Trimode cl 769 to operate Reading to Oxford and Gatwick.

[whole diary]

[Trowres]

And meanwhile GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) can't find a single train all day yesterday to operate the Swindon to Westbury line - my analysis suggests that just three out of 17 (single) journeys happen - at 07:36 and 20:06 from Westbury, and at 08:44 from Swindon.

Sorry Grahame, but the 20:06 to Cheltenham didn't run either, as far as I can tell. 2/17.

[grahame]

And meanwhile GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) can't find a single train all day yesterday to operate the Swindon to Westbury line - my analysis suggests that just three out of 17 (single) journeys happen - at 07:36 and 20:06 from Westbury, and at 08:44 from Swindon.

Sorry Grahame, but the 20:06 to Cheltenham didn't run either, as far as I can tell. 2/17.

Oh dear / OK - thanks for that.    Looking back, it appears it was truncated - 166261 and started not from Westbury at 20:06, but from Gloucester at 21:57, arriving at Cheltenham Spa 1 minute late at 22:06.

This service was cancelled between Westbury and Gloucester due to late arrival of crew from an inbound service (YJ).

From a passenger viewpoint in Wiltshire, a cancellation.   For a statistician's viewpoint, a success as it was a train that arrived at its final desitination, in passenger service, within 5 minutes of when it was timetabled.

[eightonedee]

So this is just cost-cutting, not because they were not up to the job?

As stated elsewhere, this does nothing to address the problems with a shortage of carriages further west. We now have the [ridiculous?] situation where on Thames Valley routes we have 8 car trains (2x Electrostars) running most of the day with perhaps 20% of the seats filled on services that used to be 2- or 3- car Turbo operated, and overcrowded trains on other routes further west because Turbos cannot be cascaded from non-electrified services (or not fully electrified ones). If we had electrified most of the network, or even achieved the electrification of the Thames Valley branches and filled the gaps on the North Downs the existing fleet of Electrostars would presumably filled the slots adequately.

Presumably the cost-cutting imperative means that the sensible step of bringing back the 153s suggested by Grahame will not be followed up to save the leasing cost?

[brooklea]

Presumably the cost-cutting imperative means that the sensible step of bringing back the 153s suggested by Grahame will not be followed up to save the leasing cost?

I would be amazed to see GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) be allowed (by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)) to bring back 153s. There’s not just leasing costs; reactivation expenses (heavy maintenance exams probably due as it’s likely their miles ‘in ticket’ will have been run-down prior to their withdrawal), modifications required to make them less non-compliant with accessibility rules, (re-)training of crew and maintenance staff, the requirement to increase depot stores inventories of spares....it certainly wouldn’t be a quick, or a long-term fix. I can’t see it happening.

GWR do have six 3-car 158s which could be reformed as nine 2-car 158s - probably the only easy way of increasing the number of trains in their fleet, and obviously it would come at a cost in terms of capacity where these trains are currently used, for example, the Barnstaple line.

Other potential sources of suitable stock might be SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) (by turning WoE Line trains back at Basingstoke instead of Waterloo, which I’m certain would be unpopular!), or TfW^▸ (Transport for Wales) (158s and/or 150s, once they’re available). It’s not looking rosy at the moment

[PhilWakely]

Other potential sources of suitable stock might be SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) (by turning WoE Line trains back at Basingstoke instead of Waterloo, which I’m certain would be unpopular!)..............

Definitely unpopular - not just with the travelling public, but also with SWR!  During the recent 'emergency timetable' introduced by SWR because of the infrastructure problem between Tisbury and Gillingham and trains were only running between Basingstoke and Yeovil Junction [only extending to Exeter St Davids every other hour], I queried whether SWR could keep two 3-car 159s at Exeter to run a shuttle between Exeter and Axminster. Their answer was simply 'we do not have enough stock'!

[grahame]

I would be amazed to see GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) be allowed (by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)) to bring back 153s. There’s not just leasing costs; reactivation expenses (heavy maintenance exams probably due as it’s likely their miles ‘in ticket’ will have been run-down prior to their withdrawal), modifications required to make them less non-compliant with accessibility rules, (re-)training of crew and maintenance staff, the requirement to increase dept t stores inventories of spares....it certainly wouldn’t be a quick, or a long-term fix. I can’t see it happening. ...

But then would they need to go back direct to GWR?

Attach the 153s to other compliant 153s and 150s in the TfW^▸ (Transport for Wales) fleet where they already have spares and the total trains would have accessible loos, and cascade some 150s and 158s from TfW to GWR to enhance their fleet. No new types of spares or new types for crews or maintenance teams, though I grant you perhaps some heavy services.

[brooklea]

Definitely unpopular - not just with the travelling public, but also with SWR^» (South Western Railway - about)!

Not that that would matter, were DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) to issue SWR with an instruction that that was what they were to do.

Twelve months ago the withdrawal of the through service between Bristol and Waterloo was unpopular, but it still happened, in the interests of saving money….

[brooklea]

I would be amazed to see GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) be allowed (by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)) to bring back 153s.

But then would they need to go back direct to GWR?

Attach the 153s to other compliant 153s and 150s in the TfW^▸ (Transport for Wales) fleet where they already have spares and the total trains would have accessible loos, and cascade some 150s and 158s from TfW to GWR to enhance their fleet.

No, that’s a fair point.

I haven’t experienced one of TfWs ‘PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility)-lite’ 153s to know what level of modification they’ve received to allow them to continue in service, though I understand there’s a bit more to it than locking the toilet door.

No doubt for the right level of compensation TfW could release some 150s or 158s in return for 153s, but as the goal is to cut costs, I expect GWR will just have to do less with less (or rather fewer) trains. Would love to be proved wrong.

[Electric train]

So this is just cost-cutting, not because they were not up to the job?

As stated elsewhere, this does nothing to address the problems with a shortage of carriages further west. We now have the [ridiculous?] situation where on Thames Valley routes we have 8 car trains (2x Electrostars) running most of the day with perhaps 20% of the seats filled on services that used to be 2- or 3- car Turbo operated, and overcrowded trains on other routes further west because Turbos cannot be cascaded from non-electrified services (or not fully electrified ones). If we had electrified most of the network, or even achieved the electrification of the Thames Valley branches and filled the gaps on the North Downs the existing fleet of Electrostars would presumably filled the slots adequately.

Presumably the cost-cutting imperative means that the sensible step of bringing back the 153s suggested by Grahame will not be followed up to save the leasing cost?

Cost cutting by the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) I would say is the main force behind this

North Downs electrification whist an answer, it is a long term one though then the 319 could have worked that.  The Electrification AC/DC^▸ (Direct Current) interface at Reading has no easy solution to it, all of the proposals I've heard of from colleges are expensive, there does need to be a traction power systems isolation between DC and AC systems, even just to allow the units into and out of Reading Train Care.   These interfaces are complex, I deal with 3 of them in my day job.

The electrification Didcot to Oxford again not an overnight fix would release some 165/66

I fear the reality will be service cuts, reduced frequencies, train lengths etc.  The DfT will be placing a lot of rigor on ToC's to justify their operating costs

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

If Reading – Gatwick becomes third rail throughout then it's pretty obvious to transfer the route to South Western and to resource it from a bigger fleet maintained at Wimbledon or wherever. 

[Electric train]

If Reading – Gatwick becomes third rail throughout then it's pretty obvious to transfer the route to South Western and to resource it from a bigger fleet maintained at Wimbledon or wherever. 

Or Southern the fleet would then run out of Brighton

[CyclingSid]

From my point of view as a passenger, SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) any day rather than Southern. Not that that will concern DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) one jot.

[didcotdean]

I suppose signs like this (on Reading platform 7) will hang around as the ghost of the never to be 769 for years to come.

Both the 769 and the short HST^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) were functions of the parsimonious DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), which looked at the capital cost but not the value, at a time when interest rates were low.

[JayMac]

If Reading – Gatwick becomes third rail throughout then it's pretty obvious to transfer the route to South Western and to resource it from a bigger fleet maintained at Wimbledon or wherever. 

Redundancy for those GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) staff at Reading unable, or unwilling, to transfer? Where would the sets for early morning Reading starters be stabled? The third rail platforms are already fully utilised for overnight stabling of Waterloo services.

The service pattern at present requires the fleet and staff to be at the Reading end of the North Downs Line. Just one unit is outstationed overnight at Redhill.

Changing the fleet and depot would require a huge timetable re-write. To say nothing of the less than zero chance of 3rd rail infill being authorised.

To my mind, the only logical answer is for DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)/GWR to order some new trains. Logical, but unlikely. Suitable for the existing infrastructure. Either diesel all the way, as at present, or DC^▸ (Direct Current) third rail electro-diesel. While they're at it, order similar diesel only and AC electro-diesels for the West. The commonality across the fleet would do wonders for staffing and maintenance costs. I look to what Greater Anglia have achieved with their Stadler fleet commonality.

Am I a dreamer?

[bradshaw]

I think with the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) thoughts on electrification sequence in the August Modern Railways (p61), there should be a single design of multiple unit, as there was for the Electrostars, which is then modified to the specific needs of its allocated line(s). For GWR this would probably be AC/diesel hybrid or AC/BEMU. For SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) a AC/DC^▸ (Direct Current) diesel hybrid or AC/DC/BEMU,which could also be used for the North Down line.