Herefords today...

[whole diary]

[swlines]

Further turbo substitutions today (30/06/2008) :

Service: 05:51 Moreton-In-Marsh to London Paddington on 30/06/2008 operated by First Great Western.

Details: This train will run short formed with 3 carriages. This is due to a member of train crew being unavailable.

O - U - C - H. OUCH OUCH OUCH.

[Btline]

This will become much more common after the 180 have left:

3 180s out, 1 HST^▸ (High Speed Train) in.

At this rate they will try a 153 on the line!

[swlines]

Well FGW^▸ (First Great Western) did intend to use a 2 car 158 on a Bristol - Padd one day last year ... got swapped at Swindon with a HST^▸ (High Speed Train) though.

158 in Paddington, my lordz!

[redskin125]

Not impressed on Saturday when told one of the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) diagrams on the Cotswolds Monday would have to be formed with a Turbo, because of traincrew issues. 95% of the Turbo vice HST substitution recently has been down to crewing issues. Occasionally the stock alteration has been due to HST or 180 failure, but this has been infrequent and usually only for part of the day.

[willc]

How many business travellers are there on the Bristol line compared to the Cotswolds?

At the weekend? That's what we were talking about and that's when most of the recent Turbo stand-ins have been. Those Sunday afternoon trains from Hereford can get extremely busy, and fill up at Oxford, that's why they are booked for HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) and have been for years.

A Turbo may be be an operationally convenient solution, but I return to my point about bad PR^▸ (Public Relations) for the railway and FGW^▸ (First Great Western) in particular. That set swap on the 05.51 from Moreton this morning will be remembered by the commuters for longer than all the on-time journeys they have had on that service recently. And the two-car working to Hereford I saw arrive at Oxford, and the other widely-reported one were nothing short of a disgrace - and a safety risk.

When we have been bombarded with FGW announcements about inter-city standard stock coming on to the route for the past couple of years, why shouldn't people get hacked off when a suburban DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) turns up?

Yes, a train is better than no train, but if the past couple of days' alterations are really down to the old chestnut of crewing issues, then it's about time someone got them sorted out - before the service collapses again in the run-up to Christmas.

Which route makes more money...

But they turn a very pretty penny on the Cotswold Line too - from inflated London and South East area peak day returns (because we're all loaded up here), plenty of first class annual seasons sold, not having First Minute fares available, etc.

[IndustryInsider]

A Turbo may be be an operationally convenient solution, but I return to my point about bad PR^▸ (Public Relations) for the railway and FGW^▸ (First Great Western) in particular. That set swap on the 05.51 from Moreton this morning will be remembered by the commuters for longer than all the on-time journeys they have had on that service recently.

I agree with you, Will. Though I wonder if Thames Trains (which under the stewardship of Go-Ahead rarely showed any innovation) had retained the franchise, whether the service in question, and many others, would still be operated by a 165/6 like it was up until the end of 2005?

[willc]

I wonder if Thames Trains (which under the stewardship of Go-Ahead rarely showed any innovation) had retained the franchise, whether the service in question, and many others, would still be operated by a 165/6

By the time Thames lost the franchise, the 166s were really struggling to cope with Cotswold loadings at the shoulders of the peaks, so if they had been given a long-term extension, maybe they would have looked around for something else - a four-car Class 168 derivative perhaps, like the 171s Go-Ahead operate on Southern's DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) routes.

[willc]

And another one...

07:51 London Paddington to Great Malvern due 10:39
This train will run short formed with 3 carriages.This is due to an earlier train fault.

11:06 Great Malvern to London Paddington due 13:59
This train will run short formed with 3 carriages.This is due to an earlier train fault.

So no inter-city standard train out of Worcester to London for four hours today...

[IndustryInsider]

By the time Thames lost the franchise, the 166s were really struggling to cope with Cotswold loadings at the shoulders of the peaks, so if they had been given a long-term extension, maybe they would have looked around for something else - a four-car Class 168 derivative perhaps, like the 171s Go-Ahead operate on Southern's DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) routes.

In some respects it's good that the SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) chose FGW^▸ (First Great Western) to take over the short-term extention to Thames Trains (to eventually be called First Great Western Link) until the main FGW franchise terminated. At least FGW offered two proposals - one to operate the existing service on the existing non-subsity basis, the other to introduce 180's on the Oxford's and Cotswolds (where they would still be perfectly adequate on many services), for a subsidy payment of just over ^100m I believe? Thankfully the latter was chosen.

I really doubt that Go-Ahead would have done much at all. Certainly not provided the quality of train the line now enjoys. Such a shame the various other naive decisions from FGW have spoiled all the positive publicity this could have generated.

[Btline]

Don't dismiss Go Ahead, they have done very well south east of London.

Although punctuality plummeted in the first few months of LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise), they have now improved, and the new stock will make a difference (CT were not interested at all).

Just be grateful NX aren't running it!

[dog box]

Tell you what lets base a few 143s at Reading.............then you WILL have something to moan about!!!

[IndustryInsider]

Don't dismiss Go Ahead, they have done very well south east of London.

No, don't get me wrong, Go-Ahead manage to do the basics right most of the time - something which FGW^▸ (First Great Western) should learn lessons from.

Though, I am of the opinion, that they lacked imagination and the urge to take a few risks with their Thames Trains franchise.

It's a balancing act - perhaps Go-Ahead were too negative and FirstGroup too revolutionary?