Semantics.
Indeed. No-one made
FGW▸ come out with all the hubristic stuff in that press release, they did it of their own free will. Unlike the subsequent back-tracking in the past two years, where their only public pronouncements on removal of
HSTs▸ and the subsequent appearance of the 09.29 from Moreton (despite the 166 on the 08.58 having "the right level of accommodation" just months earlier) have been as a result of questions from me and other journalists.
FGW's ability to offer 180s for Oxford and Cotswold services was widely understood at the time of the bidding to operate the Thames Valley services from 2004-6 to have been the knockout blow that put Thames Trains out of the running, since all it was offering was two more years of Turbos and a cost-cutting regime to extract every last penny going.
no one can justify running HSTs around carrying mostly air these days
.
Unless they are running miles and miles as empty stock between Bristol and Hereford, or working back to London after operating the 15.51 and 17.50, for example. Maybe we should Turbo-ise them too?
So, for a majority of its journey (lets say for over a hour continously), which trips are currently seriously overcrowded? I think a 166 is reasonable for journeys of less than an hour
.
How do you define overcrowded? If you mean a 166 on the 08.58 from Malvern where people are somehow wedged into every seat past Charlbury and those boarding at Hanborough have to stand to Oxford then no, there's no problem at all. But I'm afraid Joe Public doesn't see it like that. They remember being wedged into seats with nowhere for their arms to go. I would avoid the 09.54 from Malvern like the plague south of Oxford as it's a lone Turbo with no extra seats added at Oxford to soak up passengers joining there. And any journey between the Cotswold Line and London is more than an hour - or doesn't overcrowding on the leg between London and Oxford count because it's not too bad on the bit of the journey further west?
IN the peak, all stock is utilised, so a different route would be losing out to gain one for the Cotswolds.
But it doesn't matter that we lost out last year so someone else could have an HST?
Exeter - PNZ, I believe, and some journeys between the two - operated at the start by HSTs, now 158s and below. And wasn't there a Bedwyn HST once?
Eh? Since when has it not been possible to catch an HST between Exeter and Penzance? I really can't be bothered to count how many there are each day. There have always been dmu stoppers on that route and they are used by people making short journeys, not the full run, plus the dmus used are all refreshed, not the ragtag band FGW inherited from Wessex. Bedwyn still has a couple of HSTs a day each way, much as it always did. What I am talking about is the wholesale removal of better quality stock from a service, which is what has happened to the Cotswold Line.
The problem over HST v turbo usage has been exacerbated by the wish to increase services along the line, thus spreading out the number of passengers / train.
What wish? The current pattern and frequency of services is quite clearly descended from that provided by FGW and Thames pre-2004, with minor extensions/tweaks here and there (and no-one is going to object to Turbos on a few extra short workings in future out as far as Moreton). By 2004, it was obvious that the 166s had become victims of their own success in driving up traffic over the previous decade and could no longer cope with demand on the peak and shoulder-of-peak trains they were being used on. Hence the attraction of the 180s when the franchise bids were being assessed. A better quality environment for passengers with a handy few extra seats, which made all the difference on a number of services.
As for the four options, even our cost-cutting Tory
MPs▸ wouldn't wear 1, number 2 would wreck Cotswold Line patronage at a stroke and waste two decades of improvements, never mind the redoubling investment, and if someone actually put some time and effort into marketing (which is something FGW is still struggling to get right) then you would fill more seats and get more money in without needing to increase the fares - maybe they should ask Julian Crow to tell someone up here what he is doing down in the West Country, since it seems to be working.
No-one is suggesting HSTs on everything, just that there are services, in particular the 08.58 from Malvern, that need a high-capacity train throughout the journey, especially if it is moved forward half-an-hour next year, back to its old slot, thus putting 40-50 people currently using the 09.29 from Moreton back on the same train as all those from further west. And if FGW hadn't done such a thorough job of driving off Moreton, Honeybourne, Evesham and Pershore commuters into Worcester with appalling timekeeping in 2006-8, then they might find a healthy number of people using the balancing early service out of London, at least on that part of its journey.
You seem to be suggesting FGW might as well throw in the towel between London and Oxford (and the eastern end of the Cotswold Line) and submit to the mighty Chiltern. Where what I'd suggest is that they go back to providing a genuine express service between Oxford and London, taking full advantage of what an HST can do, ie more than 100mph, without a thunking great engine under the floor of each coach. 45 minutes to London looks a lot better than 65, even if 65 comes with a cheaper fare attached.
Click on the map to explore geographics
