New trains for the South West - announcement.

[whole diary]

[Adelante_CCT]

Since there will be three 158 every 2 hours and one London train, that makes one train every 1/2 hour so on average we might expect 3/4 of the local passengers to want to use the 158's. 

Don't forget the Voyagers, I would expect these to run at upto once every 2 hours, this would require a 158 roughly once an hour

Having said that...

12 additional return local services will operate
between 0642 and 2148 from Plymouth

which is quite a bit less than 1 per hour

[ChrisB]

One every 75 minutes....should still be reasonable with the Voyagers too

[ellendune]

Since there will be three 158 every 2 hours and one London train, that makes one train every 1/2 hour so on average we might expect 3/4 of the local passengers to want to use the 158's. 

Don't forget the Voyagers, I would expect these to run at upto once every 2 hours, this would require a 158 roughly once an hour

Having said that...

12 additional return local services will operate
between 0642 and 2148 from Plymouth

which is quite a bit less than 1 per hour

But the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) document says there will be three 158's every two hours! Plus 1 through train every two hours. and as you say plus the X Country trains. 

[Adelante_CCT]

But the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) document says there will be three 158's every two hours!

I won't disagree with that, if this is the case then there may end up being more than 2tph in certain hours across the Cornish main line

[SandTEngineer]

Is the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) franchise going to change as well then?  I much suspect that the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) document is just referring to the existing XC Up morning services and Down evening services.

One thing I am hoping is that the new service will have a regular clock-face timetable with branch connections altered accordingly.

[ellendune]

There is some ambiguity

Page 8 of the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) document says:

The combination of local, inter-city and Cross Country services should provide a 2tph service frequency on the Cornish Main Line

The diagram on Page 9 shows:

1 Train from London to Plymouth every hours with one every two hours extended to Penzance
3 three local trains every two hours from Plymouth to Penzance every two hours extended to Exeter every 2 to 4 hours

That would make two trains per hour.

Then is says

Cross country trains are excluded from this diagram

[John R]

My experiences over the past 30 years of travelling west from Plymouth is that an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) is usually only one third full (if that) but a 2 car DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) would quite often be full and standing.  My gut feeling then is that a 5 car "Intercity" type train is going to be about right.

...and of course splitting trains at Plymouth will be turning the clock back to how it used to work up to the 1970s   

It does feel as though this is one route where splitting makes sense.  To run a full length train for a further two hours there and two hours back if it's only partially loaded does appear an inefficient use of resources. Put another way, it probably makes it easier to justify running further single sets all the way.

I do also wonder whether the bi mode capability could help to cost justify further electrification of the route. To take a reasonably topical  example, the section from Newbury to Bedwyn will be (indeed is) difficult to justify electrifying if only one 4 vehicle train per hour uses it.  If however, there are 19 vehicles per hour ( the local + 1 x 10 car + 1 x 5 car) able to take advantage of the juice then the cost benefit analysis will clearly improve.     

[Adelante_CCT]

To those who are concerned over a lack of units operating from London to the South West.... I have attached a very rough draft timetable with generally a simple clock-face timetable. Included in this timetable are what has been set out in the Great Western Franchise document that has been mentioned in previous posts in this thread, this includes:

• Standard hourly pattern of non stop Reading to Taunton
• Hourly to Plymouth with two hourly extensions to Penzance
• One additional service from Paddington to Penzance (atm I count 10 so therefore I have included 11)
• Three return services to Paignton
• An early morning service from Paddington to Penzance
• A two hourly service from Paddington to Exeter stopping at intermediate stations

I have also included 1 return trip to Newquay with similar timings as now.

As you can see I have included no splits/joins of trains therefore each diagram can be assumed as running 9/10 car.
Also as you can see I used just 16 diagrams which is still lower than the 7 nine cars + 11 ten cars.
*Trains that call at Westbury are assumed to call at the other intermediate stations between Reading and Taunton as well.

[ellendune]

Your suggested extensions of the Semi-fasts seem to go well beyond the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) document which says they will terminate at Exeter. 

[PhilWakely]

I can forsee the joining and splitting of units on a carefully planned basis, such as 10 car to Plymouth and 5 car beyond.

What I can not forsee is joining or splitting "according to demand" on an ad hoc basis. If a service is planned to be 5 car beyond say Plymouth, then I predict that 5 car is what you will get, no matter how busy.

just like this evening at Salisbury where the TEN car (2x159 + 2x158) 1720 Waterloo to Exeter was reduced to a single 3-car 159.  The seven cars dropped were virtually empty on arrival at Salisbury whilst the 3 cars onward to Exeter were absolutely rammed until Yeovil.   

[Adelante_CCT]

I know, this was purely to demonstrate what could be achieved with a smallish number of diagrams rather than using the full compliment of units. If you start splitting units and running some 5 cars around there is much more room for flexibility, possibly even an hourly semi fast in the future? Of course we haven't even gone into the possibilities of what could be run if the additional 30 units option goes ahead

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the Western Morning News:

Ex Lib Dem MP hits out at 'preening' ministers as he questions new rail deal



A former Lib Dem MP has raised questions about the Government^s latest Westcountry rail announcement, suggesting passengers could see higher fares and reduced services.

He also criticised "preening" Conservative ministers and MPS, saying the party is too ^preoccupied with long-grass projects^ rather than delivering tangible improvements.

The comments, made by former Torbay MP Adrian Sanders, follow the announcement by rail ministers and First Great Western that a deal to roll out 29 new trains for London routes will go ahead.

The company said the new fleet of Hitachi trains will imcrease capacity at peak times by 1,000 seats a day and reduce journey times between Penzance and the capital by 14 minutes.

However, Mr Sanders has questioned the implications of the announcement, saying it is unclear how the ^360 million cost of funding the upgrade will be covered. He added that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and ministers failed to confirm whether the new trains will solely be used for journeys to the far South West, or whether they will be dispersed across Western routes, thereby reducing overall capacity.

Highlighting his concerns in a Facebook post, he said it ^appears^ that the Hitachi fleet ^will have to funded by passenger fare increases^.

^The first questions must be how much additional revenue will FGW require to pay for the new rolling stock and over what period, and how will this impact on the company^s fares,^ he wrote. ^A simple question requiring a yes or no answer is will the 29 new trains be used exclusively for journeys to and from the far South West. Given the current fleet of 58 125s are used across a range of service destinations between Wales, the West, South West and London, then a yes answer only leaves the question of capacity. If the answer is no then how does almost halving the rolling stock improve capacity and services to and from London?^

In addition to scrutinising Thursday^s rail announcement, Mr Sanders also condemned the Government^s wider approach to improving the region^s infrastructure. He said that while ministers were ^preening^ themselves on having achieved the new deal, ^our now 17 Conservative MPs in Devon and Cornwall have failed to obtain Government money to pay for the new stock^.

^I fear they are preoccupied with long-grass projects giving the impression of improvement but not delivering, such as feasibility studies for new lines across the north of Dartmoor or by-passing Dawlish, while in the meantime the people of the South West will have pay more than ever while other regions speed ahead with Government support,^ he said.

Responding to Mr Sanders^ comments, a spokesman for FGW said he could confirm the 29 trains had been brought ^specifically for Devon and Cornwall^.

^They are bespoke for Devon and Cornwall, with higher powered engines to deal with the route,^ he said. ^They are 100% for that area.^

He also stressed that the fleet would not mean an increase in passenger fares. ^Not least because the Government said it will put a freeze on fares, but also because of the additional income generated by the new trains,^ he explained.

"The 125s will go, but overall there will be an increase in the number of trains running. The 29 are on top of the 100 plus introduced to FGW's other high speed route between Paddington and Southern Wales."

[Rhydgaled]

Blast, that's the death warant for the Pembroke Coast Express signed then. Probably the end of the Weymouth Wizard too. ScotRail the last home for the IC125 then, except it seems there's a limit of either 100mph or 110mph for these Hitachi thingys and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) electrification has been postponed...

What concerns me is that they are only getting 7 nine-car units and the rest (22) are only 5 car!  No wonder they want rid of the buffets if they're trying to increase capacity with 3 fewer carriages!

Errr....when necessary, 5+5=10. That's 2 longer than now

But without an internal connection - therefore potentially one half rammed and one half almost empty.

Correct, no UEGs^▸ (Unit End Gangway) (Unit End Gangways). Also, in this case 5+5 does not equal ten. Assuming the same interior as the class 800/801 fleet, the driving vehicles (one including a kitchen for 1st class) lose alot of seats, meaning 5+5 = 9. Still more capacity than an IC125 I suppose but if you are only getting the capacity of a 9-car train why pay for a 10-car one?

What is it with folks aversion to new rolling stock?

Frankly I get tired of reading all this doom and gloom about rolling stock that hasn't travelled one passenger mile yet.

In my case, it isn't an aversion to new stock as such, just that the new stock in this case does not appear to have been specified entirely in the best interests of passengers. Until I have sampled the interior, I have only two complaints about the 9-car 'electric' class 801 units. Firstly, that the kitchen is located in first class and it therefore would appear difficult or impossible for standard class passengers to obtain food*. Secondly, the provision of a diesel engine reduces the benifits of electrification.

My main concerns relate to the quanity of 5-car units in the bi-mode fleet and very minimal provision of longer bi-mode sets. This means that, aside from the handful of 9-car AT300s, the only means of providing a train with at least the capacity of the current IC125s is an awkward pair of units, which without UEGs is not in the interests of passengers. Probably, this would involve portion-working which (again due to lack of UEGs) is of further inconvienice for passengers. Additionally, with the latest order (AT300), stakeholders are on record as not wanting underfloor engines, so again an example of not acting in the best interests of passengers.

* Of course, the 9-car AT300 sets may have the kitchen located between first and standard class in which case I would expect these units to be required for the Pullman service, if it remains in its current form where standard class passengers can dine if capacity is available.

I have run some very rough numbers, and at the moment it requires roughly 14 HST^▸ (High Speed Train) diagrams to carry out the current Devon/Cornwall services, and admittedly whilst there will be an increase in the number of services, there shouldn't be any need for 29 diagrams. This should allow a good number of 5+5 to operate across this route.

I used just 16 diagrams which is still lower than the 7 nine cars + 11 ten cars.

Right, 16 diagrams. 5 diagrams covered by 9-car sets (I'm assuming the 7 on-order is number of units and that two will be required as spare/maintenance) leaves 11 to be covered by awkard pairs of fives which is 22 units. That would leave no maintainance/spare capacity at all in the 5-car fleet. You can't have 100% availablity from a fleet, can you? Even if you can, that only covers the Penzance/Plymouth/Paignton route. The under-provision of bi-mode capacity on London to Cotswolds and South Wales goes unaddressed.

To add to Richard's helpful provision of the link just above, there are explanations of the way services will be found both on page 8, in summary, and further back on page 49, where they point out that 12 additional local services each way will be provided between Plymouth and Penzance, with some extended to/from Exeter.

Presumably the theory is that all those local passengers within Cornwall who currently rely on the London trains will be persuaded onto the 158 service instead...

Together with Adelante_CCT's figure of 16 diagrams, which could ALMOST be  covered with 9/10-car trains within the fleet size ordered, your comment does provide some reassurance that the AT300 order will not cause enormous crowding on the PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-Penzance route.

I do also wonder whether the bi mode capability could help to cost justify further electrification of the route. To take a reasonably topical  example, the section from Newbury to Bedwyn will be (indeed is) difficult to justify electrifying if only one 4 vehicle train per hour uses it.  If however, there are 19 vehicles per hour ( the local + 1 x 10 car + 1 x 5 car) able to take advantage of the juice then the cost benefit analysis will clearly improve.

A bi-mode unit will still be lumbered with its diesel engines however, so trains worked by bi-mode units would benifit less than a DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) being replaced by an EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit).

[grahame]

... Probably the end of the Weymouth Wizard too. ...

The summer saturday extra to Weymouth has a tradition of being run with whatever stock's been available on Saturdays in any particular year ... Class 31s on coaches, 15x units, the LHCS^▸ (Locomotive Hauled Coaching Stock) combos that ran on Cardiff - Taunton, and presently HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train).   I expect that tradition of change will be unchanged 

[ellendune]

Just for the record:

1) I prefer a trolley to a buffet as I don't like leaving my luggage.  XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) will heat up food if required.  A better standard of trolley would be even better.
2) If one trolley is justified on a 5 car XC train why would two not be justified (one in each half) of a 10 car (2 x 5) car A300?
3) The IC125s have served us well for many years but they will not go on forever.
4) I will reserve judgement on the underfloor engine noise till I have heard it.
5) I really like the new green livery and GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) branding.
6) The issue of the maximum speed using Diesel has been answered even though we do not know whether it will be limited to 100 or 110 mph. It really doesn't matter.

Blast, that's the death warant for the Pembroke Coast Express signed then.

7) What bearing does the A300 order have on services in Pembrokeshire?

I fully support bignosemac

What is it with folks aversion to new rolling stock?

Frankly I get tired of reading all this doom and gloom about rolling stock that hasn't travelled one passenger mile yet.