't feature anywhere there. You need the suburban door arangment on a frequent stopper, but the Cardiff-Portsmouth is at worst semi-fast and is the fastest service on the route, so should be operated using something like class 175s, 158s, 442s or 444s.

[grahame]

* Affordable fares
* Clean
* Comfortable ride
* Decent lighting and heating
* Enough and comfortable seating
* Frequent trains

Are those passengers' top 6 priorities according to the surveys?

NO - they are alphabetically the first six things I came up with ad-hoc 

I agree your comments about different trains being appropriate for different routes.  HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) are wonderful, but please don't run them to Severn Beach, nor long-term run 150s which are idea for The Beach on the Cardiff - Penzance or Cardiff - Portsmouth through services!