Another HST looks set to be 'Turbotised' from December

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

Are people here really seriously suggesting they promised to make the Cotswold Line's service worse, two years after improving it to loud fanfares, yet still won the Greater Western franchise?

While they did drop that promise, and made no other for this line, I guess that yes, you might think that equates to 'making the service worse'. But there was no other 'worse' promise, I think.

All the spin in 2007 was that bringing in more HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) was as a result of the tremendous successes enjoyed under FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Link, which meant that the 180s were struggling to cope with demand between Oxford and London much of the day. It was presented as a straightforward swap of one train type for the other and another improvement in FGW's service offer, with yet more seats in nice trains.

And then came the recession. FGW are now on Revenue Support - so passengers did flee most of their network. So of course they'll cut costs - it might be a requiremernt of the terms of this revenue support?....

And let's get away from the notion that FGW Link was in some way a separate entity from the wider FGW operation. It wasn't, its invention merely reflected the short-term, stop-gap nature of the two-year franchise.

Oh, I think it was. It would certainly have had to be revenue-independant as one franchise can't support another, legally. While Ms Forster was indeed MD of both, the Management Board was indeed separate, if I remember correctly - so separate that when FGW took over, the new management that the Customer reps noticed weren't aware of what the old ones had been doing....

Your average passenger never understood the difference anyway - it all said First Great Western on the tin.

I certainly agree there.

the same faces were in place in FGW management across the franchise change.

But not here - see above. I think you're memory is slipping. Assuming you were with the Oxford paper at that time, who was your contact back then, in management?

Making a change of rolling stock one month into a timetable hardly suggests an organised policy decided years previously, does it?

c.f. the recession....

Never mind the underhand way in which it was implemented, with a few posters stuck up at stations days before and nothing being said to the CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) until the deed was done. And at pretty much every timetable change since, a few more HSTs have gone.

I completely agree that their customer info was really awful then....

I accept FGW aren't in breach of the strict letter of the franchise, because they are using specified stock, but that specification is widely drawn, allowing them as it does to use 67s plus coaches pretty much anywhere on the network, should the mood take them. And it doesn't make what they have done right.

Or wrong, either. And what's wrong with a 67 & coaches? I'd be happy riding in them!

Give the leasing company a big enough cheque and you could do what you like with them. If an operator, even a franchised one, wanted to take them on at its own commercial risk, I don't think the government would or could stand in their way.

Your quite likely correct - but in a recession (or post-recession with negative growth if you prefer), who in their right commercial mind would? And why's it a commericial decision - because the Government / DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) say so. So yes, I again refer you back to the DfT, not FGW to sort this problem out.

You then go on to refer to all the cheap offerings on the Cotswold Line & that it benefits over fares for equivalent distances elsewhere on FGW. So would you prefer HSTs and equivalent fares, or what you've got & current fares? Because that question will have to be answered as part of any package to improve the stock allocation, for sure.

[willc]

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree on our interpretations of events then, won't we. But the notion of Alison Forster having one corner of her office to be md of FGW^▸ (First Great Western) in and another to be md of FGW Link in, to maintain the necessary technical separation of franchises, gave me a good laugh. One guiding mind - plus another in Aberdeen, of course - tells you all you need to know about the overall relationship of the two operations.

As for me flagging up all the ways you can save money, that was in response to Andy's comments about the lack of advance fares. And all those ways of saving money were also available when there lots of Adelantes and HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) running around, so we got a high-quality train and a good deal. But FGW's marketing of these tools they have available to attract custom to the line has been non-existent throughout. Had they made an effort, they might have filled some of the empty seats, as I pointed out previously.

They might also make an effort to avoid situations like the one I heard about last night, where the TVM^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine) at Hanborough was on the blink on Saturday and friends of a friend never saw a conductor on their way to Moreton-in-Marsh or on the way back, which makes five passengers who paid nothing and will never appear on a computer record of supposed journeys made on the line.

And isn't anyone going to speak up in defence of Turbos and say what an ideal train they are for Oxford and Cotswold services...? But they are cheap, so that's okay. And nothing wrong with a 67 and coaches but apparently they're expensive to run too...

[ChrisB]

As for me flagging up all the ways you can save money, that was in response to Andy's comments about the lack of advance fares. And all those ways of saving money were also available when there lots of Adelantes and HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) running around, so we got a high-quality train and a good deal. But FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s marketing of these tools they have available to attract custom to the line has been non-existent throughout. Had they made an effort, they might have filled some of the empty seats, as I pointed out previously.

Indeed they were, and the recession hasn't helped anyone. But I do agree with the rest of your paragraph concerning marketing. Maybe that's something the CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about) can take up?

They might also make an effort to avoid situations like the one I heard about last night, where the TVM^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine) at Hanborough was on the blink on Saturday and friends of a friend never saw a conductor on their way to Moreton-in-Marsh or on the way back, which makes five passengers who paid nothing and will never appear on a computer record of supposed journeys made on the line.

And the day return fare Hanborough to MiM is?.....And with a railcard is?
I agree there is a stock issue, don't get me wrong. All I was arguing is that it is for the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) to sort out the stock allocation at FGW correctly together with a reasonable (i.e. similar mile-for-mile costs as elsewhere on FGW) fare structure to provide a reasonable rate-of-return. Then for the next franchise to contain the 'right' stock allocation for the line - again for the DfT to get right. Something else for the CLPG to diarise & campaign for when the franchise spec comes up for consultation.

And isn't anyone going to speak up in defence of Turbos and say what an ideal train they are for Oxford and Cotswold services...? But they are cheap, so that's okay. And nothing wrong with a 67 and coaches but apparently they're expensive to run too...

Less expensive with a 'reasonable' fare level - you can't have (or expect from a commercial organisation) cheap fares without getting 'cheap' stock. Now, the CLPG Have a hard choice to make there....

[Richard Fairhurst]

This isn't a leasing cost argument.

158s are, I suspect, not appreciably more expensive than Turbos. They can operate at 90mph, like Turbos. They are well-proven, reliable trains, like Turbos. First Great Western has a bunch of them kicking around, like Turbos.

Unlike Turbos, they have air-conditioning (that works), 2+2 seating, and tables throughout. Unlike Turbos, they have a corridor connection so can be sensibly worked in multiple, balancing train length to demand. Unlike Turbos, they have local door operation, so 2x158 could work a service and still stop at even Finstock and Combe if required. All of these are highly relevant to the Cotswold Line. I can only think of one advantage of a Turbo - the bike space is better.

So FGW^▸ (First Great Western) already has a train suitable for the less well-loaded Cotswold Line services.

[ChrisB]

And also in use elsewhere on their network.

There's no local depot / fuelling point. The turbos can't be swapped as they aren't cleared for the West. They also run far further where they are currently (Cardioff-Portsmouth on a turbo anyone?), than they would on the Cotswold.

Sorry, Richard, but that doesn't add up.

[Richard Fairhurst]

All of which can be fixed: they go to Worcester already (on the ex-Wessex services) so diagrams and fuelling shouldn't be impossible, clearing Turbos for Wessex region services is already on the cards (because that's where they're going post-electrification), and yes, Cardiff-Portsmouth is long, but there are fewer people making the end-to-end journey than there are Worcester-London.

But, again, the point isn't specifically about 158s or 180s or pineapple-powered IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) specifically. The point is simply that 3+2 outer-suburban trains are unacceptable for any Cotswold Line service other than, perhaps, the Halts stopper. Solutions exist with a bit of willpower... all FGW^▸ (First Great Western) needs to do is apply some.

Let's not overestimate the difficulty of this. We're talking about, more or less, three weekday diagrams. At most, you'd need five trains; at the least, three, with Turbos to substitute when required.

[ChrisB]

More than willpower - and that's money.

Commercial decisions have been taken - if you don't like them, with only three years to the end of this franchise (unless FGW^▸ (First Great Western) qualify & request an extension, which isn't a given) - togerther with a recession and them being on Revenue Support means it just ain't going to happen this side of 2013 / 2016.

Everyone would be better to stop griping & start working on a campaign to better produce the next franchise spec, IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion).

[IndustryInsider]

I believe it was discussed that the Class 166's should be refreshed with 2+2 seating throughout.  This wasn't possible due to the number of trips they do on peak time suburban duties out of Paddington.  It's a shame that there isn't a little bit extra stock about so that this would have been possible, or that perhaps half of the fleet could have been modified in that way.

The Cotswold Line services and maybe the Bedwyn and Gatwick trains could have then been operated by 2+2 Turbos, and as there's plenty of Turbo's kicking around at Old Oak and Reading off-peak any capacity issues could have been solved with a 2 or 3 car 165 attaching/detaching at Oxford.

It's a bit of a paradox that there's plenty of Class 142 and 143's out there with 2+2 seating, but not a single Turbo.

[inspector_blakey]

158s are, I suspect, not appreciably more expensive than Turbos. They can operate at 90mph, like Turbos. They are well-proven, reliable trains, like Turbos. First Great Western has a bunch of them kicking around, like Turbos.

Unlike Turbos, they have air-conditioning (that works), 2+2 seating, and tables throughout. Unlike Turbos, they have a corridor connection so can be sensibly worked in multiple, balancing train length to demand. Unlike Turbos, they have local door operation, so 2x158 could work a service and still stop at even Finstock and Combe if required. All of these are highly relevant to the Cotswold Line. I can only think of one advantage of a Turbo - the bike space is better.

So FGW^▸ (First Great Western) already has a train suitable for the less well-loaded Cotswold Line services.

All of which can be fixed: they go to Worcester already (on the ex-Wessex services) so diagrams and fuelling shouldn't be impossible, clearing Turbos for Wessex region services is already on the cards (because that's where they're going post-electrification), and yes, Cardiff-Portsmouth is long, but there are fewer people making the end-to-end journey than there are Worcester-London.

But, again, the point isn't specifically about 158s or 180s or pineapple-powered IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) specifically. The point is simply that 3+2 outer-suburban trains are unacceptable for any Cotswold Line service other than, perhaps, the Halts stopper. Solutions exist with a bit of willpower... all FGW needs to do is apply some.

Let's not overestimate the difficulty of this. We're talking about, more or less, three weekday diagrams. At most, you'd need five trains; at the least, three, with Turbos to substitute when required.

Oh where to begin...? As has already been pointed out, the 158 fleet is fully utilized elsewhere already. I'm not sure exactly how many 158s FGW has but I don't think it's much more than 10-15, so once you have taken "at most five" for the Cotswold Line you have removed 30 - 50% of the west fleet that's used on CDF^» (Cardiff - next trains)-PMH. As has been noted elsewhere on the forum, there are non-trivial numbers of 150 substitutions happening on this route as it is, so there aren't enough 158s to go around already before you've nabbed half the fleet.

Incidentally, I'd love to see your figures showing that fewer people travel CDF-PMH than from Worcester to London because I suspect you've just made that bit up.

The lack of DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) equipment on the 158 fleet may be a further issue, although potentially could be mitigated by driver/guard working south of Oxford. Except that I don't think any drivers or guards currently have the requisite combination of traction and route knowledge.

Yes there are suggestions that Turbo stock will be moved west subsequent to any electrification, but as things stand they're not gauged to operate on those routes. I'm no expert but I would guess that because of the Turbos "fat b*st*rd" loading gauge there would have to be some alterations made to trackwork, platforms and other bits and bobs of infrastructure along the way, which would cost further money. Now, you might be able to make a business case for that as part of a whole suite of improvements and mass rolling stock cascade that would accompany electrification, but good luck trying to make it a goer just so that a few Cotswold Line passengers don't have to suffer the "indignity" of travelling on a Turbo. I'm sure anyone who's endured a 150/1 unit from Temple Meads to Weymouth would happily switch their train for a Turbo though.

Incidentally, why did it apparently only become "unacceptable" to use Turbo stock on the full length of the Cotswold Line recently when for years previously it was the only equipment used with the exception of the odd HST^▸ (High Speed Train) each day?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Incidentally, why did it apparently only become "unacceptable" to use Turbo stock on the full length of the Cotswold Line recently when for years previously it was the only equipment used with the exception of the odd HST^▸ (High Speed Train) each day?

You tell me. I've never thought it's acceptable.

The Sunday Hereford runs are, I believe, the longest workings in Britain booked for units with  3+2 seating. Has 3hr25 in a Turbo ever been acceptable? I don't think so.

Incidentally, I'd love to see your figures showing that fewer people travel CDF^» (Cardiff - next trains)-PMH than from Worcester to London because I suspect you've just made that bit up.

Of course I have, and I'm very open to being proved wrong. You're going to tell me there's a significant number of Cardiff-Portsmouth commuters, whereas the Cotswold Line is being dualled not because of high demand (and its consequences for reliability) but because Network Rail just fancied something to do, right? 

As for the 158s - no doubt you're right, though IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s Jon Porter has posted on uk.railway passim that 16x gauging issues across FGW territory are greatly overstated; a 165 has been to Weymouth and, reputedly, the reason they're not officially passed to go via (for example) Trowbridge and Melksham is that Network Rail lost the paperwork.

But that's not what I'm getting at. My point is that with however many thousand rail vehicles in Britain, which are regularly cascaded from franchise to franchise, a solution can be found which doesn't involve running outer-suburban stock on long-distance/regional lines. The 180s are the obvious solution, but if for any reason they're not available, they are not the only solution.

[inspector_blakey]

I wouldn't pretend for a moment that I think running Turbo stock all the way to Hereford is an ideal situation (although it's a mathematical certainty that the longest diagram for 3+2 stock has to be somewhere in the country) but as ever it's a question of cost versus benefit. The 180s are (or at least were) notoriously expensive to lease.

Given what ChrisB has already pointed out regarding FGW^▸ (First Great Western) being on revenue support, the way the current franchising system operates really means that FGW has absolutely no incentive to lease the 180s at significant cost because on paper there's little to choose between a 180 and a 166 in terms of seating capacity, whilst the 166s are already on the books and cheaper both to lease and operationally.

[willc]

And the day return fare Hanborough to MiM is?.....And with a railcard is?

You would probably have been looking at a Groupsave from what I gathered - but what it costs is neither here nor there.

In a context where FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is getting cap and collar payments, it should surely be making a determined effort to get in money that it is due for providing a service. If a conductor sees people getting on a train at an unstaffed station, even it if has a TVM^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine), which may or may not be working, surely finding out if they have tickets is an obvious thing to do? A deal less revenue support might be needed if this was being done. And on a three-coach platform it's not hard to work out which bit of the train they are likely to be sitting in, is it?

Incidentally, why did it apparently only become "unacceptable" to use Turbo stock on the full length of the Cotswold Line recently when for years previously it was the only equipment used with the exception of the odd HST^▸ (High Speed Train) each day?

It became unacceptable when by the early 2000s they were unable to cope with the number of passengers travelling on them much of the time (the 15.2X from London rammed most of the way to Moreton-in-Marsh, the 16.2X turned over to a three-car set due to its loading, with the halts service knocked back an hour as a result, the 08.XX from Worcester going over to a 180 just three months into the franchise in 2004 because of its loading...) because they had done such a good job of building traffic since 1993. And lots of the services originating and terminating at Oxford were in the same boat, especially in school holidays and the tourist season. Remember all that coupling and uncoupling and shunting of Turbos at Oxford? A state of affairs which FGW said it had the answer to, aka the 180s, and duly won the Thames Valley franchise.

I have nothing against Turbos for my 35-minute journey to and from work, so long as they are not jam-packed and I'm wedged into a corner, but I will avoid them like the plague for the 95-100 minutes run to or from London unless I have absolutely no choice. Even if you get lucky and the train doesn't fill up at Oxford, those seats are vile to sit in for that length of time. I pity anyone using that out and back Sunday Hereford service. Perhaps some customer panel members might like to try it one weekend?

[Ollie]

I pity anyone using that out and back Sunday Hereford service. Perhaps some customer panel members might like to try it one weekend?

I'd do it..

[IndustryInsider]

In a context where FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is getting cap and collar payments, it should surely be making a determined effort to get in money that it is due for providing a service.

There's an often mentioned argument that as long as they're getting the C&C payments there is actually an incentive to manage their income to make sure it stays within the threshold where payment from the Government is due.  Witness barriers at Reading/Oxford often closing early last year and the several months at Paddington when recently installed barriers on the overbridge and covering platforms 10-14 were often left wide open throughout the day.  Staff recruitment to cover those shortfalls was at best lethargic and at worst designed to ensure that C&C payments would be due.  If anyone on here knows the ins-and-outs of the system then feel free to refute that argument, but I've heard it talked about by several people!

Are people here really seriously suggesting they promised to make the Cotswold Line's service worse, two years after improving it to loud fanfares, yet still won the Greater Western franchise?

While they did drop that promise, and made no other for this line, I guess that yes, you might think that equates to 'making the service worse'. But there was no other 'worse' promise, I think.

All the spin in 2007 was that bringing in more HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) was as a result of the tremendous successes enjoyed under FGW Link, which meant that the 180s were struggling to cope with demand between Oxford and London much of the day. It was presented as a straightforward swap of one train type for the other and another improvement in FGW's service offer, with yet more seats in nice trains.

And then came the recession. FGW are now on Revenue Support - so passengers did flee most of their network. So of course they'll cut costs - it might be a requiremernt of the terms of this revenue support?....

If I remember at the time First got the 'Link' franchise (and a subsidy of around ^100m, with Thames Trains' bid not requiring subsidy), the argument was two-fold.  Firstly there would be an improvement of service levels with the 180's replacing the Turbos as mentioned, but just as big a reason, if not bigger, was that all of these Turbos running on the main lines from Didcot to Paddington was having a serious effect on the PPM^‡(resolve) of the route as 125mph trains were having to follow 90mph trains which also stopped at Slough.  Funny how that all of a sudden doesn't seem to matter any more!

Also, when I was mentioning 2+2 seating on the Class 166's earlier today, you'd only actually lose 24 seats per 3-car set if you did exactly that.  Not as many as you might think.

[inspector_blakey]

I pity anyone using that out and back Sunday Hereford service. Perhaps some customer panel members might like to try it one weekend?

Unless they want to leave Paddington at 1442, arrive Hereford at 1801 and spend precisely 29 minutes there before heading back to Paddington, I doubt there are many who do

A bit more seriously though, and assuming FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s pdf timetable still accurately reflects the distribution of equipment on the Sunday service, anyone returning from London to Malvern, Worcester, Hereford etc has the choice of HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) at 1342 or 1842 (there's no through Hereford service between the 1442 and 1842), or in the up direction at 1430, 1633 or 1830 so there are reasonable alternatives for anyone who want to avoid it.

Also, when I was mentioning 2+2 seating on the Class 166's earlier today, you'd only actually lose 24 seats per 3-car set if you did exactly that.  Not as many as you might think.

I was interested to read that comment "up thread" - I like the idea of fitting 2+2 to the 166 fleet. Slightly surprised that is was dropped because of the inner suburban diagrams that they operate though, when more modern thinking on the issue seems to be to admit that people will end up standing, cut down numbers of seats slightly and try and make things a bit more comfortable for the standees. I'm thinking in particular of the new LOROL^▸ (London Overground Railway Operations Ltd) 172 fleet, various 150/2 and Pacer refurbishments, and didn't Merseyrail refurb their fleet with 2+2 seating a while back for just that reason?