Cotswold Line journeys operated by Turbos - planned and HST substitutions

[whole diary]

[willc]

in the infinite wisdom that characterises Oxford, this unit was only added after all the passengers waiting on the platform had got on.

Not sure that's entirely fair. Normal procedure should see the set starting at Oxford in the platform first, to soak up passengers joining there before the loaded set arrives, to avoid the situation you describe. Though why they didn't keep the doors shut until the second set had been coupled, with people being told to move up the platform and get on that one beats me, as I've been on trains where that has happened. Annoying if you want to get off at Oxford, but makes sense.

And there aren't any trolleys on Sunday Turbos except for the true horror that is the 18.30 from Hereford to London, three and a half hours on a Turbo (and i think the trolley's only for part of the journey) - is this the longest through service in Britain operated by a train with inner-suburban 3+2 seats?

[Chris from Nailsea]

Note to moderators - perhaps this thread could be renamed as "Cotswold Line journeys operated by Turbos - planned and HST^▸ (High Speed Train) substitutions"?

Done!

CfN. 

[inspector_blakey]

viable option

In the particular case of the 15.51, no, it isn't, due to a series of specific reasons affecting passenger numbers, noted above. And while the schools are off at the moment, the pupils' places are taken by people visiting Oxford for the day while on holiday in the Cotswolds and Vale.

If you still don't believe me, Insider posted the following in the thread about yesterday's chaos:
<snip>

Obviously if I was planning on catching this train then I would be severely cheesed off to see the booked HST^▸ (High Speed Train) substituted for a Turbo, putting things politely. However I'm not so I can take a dispassionate view on the subject.

Firstly, I suspect this repeated substitution is largely due to the fact that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is currently missing two HSTs due to circumstances completely beyond their control and that could not have been anticipated, so I'm sure the plan to run an additional Friday service to Exeter was entirely viable when first envisaged.

Secondly despite being a scientist I am a reasonable human being (no, really) and can see that under certain circumstances the most practical solution would be to can another train to provide an HST for this particular Cotswold service. However given the current DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) performance regime under which FGW operates, I can't see this ever being contemplated because as far as I'm aware there's no penalty for running a train short-formed (or if there is, it's much smaller than a cancellation penalty).

So, run the HST somewhere else and Turbo-tute the Cotswold service = no cancellation and one short-forming on the score card. Penalty nil (or reduced, anyway)? Cancel a Bristol/Cardiff service and poach the HST to run the Cotswold service = FGW pay the penalty for an outright cancellation. Twice, assuming the return working of that set is also cancelled. Here's an important question - what are the loadings on the return working of the 1511 Cotswold service on a Friday? Overall does cancelling an out-and-back Bristol or Cardiff working somewhere else lead to greater inconvenience than turbo-tuting the 1511? I don't know the answer but would be interested to find out from someone "in the know".

Would like to see a 90mph DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) keep to those timings.

Well, it's going back a little way but they did used to scud around the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) between Didcot and Temple Meads not that many years ago. I'm aware they ate up capacity at the time (that being one of the stated reasons for the service being withdrawn) but it may be a last resort in extremis. Caveat to that comment is that I don't have a good enough memory to know how the HST service then compares with now. Would also need train managers to be trained or refreshed on the Turbo stock seeing as it can't work driver-only west of Didcot.

_{Edited to correct embarrassing schoolboy spelling error. And no, I am not telling you what it was.}

[Worcester_Passenger]

Mon Aug 2 : 15:51 Paddington - Worcester (and 18:48 return) HST^▸ (High Speed Train) replaced by Turbo

[willc]

I suspect this repeated substitution is largely due to the fact that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is currently missing two HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train)

Has happened on numerous occasions long before the toppling tree and I have no doubt will continue to happen on occasion after the HSTs are back in action, but it doesn't make it right, unless you don't give a damn about the passengers and their safety and comfort, both of which are seriously compromised every time this happens. But hey, I wouldn't want poor little First Group - pre-tax profit for the year to the end of March ^264m - to suffer a penalty payment.

The train that the 15.51 loses out to is the 15.48 to Cheltenham, not a Bristol or South Wales service. I don't imagine its back loading on the 18.34 is any more impressive than the 18.50 from Worcester any day of the week and I'll bet it doesn't load anything like as heavily, as consistently (especially beyond Swindon, which is also served by two HSTs from Paddington within a matter of minutes either side of the 15.48), outbound from London as the 15.51 does throughout the week, well beyond Oxford.

Gauging shouldn't pose a problem to Cheltenham and if a Turbo is acceptable for a three-and-a-half hour run to Hereford, then a couple of hours to Cheltenham should be a doddle, plus you'd get a super-fast change of ends at Gloucester...

[Fish]

As a result of the engineering work at Reading ("only a limited number of platforms in use"), we formed an orderly queue to get into the station, stopping well outside at 11:07 and then stopping twice more before arriving in Reading at 11:24. The joys of a well-planned timetable...

To jump to the defence of the planners, the timetable on Sunday with just 2 through platforms was robust.  However, a signal failure just outside the station at Reading meant that every train had to be talked past by signaller and it was this which caused the delay.  From the time that services started running after the engineering works which probably caused the problem, the first train to run to Paddington on time was about 1630, most operated 10 to 15 minutes late.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Thanks for that very useful background information, Fish - and welcome to the Coffee Shop forum! 

[inspector_blakey]

Has happened on numerous occasions long before the toppling tree and I have no doubt will continue to happen on occasion after the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) are back in action, but it doesn't make it right, unless you don't give a damn about the passengers and their safety and comfort, both of which are seriously compromised every time this happens. But hey, I wouldn't want poor little First Group - pre-tax profit for the year to the end of March ^264m - to suffer a penalty payment.

The train that the 15.51 loses out to is the 15.48 to Cheltenham, not a Bristol or South Wales service. I don't imagine its back loading on the 18.34 is any more impressive than the 18.50 from Worcester any day of the week and I'll bet it doesn't load anything like as heavily, as consistently (especially beyond Swindon, which is also served by two HSTs from Paddington within a matter of minutes either side of the 15.48), outbound from London as the 15.51 does throughout the week, well beyond Oxford.

Gauging shouldn't pose a problem to Cheltenham and if a Turbo is acceptable for a three-and-a-half hour run to Hereford, then a couple of hours to Cheltenham should be a doddle, plus you'd get a super-fast change of ends at Gloucester...

The profits made by First Group are something of an irrelevance to this discussion, since no commercial operation is going to choose the option that results in it being hit with the greater financial penalty, regardless of its bottom line.

However, you make a persuasive case for sending the Turbo to Cheltenham in the situation described, and who knows, maybe common sense might prevail and this could happen in the future.

The only other comment I'd take issue with is the supposed "safety" implications of overcrowded trains: this one has been done to death by me elsewhere on the forum, not to mention by the HSE^▸ (Health and Safety Executive) and RSSB^▸ (Rail Safety and Standards Board) in the past, and all serious work on the subject appears to have yielded the conclusion that there is certainly an issue of comfort but not safety. Are passengers really so hypnotized by the herd mentality that they crush themselves into what they consider to be unsafe conditions? I'm not sure. Overcrowded trains are certainly uncomfortable - been there and done that repeatedly. I have travelled on many, many trains that have been absolutely full and standing, especially HSTs on match days at the Millennium Stadium when two London teams were playing during the period that Wembley was closed. These were standing room only, and not much of that. And yes, it sucks having to stand wedged in the vestibule for an hour or more. But despite the discomfort I never felt unsafe at all. We may have to agree to differ here willc, but I am firmly of the opinion that the "safety" card is a cooked-up, tabloid attention-grabbing tactic a la Bob Crow, rather than a tangible threat to anyone's well-being.

[Worcester_Passenger]

However, a signal failure just outside the station at Reading meant that every train had to be talked past by signaller and it was this which caused the delay. 

Thanks for posting that. I'd've been much more sympathetic had that been announced on the train. Seems odd that this didn't happen, given that the driver is having to be talked through in this way.

[Tim]

The only other comment I'd take issue with is the supposed "safety" implications of overcrowded trains[....] Are passengers really so hypnotized by the herd mentality that they crush themselves into what they consider to be unsafe conditions? I'm not sure.

I agree with you about little danger from crushing, but I think that there must be an increased risk if someone passes out, has a heart attack or chokes etc if there is no space to get to them and help.

I don't think it is a risk worth doing anything about (compared with driving a car the risk is very low and the risk is one that the passenger freely enters into) but there is a risk and also a conspiracy to aviod acknowledging it becaus eif it was acknowledged lots of non-desirable things would flow from it including - 1) unfair pressure on staff to take decsions on crowding, 2)TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) being sued,  3) trains kept at stations with passengers refusing to get off to ease crowding etc. 

[willc]

The profits made by First Group are something of an irrelevance

You introduced penalty payments into this discussion and penalty payments are definitely relevant to First Group's bottom line, incur lots of them and the numbers don't look good.

If FGW^▸ (First Great Western) was really that bothered about being short of HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), why doesn't it borrow one of XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise))'s rather underemployed sets until its own are repaired? But then that would come with a cost, which would affect First Group's profits, etc.

Money flowing out of the business in the form of track access payments must also have played some part in the removal of a series of HST workings from the Cotswold Line last year. If you care to read anything about First Group's results, one of the specific points that they flagged up was the substantial amount of cost-cutting that had gone on. Penalty payments are presumably regarded as a cost to the business.

As for safety v comfort, remember this?

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=7263.0

Yes, the risks of anything bad happening on the railway are low, but I'm sure if you were able to pass through a sardine-can Turbo (eg the halts train when the 15.51 has been terminated at Oxford, been there, got the badge) and ask people if they felt safe, never mind comfortable, you wouldn't get many, if any, answers in the affirmative.

And how many casual customers come back after an experience like that? Which is also relevant to First Group's bottom line.

[inspector_blakey]

I agree with you about little danger from crushing, but I think that there must be an increased risk if someone passes out, has a heart attack or chokes etc if there is no space to get to them and help.

I understand what you're saying, and it's a cogent argument, but I'm not sure it holds water IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion): frankly a train is not a good place to suffer some kind of medical emergency whatever the circumstances. Unless you get lucky and there's a medical professional nearby (even then they'll be hampered by lack of equipment) there's not a great deal can be done until the train reaches the next station where it can be met by the emergency services. In those circumstances it really doesn't make a lot of difference whether or not the train's busy, as even in the ideal situation there's not an enormous amount of help can be given before reaching a station where everyone can get off to clear out of the way anyway.

As for safety v comfort, remember this?

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=7263.0

Yes, someone fainted on a busy train. That proves nothing. People faint all the time, and I would bet good money that in the case described it wasn't caused solely by being on a crowded stuffy train but there was some kind of underlying physiological issue. Undoubtedly the train journey won't have helped, but a bit of personal responsibility can go a long way: if I'm feeling peaky, I won't jam myself into a crowded train when there's another one that will take me to my destination within a reasonable length of time. That, incidentally, is a lesson that I learned the hard way whilst travelling home for Christmas a couple of years ago when I was recovering from one of the winter norovirus-type bugs that do the rounds occasionally. As far as Swansea the journey was fine, trains not too busy and, trying to put things delicately, I was able to get seats close to the vestibules. The west Wales connection from Swansea left during afternoon rush and was predictably very busy, but I squished on an ended up standing in the aisle towards the centre of the vehicle with a solid wall of people in front and behind. Do I blame the fact that I had an extremely uncomfortable and stressful journey on the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)? No, it was my own stupid fault for crushing onto that train given the state of my health, when I could have just waited an hour and caught the next train.

Perhaps slightly controversially, let's try and take a cool-headed look at the facts rather than propagating ill-founded hysteria. I hardly need to point out that the Cotswold line and the 1511 service in particular are not uniquely affected by overcrowding: there are hundreds, maybe thousands of commuter trains every day that run in a similar or worse state, in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) and around the world (the economics of the commuter railway make this almost inevitable, although that's an argument for another time and place).

If overcrowding really was as much of a safety issue as you suggest, people would be dying every day of the week. As far as I am aware, there is absolutely no recorded incidence of any death or serious injury occurring in the UK due to crowded trains. I'm sure you  can imagine the hysterics there would be in the press if it happened. Barring some sinister international collaboration of transport operators perpetuating a spectacular cover-up, that really ought to tell you something, i.e. the danger posed to passengers by train overcrowding is, at the very most, negligible.

Yes, the risks of anything bad happening on the railway are low, but I'm sure if you were able to pass through a sardine-can Turbo (eg the halts train when the 15.51 has been terminated at Oxford, been there, got the badge) and ask people if they felt safe, never mind comfortable, you wouldn't get many, if any, answers in the affirmative.

And how many casual customers come back after an experience like that? Which is also relevant to First Group's bottom line.

I have no doubt that you're right about putting off casual business, but the perception of safety and its presence or absence are very, very different things. People are notoriously bad at judging just how safe they are: they'll get irrationally scared in an aircraft, but assume a feeling of invincibility when they're driving at 80 mph right up the backside of the car in front in bad weather whilst texting/calling etc etc. No doubt if they've been reading tabloid headlines spouting the kind of rubbish that Bob Crow and some rail users' groups like to put about then they might feel unsafe. It doesn't mean that they actually are.

[IndustryInsider]

If FGW^▸ (First Great Western) was really that bothered about being short of HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train), why doesn't it borrow one of XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise))'s rather underemployed sets until its own are repaired? But then that would come with a cost, which would affect First Group's profits, etc.

An idea that's quite sound in principle, but aside from the cost, would probably come unstuck by the fact that XC's HST's aren't fitted with ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection), so I'm pretty sure that would prevent it from happening due to the red tape you'd have to cut through.

[willc]

Though if FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s key problem is the rakes of Mk3 trailers with wheel flats from front to back and fried electrics, then surely all you need would be the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) trailers between two FGW Class 43s, as was done with that MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) set not long ago. One XC set is, I believe, spare Monday to Friday for the summer, with another spare Tuesday-Thursday and I see EMT^» (East Midlands Trains - about) has come up with an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) to loan to East Coast to cover for Mk4 overhauls.

Inspector, you talk of taking a cool-headed look at things, so yes, let's, and simplify matters and get right back to where we began. The 15.51 is a very heavily loaded train, such that it needs the diagrammed HST for the series of specific reasons that I outlined above. That FGW's only answer, whenever it has a problem, is to put on a train with half the seating capacity (and that's if one assumes people wedge themselves into the middle seats for want of any other option, while dozens more have to stand in the the aisles and doorways) is not good enough.

Wait another hour. Not if you're at London or Reading and you've got an off-peak (day) ticket, because they're not valid for the next three hours. Not after a two-and-a-half hour gap in departures from London to Worcester. Not at Oxford when you know the next train is a busy two-car Turbo, which, if you're going all the way, takes 100 minutes to cover 60 miles to Worcester. These factors do not apply to the 17.50, which is why a Turbo on that job is a different matter.

[inspector_blakey]

Inspector, you talk of taking a cool-headed look at things, so yes, let's, and simplify matters and get right back to where we began. The 15.51 is a very heavily loaded train, such that it needs the diagrammed HST^▸ (High Speed Train) for the series of specific reasons that I outlined above. That FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s only answer, whenever it has a problem, is to put on a train with half the seating capacity (and that's if one assumes people wedge themselves into the middle seats for want of any other option, while dozens more have to stand in the the aisles and doorways) is not good enough.

Wait another hour. Not if you're at London or Reading and you've got an off-peak (day) ticket, because they're not valid for the next three hours. Not after a two-and-a-half hour gap in departures from London to Worcester. Not at Oxford when you know the next train is a busy two-car Turbo, which, if you're going all the way, takes 100 minutes to cover 60 miles to Worcester. These factors do not apply to the 17.50, which is why a Turbo on that job is a different matter.

Virtually all of which I'd agree with, but none of it backs up your previous repeated assertion that the Turbo on the 1551 service is a safety issue.

Look, for all we may disagree on the details in principle, I wholeheartedly agree with you that this service should not end up as a Turbo. However, I'm trying to look at the reasons behind that decision and understand why it happens. I think one of the reasons that rail users' groups like the CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) and (hopefully in the fullness of time) the nascent Transwilts CRP^▸ (Community Rail Partnership) have a good track record of success is because they make efforts to engage in sober, informed discussion with the railway companies and come up with intelligent, workable solutions to problems that arise. Indeed, I trust that the CLPG has noted what's happening and will be bringing the matter up with FGW, if it hasn't done so already. This constructive approach appears to me to be in stark contrast to, say, SHRUG or MTLS^▸ (More Train Less Strain), who apparently just bounce around on the sidelines flinging brickbats and shrieking "it's not good enough", which solves absolutely nothing.

I know you have made some good suggestions for solving the problem of the 1551 being worked with Turbo equipment, and in a sane world at least one of them could be implemented immediately. However, as things stand FGW will never cancel the Cheltenham service to switch the HST onto the Worcester service when that can be worked by a Turbo instead because of the financial penalty: you said yourself above that FGW are cutting costs, so I don't think in the current climate there's a snowball in hell's chance of them voluntarily incurring a penalty payment when they can avoid it by running a Turbo up to Worcester. Put yourself in the shoes of the FGW controller who has to make that decision and account for it to his or her bosses who are holding the purse strings, and it starts to become more apparent why it's happening.

The solution of running a Turbo on the Cheltenham service makes good sense but there's no way it can happen immediately: as far as I am aware 165/166 equipment is not gauged to run to Cheltenham, and even if it was I very much doubt there are sufficient drivers and guards available (there may even be none) who have the required combination of route and traction knowledge. Not to mention pathing issues that may arise for the journey as far as Swindon.

I may be mistaken, and please correct me if I am, but I feel there is a subtext in some of your posts above that the Cotswold line suffers uniquely from some kind of targeted FGW intransigence. I would contend that that's not the case, and it simply suffers from being the only route where Turbo substitutions are actually currently possible (leaving aside the issue of their desirability). I really think that the current situation is more a result of cock-up (or unforeseen HST shortage, anyway) rather than conspiracy.