Another HST looks set to be 'Turbotised' from December

[whole diary]

[paul7575]

We've been told forever and a day that 142s are "going back up North soon" (end of next year now i've heard)... and 150s are on the way... It'll hopefully happen at some point, but it really feels like PR^▸ (Public Relations) spin at the moment 

It's been widely reported that the delays are purely due to 172 production problems.  The 9 additional 150s are about as certain as any planned recent cascade - so something a bit more than spin...

Paul

[JayMac]

And those 150s and 153s have 2+2 seats...

The 153s yes, but not necessarily the 150s. Many PLY^» (Plymouth - next trains)-PNZ diagrams have utilised Class 150/1s and they are 2+3 and are a darn site less comfy than a 165.

[willc]

In what way is

Units are full and standing a lot of time for peak connections from Penzance into Plymouth-Paddington services too

talking about travelling West

?

the line is well used.

I don't dispute that for a moment, but as I said, I seriously doubt that the stopping dmus along the main line in the West Country are carrying 200 (and sometimes more) people on journeys lasting 90 minutes or longer, which is what happens here. And while 158s are a sight better than your average 15X, the gap in quality is nothing like as stark as from an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) or a 180 down to a 165 (which seem to be increasingly prevalent here, despite the policy supposedly being to operate the maximum number of diagrams possible with 166s). Here there are six-and-a-half and five-and-a-half hour gaps in the timetable between HST workings on weekdays and a six-hour gap on Saturdays out of London. Nor was the carrot of 'InterCity quality and comfort throughout the day" for West Country stoppers dangled in front of the SRA^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) at franchise bidding time, which it most certainly was here.

That the LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) 150s haven't arrived is entirely down to the 172 production line being shut down for months while they tried to work out whether the exhausts on the LO batch were faulty. It has been running again since mid-November, so I would expect the first train to emerge next month, with output ramping up after that. If they work better out of the box than the LO units, then FGW^▸ (First Great Western) may well be shot of the 142s by May.

[ChrisB]

this journey is close to Three hours

And exactly how many people do actually sit on a 150 for two or three hours all the way across Devon and Cornwall? Not many, I'll warrant.

About as many yhat make the journey from Worcester off-peak....

And there-in lies the problem. If the number of pax warranted a 7car HST^▸ (High Speed Train), they'd run one.

[willc]

So now every seat has to be occupied throughout a journey does it?

I didn't actually have Worcester in mind, as should be obvious from the 90-minute marker. As you know full well Chris, the 08.58 is a heavily loaded service from Evesham onwards - hence the addition of a second Turbo at Oxford - standing from Charlbury is commonplace and prettty much inevitable for anyone boarding at Hanborough.

During school half-terms it is grossly overloaded. If, as appears to likely be the case from September, the current 09.29 from Moreton is pushed back to become an 09.50 departure, with the 09.2X starting back from Worcester instead, the problem will only get worse, as many of the 40-50 people on the 09.29 want to be in Oxford for 10am - they will transfer on to the first train, along with all the people heading to London who currently use the 09.50. I have a pretty shrewd idea of what it will be like on board if the service continues to be worked by a three-car Turbo.

But I'm sure FGW^▸ (First Great Western) will have done some passenger count proving definitively that there won't be a problem, like it always does...

[ChrisB]

The problem there is that is starts at a time when all HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) are already heading into, or have just left London. To have an HST at Worcester for 8am rules it out of use during the peak.

Now, where would you use it?

Unfortunately, I can't see an argument that doesn't utlise all HSTs during the morning peak, i.e. arriving PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) between 7 and 10.

[pbc2520]

(Sorry, picking up on a point from last month here...)

As for 180s, HT^▸ (Hull Trains) and GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) do now seem to have got the measure of the things (and where are HT's sets maintained, why, Old Oak Common), they were absolutely ideal for all but the busiest Cotswold Line services (indeed could almost have been purpose-built for the route) and as for bad design, in what way? The passenger environment is far superior to their contemporary the Voyager.

Except that the 180s had no mains sockets, Voyagers do.  I was really surprised (and disappointed) when they first came into service.  I take a fairly powerful computer on every journey so that I can usefully work - therefore travelling is not 'time lost'.  (Whilst battery technology is better these days, they still wear out and you still need to remember to charge them up!)  I was regularly putting the computer away with 30min+ of the PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-WOF journey left.  (I have even sat in Costa at PAD for 2hrs, first table on the left for the mains socket, to wait for an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) instead of a Turbo: at least I can use a computer so haven't 'lost' any time!)

On the subject of computer friendliness, I blame the early demise of the hard disk in my old laptop on the 166s.  Heaven knows why they put the (only) tables above the wheels and not in the middle of the carriage to reduce shaking.  As for the the pull-out supports in the fold-down tables in refurbished HSTs - they are a stroke of genius.  However, the back-of-seat TVs prevent larger laptop lids opening fully, but it's only one carriage so not a huge issue.

Anyone know if mains sockets in Turbos are on the horizon?  (Or 180s if they are coming back?)

P.S. I realize there are mains sockets by some vestibules in the Turbos but, given the quality of everything else, I wouldn't plug a computer in...

[SDS]

The plug sockets which are in the vestibules or on the turbos are not to be used by the public.
a) they do not have additional surge protection
b) they often do have very variable voltage.
c) are mainly for use for cleaners while stationary.

I have seen someone plug a laptop into a "not for public use" on a class 365, after a neutral section their laptop switched off, and the battery pack made quite a nice fizzing sound. It wouldn't turn on afterwards. The plug socket also had fused.

[grahame]

The plug sockets which are in the vestibules or on the turbos are not to be used by the public.
a) they do not have additional surge protection
b) they often do have very variable voltage.
c) are mainly for use for cleaners while stationary.

I have seen someone plug a laptop into a "not for public use" on a class 365, after a neutral section their laptop switched off, and the battery pack made quite a nice fizzing sound. It wouldn't turn on afterwards. The plug socket also had fused.

I have often wondered just *how* far away from an acceptable voltage / spike free those "not for public use" sockets are (and, no I have never used them).    Many thanks for the post - what it reports is disappointing, but that report is for an electric unit, where there is likely to be a lot of macho-voltage electricity about.  Can it be really that bad in a diesel?   Is the main problem the actual power supplied,  health and safety concerns with cables, or passengers fighting over limited outlets which would make table-jockying look like a walk in the park?

[dog box]

The Cleaner socket voltage on an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) Set fluctuates from 110v to 415v on the move ...you have been warned.....and as for bad design on a 180 .thats worthy of a complete new thread

[willc]

When I said the 180s were ideal for the Cotswold Line, I meant in terms of seating capacity and comfort, for all but the busiest trains, in line with FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s pledge in 2004 to provide "InterCity quality and comfort" throughout the day. Plug sockets weren't uppermost in my mind.

And the absence of sockets is hardly bad design - just that First Group presumably didn't ask for them to be fitted when the trains were ordered.

If the five 180s that will be free once Northern gets its 142s back and Hull and Grand Central finish overhauls were to return to FGW as a pre-electrification stopgap, they might have to wait get a heavy-duty facelift, depending on what happens over the franchise, with the seven-year break point looming in 2013. But Old Oak Common is certainly getting improved reliability out of the Hull Trains sets which they look after, according to figures in Modern Railways, though they still have a way to go to match Voyagers/Meridians.

The 180s would certainly help, given FGW's leading spot in the overcrowding league, noted here http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=8288.0 and the fact that according to the latest issue of the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)'s National Rail Trends, FGW leads the way for PIXC (passengers in excess of capacity) around London in the peaks, and the problem got worse in FGW-land between 2008 and 2009 (the latest figures they have.

From the introduction to the new Chapter 2 of National Rail Trends, issued on Monday

PiXC
^ The PiXC data shows that within the sample collected,  2.2% of passengers were travelling in excess of capacity in 2009, a decline from 3.0% in 2008.
^ During peak morning and peak afternoon hours, First Great Western operated 8.2% above capacity during 2009, an increase from 6.5% in 2008. London Overground, London Midland and Southern services also increased their proportion of passenger in excess of capacity. Six TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) had reduced levels of crowding in 2009 compared to 2008 (c2c, Chiltern, First Capital Connect, National Express East Anglia, Southeastern and South West Trains).

Full chapter is here http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/nrt-ch2-railperformance.pdf

The only other operator that came close to FGW's percentage was LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) at 5.9 per cent.

So Chris, I accept FGW do need lots of HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) heading towards London but they also need to lose the collective corporate amnesia about things they promised their passengers up here back in 2004, which was not overcrowded Turbos with uncomfortable inner-suburban 3+2 seats.

Five 180s would come in very handy, releasing two Turbos to strengthen Thames Valley services from the 05.48 and 06.48 departures from PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) and providing a coupled pair of 180s for the 07.09 (07.59 from Maidenhead) or 07.33 from Oxford, both services where even an HST is short of seats much of the time. Which would give you something over 1,000 extra seats heading towards Paddington in the peak. But probably far too sensible for DafT to authorise it.

[Andy W]

I^ve not been going down to London (from Pershore) for the past 12 months but last Thursday I needed to go down. Again, as I^ve said before, I invariably used the Chiltern line from Warwick.

Now I realise WillC that you don^t believe me when I talk about the number of Worcester travellers that don^t use FGW^▸ (First Great Western) but here^s the maths.

Firstly I^ve ^snow on the roof^ and recently hit the requirements for a senior railcard, I needed to be in London for 09.00 returning sometime in the afternoon (flexible).

My options were
 
FGW from Pershore, Leave home 06:25, dep 06:35, arr 08:51, fare ^66
Chiltern from Warwick Parkway, Leave home 06:35, dep 07:19, arr 08:54, fare ^45
Virgin B^ham Int, Leave home 06:40, dep 07:41,arr 08:49, fare ^29

For Chiltern add ^12 for petrol & parking
For Virgin add ^18 for petrol & parking

Now which one do you think is the best choice?

The maths does get better for FGW later in the day ^ Chiltern leaving PM returning in the evening can drop as low as ^10 with some planning (^5 each way) Virgin advanced ^14.85 for PM departure return evening ^ the cheapest on FGW is ^23.75 OK but not compelling.

Now if you add Annie and Clarabelle into the equation plus the attitude ^if you think this train^s crap you should see what they put up with elsewhere!!!^ The decision not to use FGW becomes quite easy.

So ChrisB ^ I can assure you that the degradation of the rolling stock will further ensure that at the western end of the line there will be even more fresh air than passengers. In all a self fulfilling prophecy ^ so use it or loose it ^ decision made.

[willc]

I've never disputed that people drive over to Warwick or International - just that no-one ever seems able to quantify how many do so.

And while you may have got a good deal with Virgin (the need to fill all those seats on Pendolinos may have a lot to do with it *), the comparison in time elapsed and fare between FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and Chiltern is pretty marginal, never mind that plenty of people may not be as keen as you to hit the M42 of a morning to save ^20.

It may well be the case that those who do this are saving FGW from having an even worse overcrowding problem to deal with - or more likely, not deal with. Quite what they will do if there is a redoubling dividend, in terms of extra passengers, which seems a reasonable possibility, is anyone's guess.

* In the documentation for the new West Coast franchise bid process, DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) floats the possibility of allowing bidders to propose cutting service frequencies.

[ChrisB]

Five 180s would come in very handy, releasing two Turbos to strengthen Thames Valley services from the 05.48 and 06.48 departures from PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) and providing a coupled pair of 180s for the 07.09 (07.59 from Maidenhead) or 07.33 from Oxford, both services where even an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) is short of seats much of the time. Which would give you something over 1,000 extra seats heading towards Paddington in the peak. But probably far too sensible for DafT to authorise it.

You've hit the nail on the head with this paragraph....it's the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), *not* FGW^▸ (First Great Western) who have the control on what stock is offered on the Cotswold Line.

I do know that FGW continue to talk about stock with the DfT - witness the FGW30 project to cascade extra stock over in the West, units of which have started to arrive - in exchange for further Revenue Protection spend by FGW down there.

I'm sure FGW are trying for more, but the DfT is juggling with more than just FGW demands on other stock availability - and we'll just have to wait & see what else, if anything, FGW get allocated.

But until they do, there's going to be little change in stock offering.

However, the doubling will produce further journey oppertunities in September.

[John R]

The quoted fares seem a little unusual, in that without a railcard the cheapest fare on the Virgin service quoted (at least for the next couple of weeks) is ^74 (anytime), but with a senior railcard it is ^28.40 (off-peak). I'm not sure why off-peak tickets are allowed for senior railcard holders when it's peak for everyone else, though then again I'm still a few years off studying the particular terms of the senior railcard.

Thus whilst the fare comparison would seem to favour Andy W, for the majority of people travelling at that time into London (under 60), it's not at all obvious that it would be cost effective to take that option, even putting aside the prospect of an hour's travelling in the rush hour.

Also the ^10 allowed for motoring costs (parking is ^8) works out at 49mpg fuel cost only for the 82 miles. A more realistic 30p per mile makes the round trip ^24, thus eroding the benefit still further.