Great Western Coffee Shop

The option for 108 vehicles on the Bombardier order for 387 stock has been exercised today, with them forming the new Gatwick Express fleet.  So any thought that this could have been used to provide services for the Thames Valley has been dashed.  Though I guess there is still the possibility that the first tranche under the option could head our way once the Thameslink stock is in service. With this order commencing delivery in Dec 16, it's clear that any new build is very unlikely to be in service by the time the wires go live given the lead time for a new tender.

The 387/1s are supposed to become available during the latter part of 2016 now don't they, as 700s appear in service from the early part of 2016?  I read somewhere that by the end of 2016 there should be one 700 per week arriving, and they only need about 15 units of 8 or 12 cars to replace the 387/1 batch after all.

A lot depends on the exact plan to replace the existing Thameslink units, I (and I reckon many others) originally assumed that all the 387/1s would remain until all the 319s had left, - but that might no longer be the case.  In other words 387/1s could leave Thameslink while they are still using a few 319s.

As the 387/1 are already in use, transferring them to another route should be achievable fairly quickly.

Paul

I thought the possiblity of 387s for Great Western was more-related to where the first batch would be cascaded when the 700s arrive, rather than the 108 vehicle extension order. I suppose the question is whether the 29 units is enough for the Thames Valley.

Can't help noticing that the new GatwickExpress Fleet (108 vehicles) is smaller than the current one (120 vehicles). Less work to Brighton for the new Gatwick Fleet?

You can guarantee that the GW won't get a mixture of 319s & 387s....so if there aren't enough 387s going to meet the need to all services needing them, it'll be 319s....

But then again, I've always understood refreshed 319s were coming to the TV, and haven't seen anything other than rumour that they aren't.

Having said that, it'll be down to FGW to lease whatever they can get, I guess. That'll form part of their bid for the 5-year award coming up.

The new fleet will almost certainly be more reliable than the 442s, allowing greater '%age' utilisation anyway, and the few 442s used on other non Gatwick/Brighton services, i.e. the Eastbourne to London Bridge peak extras will probably revert to normal 377 operation in the overall stock shakeup.  Even if they only binned the Eastbournes that would be 10 vehicles no longer needed.

The other main difference is that the fleet will be able to be used in 4, 8 or 12 formations, rather than just 5 or 10, and if train sizes are biased towards the peak flow directions it'll all work out...

Paul

Being intro'd next year, according to tonight's Evening Standard. Extends to Brighton off-peak only

Think they've got confused. It's the 387/1's for Thameslink that are being introduced in 2015, the DfT press release definitely says the 387/2s will be introduced in 2016.  As an aside, it's more good news for Bombardier. Whilst 108 cars isn't a massive order, it's a nice little add-on to the existing one.

Situation normal for the Standard then...

I'll have a cheeky fiver with anyone that 319s will not come to the Thames Valley routes for anything other than a short stop-gap period, or possibly as a small fleet to work the branches after Crossrail.

Several reasons for that opinion:

• Network Rail's statements that they feel 110mph capable EMUs are needed to make best use of the newly electrified routes (which counts as more than a 'rumour' I feel).
• The prestige of the Oxford to London route meaning that more modern stock would be more suitable than 30 year old units.
• The original Class 319 statement was made many years ago and the electrification strategy has moved on considerably since then, particularly with regard to extensions to the programme in the North West, which would probably use up the entire 319 fleet in an area where 30 year old trains would not be considered a backward step from what is currently provided.
• The 387s needed post-Crossrail would indeed be roughly the 29 units that Rhydgaled mentions to cover what will be needed by FGW.
• Paul is quite right that it might be 387s that are released from Thameslink routes before the 319s as the new 700s appear on stream.

What I can see possibly happening is a short-term usage of the 319s to cover the period between electrification, and the gradual cascade of Turbo units, to when the full Crossrail integration starts in 2019 as more electric units will be required during that interim period for the Reading to London suburban services - they could then move on to the Thames Valley branches, Basingstoke's and Banbury's after Crossrail services start.  I can also see the Turbos (or at least some of them) staying a bit longer than is currently planned to wait for those electric units to become available.

I might be wrong of course and time will tell.   ;)

I agree that in the longer term EMUs with a better performance than the 319s will be needed to maximise track capacity. However, it was reported several months ago, after the franchise was extended, that fGW were told by the DfT to stop work on procuring such trains. My impression then was that we were were going to be lumbered with the things[1] but I've since changed my mind. It may well be that the forthcoming Direct Award to fGW to continue operating the Western will permit, encourage or require that fGW starts procurement of more suitable trains. My reasoning is that the franchise extension is a continuation of the status quo, whereas the Direct Award is a new contract with different T&Cs and such requirements can be included.

If the new Direct Award franchisee is as fast off the mark as the new Scotrail franchisee in ordering new trains there might be a fighting chance of getting new outer suburban EMUs into service at the same time, or shortly after, the 800s start running in 2017.

[1] This is unfair - but although they have a 100mph top speed that still leaves a 25mph speed differential between them and the HSTs and Class 800s. In view of the greater acceleration of the 800s compared to the HSTs, that means that using 319s will cost at least one and probably nearer two paths between Reading and Paddington (and vice versa) on the Mains. Medium term, i.e., post Class 800 introduction, outer suburban EMUs with more oomph and swoosh will be needed.

Solution: Reduce the mains PSR to 100mph and line capacity dramatically increases :P
Would only increase the journey time between Paddington and Reading by 5 to 6 mins but less bunching of trains results in better timekeeping anyway so the extra time probably wouldn't be noticed by many people (including me) ;D .....and how many times have you recently arrived 'on time' at Reading or Paddington.

Hmm! Spend ^4 billion on new IEP/SET trains in order to be able to travel as quickly as a Class 52 on 12...?  :o

I say, 'Bring back the hydraulics...' ;)

I must admit that my memory is getting hazy in my old age, but I can't remember when the 0803 or 0815 ex Twyford last ran to time.  :)

I think you will find 319's running the Padd - Reading locals in latter part of 2016 and possibly extended to Oxford in 2017 

I use this site to check the trains I normally use: http://www.recenttraintimes.co.uk/

My thoughts were that 'procurement' meant the full process of specifying the requirement in an ITT, and then organising finance via a Rosco etc.  But using trains that someone else had already procured on DfT's behalf would simply be taking over a lease as directed by DfT; and that could apply to the 387/1s...

I suppose it depends how much you read into the exact meaning of the word...

Paul

I believe FGW have already indicated informally that they are negotiating to acquire the Class 387/1s.  The expected delivery rate of Class 700 units to Thamesllink should allow all 29 Class 387/1s to be released from Thameslink by December 2016 when the Oxford & Newbury electrification is due to be completed.

At present FGW uses (approx.) 36 Class 165/1 units and 21 Class 166 units.  Quite a few of these are used on diagrams over routes that will not be electrified under current plans (eg Reading-Gatwick, north of Oxford etc).  Additionally quite a few 166 diagrams will be worked by Class 800 IEPs (eg Cotswold services).  So it is not inconceivable that the 29 Class 387/1s would be sufficient to cover the electrified Thames Valley local services on the GWML.  The only uncertainty is what will be used on the electrified branch services to Marlow which will need to be 2 car units.

David

Can you say to whom they have informally indicated this to?

Or is it just heresay (ie you don't know)

And don't forget that - eventually - the Reading to Paddington stoppers will be taken over by Crossrail and will be operated by Class 345 units. The 387/1s would be utilised on Padd-Newbury, Padd-Oxford services which aren't operated by IEP, and possibly Reading to Basingstoke. I expect the service to be completely recast post-electrification but I would have thought that 29 units would be enough, even allowing for some 8 or even 12 car trains on the main line in the rush hour.

That's eventually, while the largest number will be needed to start with....

Hence my post on the previous page suggesting that 319s might be used as a stop-gap for a couple of years with the 387s remaining post-Crossrail.

377s or 387s? Now I'm getting confused :-)

Well the 387s were usually referred to as 377/8s for quite a long time...

Now that the things are being seen in service on the Brighton - Bedfords, they aren't that different from a 377.  There seems to be a reasonable assumption that the class number change was purely to differentiate their top speed - which is of course unused in their current employment.

Paul

Hmmm ... that reads a bit rude to me .... "Children!" or should I say "Child!"?

We have a separate board area - "The Rumour Mill" where we usually post completely unsubstantiated information, but that's only available to member who have reached a certain threshold of posts.   So in this thread, where the information comes from a newer member, it's perfectly  fine and the only place it could have been posted!

As a matter of interest, ChrisB, did you mean 'heresy' or 'hearsay'?  ::)

Hearsay :-)

Hoping to get an answer to my Q though

Desmond Llewelyn?  ??? :-\ ;D

Or the new Q Ben Whishaw aka Paddington (keeping it railway related...I'll get my coat)

Best answer to a question ever 1 Never let them see you bleed. 2 Allways have an escape plan .

According to Rail Technology Magazine...

"...58 four-car electric trains for Thames Valley services. RTM was told that 21 Class 365s (from the Great Northern route) and 37 Class 387s (from the Thameslink route) will be cascaded to the Thames Valley, plus another eight new Class 387s. The new fleet will start being introduced next year and fully implemented by May 2017."

Make of that what you will.

It^s good that it^s at last been confirmed that we^ll be getting modern 110 mph for the outer Thames Valley services (I^m assuming the 365^s will stay on the inners), thus increasing the chance of finding paths for them on the ML^s on stretches where they aren^t stopping.   

Just have to wait and see the interior layouts ^ will they have First Class and will Standard stay as 2 + 2 as they are currently configured?  And surely now is the time to lengthen platforms that are too short for 4 cars ^ eg Appleford.  SDO on suburban trains is really not the way a modern railway should be working.

I am only speculating here, but I would imagine that on transfer, any refresh works would be fairly limited.  The 365's have been through a recent (in railway terms) refit, and the 387's are relatively new.  As long as they conform to modern DDA standards re: toilets and passenger information systems; I would imagine any update or refresh works would be confined to a superficial "wipe down with a damp rag" and new vinyls.

Not sure if it's been mentioned do 365s and 387s couple and run in multiple?

Looking at Roger Ford's Golden Spanners having a mixed fleet is not conducuve to relability.

I don't know what the plans are for what stock runs what route.  No doubt this will emerge over the next few months.
However, I can't think of many occasions where stock of obviously differing types gets coupled together on a basis other than for emergency reasons.

I don't quite follow Roger Ford's logic here.  Whilst it is theoretically ideal to have a fleet of identical trains, operational flexibility, crew training, maintenance etc.  The downside is that if a major fault manifests itself, then the whole fleet would be affected. 

365s won't currently couple to a 387 even for emergency, as they predate the decision to generally fit Dellner/Scharenberg pattern couplers to EMUs.

However there are precedents for sub-fleets to have couplers changed to allow mutual assistance within an area, hence Southern's 170s becoming 171s to allow mechanical coupling with 377 etc.   The SWT 458/5 have also been made 'coupler compatible' with Desiros as part of the current rebuild.

PS - any chance this thread could have its title amended now they are coming?

Paul

I should imagine that the 365s will work the suburban routes more as they have a few more seats than the 387/1s have - a total of 268 per unit against 226.  They still have 2+2 seating though so in terms of total seating, an 8-car Class 365 will accommodate the same as a 6-car Turbo (though in much more comfort), whilst an 8-car 387 will seat roughly the same as a 5-car Turbo.  No tables (except in 1st) on the 365s as far as I know, whereas there's 26 per set on the 387s, so they'll better suited to the longer distance commuter routes such as Oxford, Newbury and Swindon to London.

[By the way, could the mods change the title of this thread to say they are coming to the Thames Valley?]

Well that's the business case blown then.  Comfort has nothing to do with modern day travel!  ;)

However, Rail Magazine published this.  Note the comment about the 365 couplers.

..."Just because a particular region is not receiving overhead line electrification, doesn^t mean that it still won^t benefit as part of the new First Great Western franchise that begins this September (RAIL 771).

The 42-month deal signed with the Department for Transport includes new trains and a huge capacity increase, with the opportunity for further investment in the future should a deal with Hitachi for a minimum of 29 AT300 bi-mode trains be completed. This includes an option for a further 30 trains if the need arises, and that need has not 100% been ruled out.

While the headline new trains are the Intercity Express Programme (IEP) trains that have started arriving for testing ahead of their entry into traffic in 2017 (RAIL 771), the improvements will be felt all the way from Paddington to Penzance via Bristol, Weymouth, Cardiff and Exeter.

Starting in the Thames Valley, electric multiple units will replace the majority of the Thames Valley Turbo trains. There are 151 Turbo vehicles used by FGW here, and 108 will be cascaded west as 21 Class 365s (84 vehicles) and 29 Class 387/1s (116 vehicles) arrive from Govia Thameslink Railway to replace them.

An additional eight brand new Class 387/1s will also be constructed (32 vehicles), giving a total of 232 EMU vehicles compared with the current 151 DMU vehicles. According to an FGW statement on March 23, the EMUs will raise capacity by 25% in the high peak.

The new ^387s^ will be constructed once the Gatwick Express Class 387/2s are completed next year. Bombardier will build them at Derby Litchurch Lane.

FGW Engineering Director Andy Mellors told RAIL on March 31 that the arrival of the ^365s^ was a huge boost, as originally it was believed that older Class 319s would move to the operator. He says the Class 387s will arrive first from GTR. The ^365s^ will arrive later, but need some minor work.

^They need Driver Only Operational CCTV fitted on them. We have that fitted on a mixture of the Turbos. The ^365s^ will have the in-cab equipment fitted.^

However, the implementation of Driver Controlled Operation (DCO) is only being discussed, while FGW plans to recruit more than 100 customer-facing staff for trains.

The ^365s^ will also be fitted with Dellner couplings. This means all EMUs will be fitted with similar systems, so that if there is a failure they can be pushed out of the way by another train.

Currently the longest trains on the Thames Valley are six-car DMUs. Mellors says that the Class 365s will not operate in more than eight-car formations (pairs of ^365s^), while the Class 387s will run up to 12-car trains. Eventually maintenance will be carried out on the EMUs at Reading, but until the Great Western Main Line from Hayes to Reading is wired, other options are being explored. ^There^s direct access to depots in the London area,^ says Mellors.

He adds that FGW is also exploring the possibility of Independently Powered Electric Multiple Units (IPEMUs), and has studied the trials of 379013 on the Manningtree-Harwich branch to assess its capabilities. ^We are in discussions now, and are keen to find a resolution.^ He suggests that trains to Bedwyn and Gatwick could use them.

The cascaded Turbos offer a 52% increase in capacity in the Bristol area, although the Class 16x fleet moving west will require some minor infrastructure modifications because of the trains^ width. FGW will also modify their nominal ride height.

Regarding the cascade, Mellors tells RAIL: ^There are really three phases. Initially, a couple head west. They^re effectively released by the introduction of EMUs. That allows the Bristol area to introduce controlled training for crews. We can train people there.^ The trains will be based at St Philip^s Marsh.

Initially two Turbos will be used on the Severn Beach branch, which has been chosen because it is self-contained. They will replace Class 150s, adding 250 seats to the route. In turn, that allows six Class 150 vehicles to move to Exeter.

Mellors explains: ^The rump of the cascade is geared around May 2017. You may start to see more EMUs before that.^

This is when the Thames Valley benefits from a vastly improved timetable that will have been recast to make use of the EMUs, and when most of the 16x fleet can head west as the ^365s^ and ^387s^ will be in place.

^The back end of the cascade sees all the Thames Valley branches wired late. Reading-Basingstoke, Windsor and Henley are all wired in 2018,^ says Mellors.

The Turbos are currently being fitted with WiFi equipment, in an internal FGW project. By March 31, FGW had fitted eight trains, with two treated each weekend.

This is a new franchise commitment, but one that FGW plans to complete early. The work is being carried out now that the FGW High Speed Train fleet has been completed (with WiFi free in both First and Standard Class). FGW^s Sleeper fleet has also been completed.

With the Turbo introduction in the Bristol area, that releases DMUs to move to the Exeter area, offering a 58% capacity increase in the Devon region. Class 150/2s and ^158s^ will move west.

^We will relinquish the ^143s^ and ^150s^, and there will be a phased handback of Class 150/1s. The long-term fleet is ^150/2s^

Mellors says that Exeter will end up with 89 vehicles (43 Class 158 vehicles and 46 Class 150/2 vehicles). Two three-car Class 150/0s are also being retained.

One of the challenges the industry faces is the Passengers of Reduced Mobility - Technical Specification for Interoperability (PRM-TSI) deadline of January 1 2020. The two ^150/0s^ can be modified, and will offer three-car capability for the Exeter region. ^They are good for seating and have one toilet per train. They offer flexibility for capacity,^ says Mellors.

He says retaining the ^150/2s^ makes sense because as FGW wants to run mainly four-car trains in the Exeter region, the retained DMUs have through gangways (whereas the ^150/1s^ do not).

All the branches in the Exeter region will use Class 150s except the Barnstaple branch, which will have ^158s^ because journeys tend to be along the full-length of the branch. There are also planned journey time improvements.

^The key issue for Exeter is that it is the hub for the Devon Metro,^ Mellors tells RAIL. ^There will be four trains per hour in the peak. Exeter is the right place for a facility. There will be investment in the facility there, but we are evaluating options in respect of the current site.^

He says that options are even being discussed with Network Rail about moving the depot, which is currently next to Exeter St Davids station. ^Riverside is a big site,^ he says, adding that the currently facility is constrained. ^It^s a two-car shed and we will run at least three-car trains. Not all return each night, but there just isn^t the space now.^

Once FGW has completed fitting WiFi to its Class 16x fleet, attention will turn to the Class 158s. When they are done, the ^150s^ (those staying with FGW) will be treated.

At-seat power is also a commitment for the franchise on the DMU fleet, and where possible USB ports will be installed.

Mellors says: ^The Class 166s have air-conditioning, and we are committed to fitting air-cooling equipment to the ^165s^. They will work on the routes Class 158s are on.^

Further west, Penzance Long Rock depot is to be upgraded, in readiness for looking after the Sleeper stock and locomotives when Old Oak Common is closed. It is being upgraded as part of the Cornish Rail Programme - facilities are to be enhanced for DMUs, and capacity will increase.

Passenger services will be half-hourly between Penzance and Plymouth, with a mixture of FGW HSTs to London and FGW ^158s^ running to Bristol and Exeter. A small number of CrossCountry Voyagers will also operate trains.

Times are changing on the FGW routes, with capacity increases across the region. The Great Western is often forgotten, as other regions shout more loudly. But with new and cascaded trains, that is no longer the case."

Thanks for making that valid and constructive point, Paul - I've now made the appropriate change.  ;)

I hope travellers in the Inner TV area don't take to the 365s as they will find the Crossrail units a real disappointment.

I've read a couple of posts in this thread that indicate the 387's will work services to Swindon. Do we know which services the EMUs will work in Wiltshire?

Far too soon methinks - I doubt the timetable is yet complete, never mind trhe stock allocation.

As Chris B says, it is probably too early, but the consultation for the direct award definitely refers to a peak only 'fast' EMU service from Swindon, so by default it would probably use the 387, but the paragraph doesn't explicitly state that:

 

But whether that would be a single train from Swindon and another from Didcot, or a few per peak calling at both is not at all clear.

Paul

The peak time Swindon-Didcot-(Reading)-Paddington to be introduced in December 2018 as given in the "Government Response to 2014 Great Western Franchise Consultation" references this service as an EMU. I put a Reading stop in brackets as it isn't mentioned explicitly in that document, but is quite likely in practice.

There has been previous mention of a possible Didcot-Reading-Paddington hourly EMU shuttle service through the day extended to Swindon for peaks which is consistent with this as well.

(Posting crossed with above.)

I suspect this will be the main supplier of Didcot fasts, allowing longer distance services to miss (some) stops at Didcot. Certainly in the morning, some could also miss Reading too, what with the extra capacity, Reading won't *need* all the fast PADs.

The most interesting thing I found with the service diagram in the report was that the hourly Cardiffs would all miss out Reading. I think before on some of the 'illustrative' allocation lists this service was in general down for a 5-car set, so this would maybe make some sense.

There has been speculation before that if there were trains originating in the Thames Valley that were one or non stop from Reading into London with stock of a decent standard (in particular not 3+2 seating) that the Reading commuters could be weaned off the longer distance services to some extent.  There would be 4-5 an hour on the published plans.

Yup - I can see set-down only in the AM and pick-up only on the PM a lot more once these other 365/387s services kick-in.

There are quite a few stations that are to be served by the new emu^s were the RL platforms aren^t long enough for 8 car formations (which Paul quotes above as the chosen mode of operation on the RL^s), my own local station Pangbourne included.   

I do hope the plan is to lengthen platforms but I suspect we^ll be stuck with SDO, which lengthens dwell times especially if we^re looking at more than just the end doors being held closed.

Incidentally, if SDO is to be used with DOO it has to be a fully automatic system which I^ve seen referred to as FASDO.  FASDO can work out where the train has stopped (ie station, platform, position) and then decide which doors to open, and even initiate automatic announcements telling the passengers where to get off (as well as thanking them for traveling with FGW etc of course). 

So all the Driver has to do is press the Open Doors button and FASDO does the rest.

Would be interesting to know exactly how this would be policed. I have been on a number of westcountry services over the years that were advertised as pick-up only at Reading, yet there has always been a large exodus on arrival at Reading.

In CP5 (as at Dec 2014) this work is part of project W004 "Thames Valley Electric Multiple Unit Capability Works":


So on that basis the decision of what to do where hasn't been made yet.

Note that to Swindon is not a core route - but that might be just because it has no station to be used by EMUs but not SETs.

Also, the following are also stated:

Easiest way in the morning is for all the p/up trains to use one island platform (both sides if needed) with revenue protection at the top of the escalator. Thinking aloud, that would work in both directions actually

It would be much easier not to stop Reading. Reading to/from points-west passengers would merely change at Didcot in the peaks.

Is it envisaged that SWI-PAD EMUs would call at the local Didcot-Reading stations en route?  That would make for a nice service for me.

I suspect trains will be designed to be full

My understanding from past documents is that they are intended to be limited stop intended to relieve the long distance trains, although ideas change.

Chris, you are a little too subtle there for me. Would you care to explain please.

Won't be any point in stopping locally as the timetable will be designed such that the these are likely to be filled with the proposed SWI-DID-(RDG)-PAD in that they'll likely be the only fast trains for DID, and only sufficient in order that they'll cope with pax from those stations.

The local DID-RDG stations likely to be served from OXF, running fast RDG-PAD, but slow OXF-RDG via Didcot - but pax from DID will use the fasts, so likely dropping at DID in the am, and picking up from DID in the pm

If the EMU s are there to remove the need for the Fast trains to stop during the peak then why even think about pick up and set down only options?  If there is another train for those passengers to use without undue delay then don't stop.

Because you might work in Reading (lots do) and want to go to Bristol/Bath/Cardiff/Swansea? or vice-versa

Yes but it all depends on how long they have to wait for the next one.


And what could revenue protection actually do when they stop people who have got off a train that was pick up only? Charge them for a return to the next stop?

Charge them a full single from origin to the first advertised stop, yes.

I wonder though whether such a charge would stand up to legal scrutiny?

I think that greater efforts should be made to prevent pax boarding a pick up only service, rather than looking at ways to penalise. Also I don't think it right that west bound Reading passengers should be inconvenienced by the complete removal of stops just because PAD-RDG commuters are using services they shouldn't.

Theoretical case ...  A person with a full single ticket to Didcot (the first advertised stopping place) decides to break his journey at Reading from a service which is pick-up only Reading.  What could Revenue Protection do in this case? Charge him for another ticket to Didcot? I think BNM's comments refer.

Thinking aloud now.....
If a service is advertised as p/u only at any location, then somebody with a valid ticket for the specified train, but breaking their journey at a p/u only location is still deliberately flouting the timetabled restriction, so should be charged a penalty fare - whatever that maybe. There is absolutely no excuse. But, I guess the only 'legal' (for revenue protection purposes) way would be to introduce a new ticket restriction.  Then use the mechanism stated by ChrisB above. (??)

BNM, no one's suggesting a complete removal. There still needs to be capacity to carry all those widhing to travel (from) there in the peaks. I doubt dufficient extra services can be introduced with acceptable stopping patterns (say Maidenhead &/or Slough?, so some longer distance trains will still need to be full stops there

If the trains p/u only used a pair of separately barriered platforms (one island), intro of smart cards would enable gates to be programmed fir each train & could then refuse entry to Reading smart tickets

I honestly think that the best, and fairest way, for all passengers (Reading uploads included) is for key long-distance services - in the peak - not to stop at Reading.  That way it is self policing, passively punitive, and fair to those that want a seat for travel beyond the Thames Valley.  Those from Reading heading west should hopefully find plenty of seats vacated by their resident burghers (who are heading for the exit gatelines) on the allowable subset of Paddington-Reading down fasts.

The two points I'm making are:

1) Don't look for creative ways to penalise those who have arrived at Reading on a pick up only service. Stop them boarding at Paddington.

2) Don't inconvenience westbound Reading passengers by reducing the choice of services they have by having more services non-stop through Reading. And I include in the coming years with increases in frequency to points west. Why shouldn't westbound Reading passengers also benefit from that frequency increase? Reading is a major interchange and nothing should be done to reduce connection opportunities.

That, I understand.  ;) :D ;D

If Reading want a premium metro-style service, let them pay a premium price is my view. They can subsidise others who get a twice hourly service.

I agree that connection opportunities are important, but I don't see how you can stop the wrong passengers boarding at PAD except by providing them with a strong disincentive to board. Issuing them with some kind of penalty on arrival at Reading seems to be one way of doing that, but can anyone think of any other approach?

I agree. Given that the main capacity issues on the GW mail line are east of Reading and the price per mile is much lower than the longer distance services it does seem like they want their cake and eat it. 

Stooping boarding at Paddington seems a better option, but considering how short the turn-round times are in the peak sometimes, controlling entry automatically at the barriers would be the only possible way. 

This seems to have gone onto the general service plan rather than just the 387s.

However, in looking at such issues as the Reading stops, considering only the IEP services via the main line, the suggested stopping pattern per hour for the 9 services in the peak given in the consultation response is:

Reading - 5 (2*Bristol, Swansea, Cheltenham, Hereford)
Didcot - 4 (Bristol, Cardiff, Cheltenham, Worcester SH)
Swindon - 5 (2*Bristol, Cardiff, Cheltenham, Swansea)
Bristol Parkway - 3
Bristol TM - 3
Cardiff - 3
Swansea - 1

Putting it another way, 4 out of 9 services are not scheduled to stop at Reading if that is the adopted pattern.

apologies for staying off the original O/P, but maintaining the general service plan discussion...

Then, add in the other main line services (i.e. via the Berks & Hants @ 2 p/h [??] ) which are all likely to stop at Reading, so 4 out of 11 not stopping is not unreasonable. As a user of longer distance services, whose family has in the past been denied access to seat reservations and had to stand because of Reading commuters, I would like to see some sort of measures put in place to prevent this abuse.

How were you denied access to seat reservations?

I meant denied access to our reserved seats as opposed to seat reservations.
This occurred a few years ago. Very simply, we could see from the platform at Paddington that our reserved seats had already occupied by 'four suited gentlemen', but because the train was already crowded, we could not actually get to the seats and had to stand [the TM would not have been able to walk down through the train if I had been able to find him to complain!] These gentlemen alighted at Reading despite the service being advertised as p/u only and only then were we able to confirm that those were indeed 'our' seats and were able to sit down. 

I am not a fan of pick-up only trains nowadays. Sadly, in these aggressive open data computer app days, many have scant respect for staff, rules or penalties and the ONLY way you can stop abuse of 'pick-up' only stops and avoid conflict is not to stop! This should apply to those long distance services that, in this case, are expected to be full upon departure from Paddington without Reading only customers. Not such a problem with inbound services as seats will already have been occupied upon arrival at Reading.

Trains with capacity should stop at Reading non-restricted, with westbound customers using space vacated by alighting commuters.

Non-stopping Reading gives a worthwhile commercial advantage to a small number of key trains in the down direction. In other words, bear in mind those high fare customers seeking a fast journey to, say, Exeter, who understandably would prefer not to be in competition with relatively short distance commuters for seats or otherwise.

Whilst I understand the comment about disadvantaging westbound customers from Reading, the flow is nothing like it is from Paddington. Using this argument perhaps all trains should also stop at Ealing Bdy, Slough and Maidenhead!!??  ;D >:(

My golden rule on long distance journeys is to arrive at Paddington before most of the commuters to ensure no problem getting a seat, reserved or otherwise!! Numbers of commuters arrive last minute as they cut it fine, have many trains to choose from and take the first fast whenever that is! Thus introducing a fast shuttle with pick-up only services will not resolve the problem. The first fast train is the first fast train so far as commuters are concerned, irrespective of any nominal restrictions that may or may not apply, or where it may or may not be going after Reading!! ::)

These are personal views of course, in the full appreciation that capacity is as ever finite, like it or not! The allocation of that capacity amongst the various traveller markets always has been and always will be subject of healthy tension! ;D

Westbound surely?

Neither Ealing, Slough or Maidenhead are major interchanges like Reading, which has passengers coming from all directions to connect onto services to Wiltshire, Bristol, South Wales, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall. In fact Slough and Maidenhead passengers are ones likely to be inconvenienced by services non-stopping through Reading. Their connection options could be reduced if more long distance services missed their Reading call.

Agreed - thanks!
My final comment applies! :)

We'll see. Currently, the Reading service is provided by squeezing people into the "spare" space on long-distance trains. It's not that there is an alternative, and Reading commuters are being selfish. So what will they do when a load more seats are provided?

The morning is less of a problem, as the long-distance peak is later then for commuters, and anyway they get on first. In the evening the peaks overlap more, and everyone piles on in random order. (I go for the train after the  first one - hardly a huge wait.)

So the question is will Reading passengers go for the trains where they don't compete with long-distance ones, or have to look for reservations and risk standing if there are too many? Commuters do learn what works, and apply it on following days. Cutting the crowding enough to be able to get through the train would allow TMs to apply a bit of aversion therapy to those wrongly taking reserved seats, which would help.

I'm sure that operators find pick-up or set-down only a right pain, and would only do it as a last resort.

That is all well and good if you are 'in the know' so are fully aware which train is yours and can stand by the gate rather than watch the departure board until your train is 'called' 5 minutes before departure when everybody rushes forward. When you have either young children or elderly parents with you it is not quite so easy to 'beat the commuter'. Of course, the other alternative for others in my situation is to wait until the peak is over - but that is not always possible.

Indeed, it isn't always possible. See my example:
Ever met the 17:39 (now 17:40) 'Sardine Express' off Cardiff Central? It is the last train of the day that connects to Fishguard (I don't tend to count the overnight boat train) and one of only one train every 2hrs to Milford Haven. It is normally formed of a class 175 (now lengthened to 3-car I believe, but it used to be a 2-car one). There is an IC125 from Paddington to Swansea just ten minutes later, leaving Cardiff at 17:50. Guess what? The 17:40 gets pretty full with relatively short-distance commuters. Now, you could argue that the IC125 isn't really meant for short-distance commuters either, or that the 17:40 calls at Pyle which the IC125 doesn't, so any Pyle-bound don't have the choice. But, this isn't a choice between a 9-car IEP or a 12-car suburban EMU, the 17:40 is a 3-car DMU and alot of passengers still try to cram onto it rather than wait 10 minutes for the IC125.

I've not braved it for ages though, so it might not be so bad now.

Indeed - "a train in hand is worth two on the departure board".  (Sorry - joke used previously, but still applies).

I'm SO glad that the 17:36 Swindon to Westbury (1 car) follows the 17:30 Taunton train (8 cars), not the other way round - otherwise the short train would be crammed with Chippenham passengers, perhaps denying passengers for West Wilts the ability to board (it's getting pretty busy as it is!).

Does the 17:40 manage to keep ahead of the 17:50 HST?

Since the line between Swansea and Cardiff is only double track the IC125 would struggle to overtake.

The 17:40 would have to sit in a loop somewhere in order to be overtaken, and I think most of the loops are freight-only. Although there might be one or two passenger loops, none of the intermediate stations have through platforms on anything other than the two main running lines, so the IC125 couldn't overtake while the other was making a station call (except perhaps if the IC125 ommited calling at Port Talbot Parkway and used the freight loop there).

The 17:40 is schedued to reach Swansea at 18:38 and depart at 18:41. The IC125 is timetabled to arrive in Swansea at 18:45. Some of the other Milford Haven services (for example the 19:46 off Cardiff, which is the next one after the 17:40) have a long wait at Swansea before departing in order that passengers on a following IC125 can connect, but the 17:40 doesn't.

Interesting table giving the 387 cascade dates into the GW franchise from GTR.  Given that the last ones have not entered service yet, GTR will only have all 29 units available for 9 or 10 months at the most:


The first 6 units being timed to coincide with the start of the previously discussed EMU shuttle between Paddington and Hayes & Harlington...

(Also posted in the 2015 franchise thread.)

Paul

All 29 units now in operation

http://www.thameslinkrailway.com/about-us/news/new-air-conditioned-trains-enter-service-on-thameslink/

Perhaps this thread needs to be re-named again to "Class 387 coming to Thames Valley (eventually)"

Railway industry groundswell indicates that Oxford - Didcot route electrification will most likely be a casualty of the Hendy report, and completion delayed until CP6.  Effort will be kept up to electrify from Reading to Didcot for rolling stock testing purposes and then to infill from Maidenhead to Reading for Crossrail then Didcot to Swindon.  Having all those expensive bi-mode IEP's land-locked in sidings with nowhere to go will be unacceptable to the DfT.  In the short term, on the juice to Swindon, on the diesel to Bristol.

I suspect we'll be keeping the Turbos for a while longer.  How that plays with GWR's overall rolling stock cascade plans will have to be seen.

Are you able to provide links to this groundswell, Visoflex?  I must admit, experience of it in the past means I don't often trust railway industry groundswell...  :-\

As far as I can see, the only justification for delaying Oxford to Didcot into CP6 is the proposed redevelopment of Oxford station itself, but, given that isn't even funded yet, it would be a dangerous and silly thing to do in my opinion.

Different to the rumours I had heard ... but then I didn't trust what I heard even to our "rumour mill".

If electrification of Didcot to Oxford (and presumably Reading to Newbury) is deferred, this begs the question of what happens to the 387s. My understanding is that they will be displaced by the Class 700s (Desiro Cities) of which the first units are starting testing on Southern and are due to start service on the Thameslink route next year.  The cascade programme is listed by Paul 7755 above but I believe that this was timed to allow for Padd to Oxford/Newbury services to transition to electric from 2017. If this doesn't happen then these will be sitting in sidings gathering dust which will also be embarrassing!

Modern Railways published an article a couple of months ago about NR's drive to get the wires up to Swindon as an interim measure in the delayed GWML electrification programme. As stated by Visioflex, the aim was to enable the IEPs to be introduced (freeing up some of the HSTs to go for upgrading for ScotRail) thus avoiding the political embarrassment of expensive new trains arriving from Hitachi with no wires to run under. Running on electric to Swindon and then on diesel to points west would be possible on the Class 800 bi-modes though may involve a contract variation (expensive!) as the original contract envisaged more limited running on diesel (Swindon-Cheltenham, Oxford-Hereford, south of Bristol and west of Newbury). Also it is believed that Hitachi have been asked to quote on delivering the nine car electric Class 801s as nine car bi-modes with diesel power packs added so they can operate off the wires.

It's some weeks since I travelled from Didcot to Oxford but, when I did, there was not much evidence of great progress. There was a fair bit of piling in place from Didcot to Radley but I didn't spot anything beyond that and nothing around Oxford itself. No steelwork was visible. Similarly I travelled from Kintbury to Reading on Saturday and again there's some piling intermittently in place from west of Newbury Racecourse to Reading West but it's far from complete. NR contractors do however appear to have rebuilt most of the overbridges on this section.

On the main line, the section between Tilehurst and Moreton Cutting (just east of Didcot) is most complete with most of the masts up, many of the cantilever and portal booms erected and some of the small part steelwork. In fact the section between Tilehurst and Pangbourne looks almost ready for wiring (apart from a redundant signal gantry in the way!). There's still work to do though in the stations and around the junctions at Didcot.

East of Reading there's been a lot more piling going in on the Amey contract between Kennet Bridge and Maidenhead though there are still some large gaps. Again no steelwork in place yet. Balfour Beatty appear to be making progress on the Crossrail West contract from Maidenhead to Airport Junction. Several completed portals and cantilevers between east of Maidenhead and Burnham and also around the Langley/Iver area.

I'm no engineer so my comment is uninformed but, looking at the current rate of progress, I reckon there's every chance that Didcot to Reading will be finished by the end of next year and quite possibly Reading to Airport Junction. I'm not so sure about Didcot to Swindon as progress seems much slower here, though it's a simpler part of the route to electrify. I guess that the Oxford and Newbury branches could follow on afterwards, but that still leaves the 387s in a siding (though there was some speculation that some might be fitted with batteries like the prototype battery powered class 379 earlier this year).

Groundswell is by definition unattributable ;), but a very senior member of the project team said..."one of the illogical aspects of Oxford is that we are trying to electrify the railway before we make the proposed track and signalling changes ^ which will almost certainly lead to some abortive work.... that the section of railway from Didcot to Oxford, RS4, was not worked on from an OLE perspective until Hendy has completed his report." 

So logically, if the people are taken off the project to work on GW mainline, then Oxford electrification slips to the right.

The "Hendy Cuts" is a new one on me,

I don't think there will a cut in such major project, the service pattern of the TV services does not lend itself to a Didcot / Oxford Island indeed GWEP would have to provide stabling and booking on point at Didcot and the complexity of relocating staff from Oxford to Didcot it might slip a little so the focus can remain on the mainline, if anything the Reading Newbury line would be the one to park into CP6

Not good news if that does come to pass on the B&H.

If it did, what would be the chances of some Turbo's displaced by other electrification being completed, being used to double-up/increase capacity as a short-term measure?

We see very few 4, 5 and 6-car combo's in this neck of the woods and there are definitely some services where it would be welcome (now, let alone in a few years!).

No doubt the above would impinge upon the cascade plans for these trains and won't happen either!

The situation at Oxford certainly isn't ideal, but with such a wide ranging electrification project it was always likely that some major station alterations would not be timed perfectly.  It's true that no work has been completed recently and that, as 'DidcotPunter' states there is no sign of steelwork yet.  However there is no sign of steelwork within the station limits at Didcot yet, or Cholsey, Goring, Pangbourne, Tilehurst or anywhere between Sonning Cutting and Maidenhead.  The support piles have been driven in at more than 50% of locations between Didcot and Oxford though, and the trenches dug for them at the majority of other locations.

The stabling implications at Oxford are important.  It would seem, to me, to be far more logical to pause the Reading-Newbury section (no depot, not all trains easily transferred to electric traction) than the Didcot-Oxford section where all the fast Oxford-Paddington trains and local services would be easily operated by electric trains and those that come from the Cotswolds would be bi-mode under electric traction.  Even if some of the knitting would have to be redone when/if Oxford station is rebuilt - let's not forget it remains unfunded.  That's if any pause is deemed necessary at all.

I really can't see how any review done seriously would consider the Oxford section as worth pausing, but then again I've been amazed at some decisions before, so who knows.  However, I will stick with what I said about rumours often being wrong.

Yes, the actual station rebuild is unfunded, but a lot of the resignalling (all that to the north of the station) for better access to EastWest/Chiltern to Bicester etc is funded & Chiltern will be pushing for it, including the redesign of the upside bays & relocation of the drivers depot

Yes, but that hardly impacts on electrification at all as it is mostly beyond its limits.

All the sidings etc at the north end of the station will need wires, plus the crossovers etc...think you'll find most will be within limits

It does make me wonder whether someone has had the 'clever' thought that the headline fast service from Oxford for some interim period could be to Marylebone with the Paddington route being only services from the Cotswolds and connections at Didcot and Reading from XC. Stopping service between Oxford and Didcot to be provided by a diesel shuttle etc, stopping services for PAD to be electric from Didcot and Reading, plus the new hourly (SWI)-DID-RDG-PAD service which could be EMU or SET.

Doesn't really solve the stabling, could overload DID, and gives no short term improvement in OXF. It is though the sort of thing that kind of looks good on paper  :)

Would overload Marylebone too

I thought the Chiltern service is to be 2 trains an hour anyway though - or are you thinking about the station itself plus peak time?

It isn't at all difficult to pick holes in the above schema.

It is...but you suggest sending the two GWR fasts that way too

The Chiltern/GWR Oxford services could be diverted to Paddington either via the direct line to OOC or via the Greenford branch.

Keep the bean counters happy for months/years working out the revenue split!

No, in the clever (read stupid) concept above the Marylebone services replace the Paddington ones ... the trains that run present services would no longer be with GWR.

Of course you could run the bimodes, but they will be otherwise engaged on the main line.

Yes, but they're going to have to be modified anyway to allow for 10-car IEP's to stable.  Might as well electrify them at the same time surely?

But that's the work rumour has it that's being delayed....so the wires will follow the delay....

I'm getting confused! So you're saying bi-mode IEP's won't be serving Oxford until the wires are up?

That's the suggestion being made by the rumour....

BUT there's no reason why those can't drop the electric pick up at/around Didcot & make the way from there to Oxford/Cotswolds on the diesel engines. Instead of dropping the pickups in Oxford.

It's the 387s that wouldn't get beyond Didcot.....hence the suggestion of the fasts going via the Chiltern lines (it wouldn't work, granted)....but the problem of the Oxford fasts would need to be sorted.

Right!  I think I'll await for the report from Peter Hendy to be released before I comment further...!  :D

Another possibility, they could always take all the 387s as planned but delay the 365s.  Then the latter could go for a decent overhaul...

Paul

If in CP6 it might be Reading-Bedwyn perhaps?

I seem to recall reading in Modern Railways, correct me if I'm wrong, that the current operator of either the 365s or the 387s is expected to be unable to release them on time anyway, so a delay to the cascade of one of the two fleets may happen.

Yes, I think Modern Railways cast doubt on the progress of route clearance for 700s on the Great Northern.  That would mean the 365 release being delayed.  However discussions elsewhere suggested the problem only concerns the 700 shoe gear, so it may not be a huge problem to deal with.

Paul

if it's shoe gear it will be a huge problem for Thameslink how will they get South of the Thames?

Isn't Reading station (for example) south of the Thames?  ;D ;D

The line side equipment positioning, and ballast height, is already OK with shoegear all over the 'Southern'.   What they have to do on the GN is to actively make everything clear of the same shoegear.   The worst case scenario would be something fixed, such as a steel beam on an under-bridge.

This is all based on the assumption that Thameslink 700s will not retract the shoegear when on AC, which 377s and 387s do.

Paul

Its all rumour and speculation regarding the class 700 route clearance; there are some issues that need to be resolved however it is more about paperwork and documentation than anything to do with the infrastructure or the units themselves.

There is piece of work been going on about susceptibility of some non standard lengths of track circuits but that is not a major bit of work to resolve any issues flagged up.
There are some concerns over the new type of Pan used (the TSI compliant type) however this also effects a number of other recently introduced units.

Thameslink, Siemens and GTR have a team working on the introduction of the class 700, this team has been dealing with the introduction for a few years now so the known unknowns are being worked on.

Had my first ride on a Class 387 on Saturday from Gatwick Airport to St Pancras Int Low Level. It'll be interesting to see the ride quality of these when they transfer to the GWML and get up to their 110mph max speed. On the Quarry lines between Redhill and Purley it was most definitely "lively" - this is the only bit of the Brighton Main Line where the train got up to any sort of decent speed - around 80mph was my estimate. OK I sat over the bogies on the motor coach so I wouldn't expect a smooth ride but the general jolting about was accompanied by numerous pronounced lurches, which I put down to condition of track, rather than the train. Reminded me of the bad old days under Railtrack when track maintenance felt like it was an optional extra. The GWML track seems to be better maintained now so hopefully the ride quality will improve when they transfer to their new home.

Overall the 387 seems good enough for an outer suburban train. 2+2 seating with a mix of mostly airline-style seating and some tables. The seats look like ironing boards but I personally found them quite comfortable for the 50 minute journey. They should be quite an improvement on the turbos on the Oxford/Newbury services but I wouldn't say that they're any better than the HSTs or 180s.

That's what happens when you give the maintenance contract to someone who can set their own workload and get the client to pay (another contractor) to renew it when it gets too bad!

Er, all the coaches on Electrostar variants have motors, except the one with the pantograph.  Have you got that the right way round?   ;D

Paul

Thanks Paul, I should have checked that  :D  It was definitely motored but I didn't notice the pantograph as we were running on third rail most of the way. I think we switched from DC to AC at City Thameslink but I headed straight for the exit at St Pancras and didn't glance at the train.

I'm obviously locked in a timewarp from when I used to travel to school on the Class 302 EMUs on the Southend line. Like all first generation BR EMUs they had a single motor coach and you certainly knew if you were travelling in it. Apart from all the electro-mechanical noises it rode like a sack of potatoes!

I've traveled London Bridge to Brighton and return on them and the ride quality is far superior to Desiros. Considerably less sideways motion. They are absolute rockets when on OHLE too!

They certainly are.  As are the Javelin units which have outstanding acceleration at lower speeds (0-60 in about 45 seconds I believe), so hopefully the SET trains will have similar performance - probably slightly reduced by the weight of the diesel engines of course.  It'll all help reduce journey times and delays over what the current diesel traction can offer.

Yes, it seems the BR standard for quite a while was a single motor coach, this can be seen in most EMUs of the era including the 442, where the motor coach was the middle of the five in the set.

Siemens and Bombardier have subsequently taken slightly different approaches though, with Siemens Desiro UK having both bogies motor fitted in each end car, with Bombardier normally having them spread fairly evenly throughout the train except in the PTSO.

Paul

I was standing opposite a 442 motor coach while waiting at Gatwick - must have put it into my mind. Interesting that the trend now is for EMU manufacturers to use distributed traction, though with different configurations. I guess that it improves adhesion. I can't recall exactly without looking it up but I thought that Hitachi have gone for the same with the 800s/IEPs, though with these the driving cars with pantograph and transformers are unpowered.

There has been a big change in technology since the last BR design of an EMU, high power static inverters that can produce poly phase alternating current has enabled the introduction of the much lighter AC ploy phase squirrel cage induction traction motors instead of the heavier DC series traction motors; this means it is easier to place traction motors on most boogies.  Distribution the traction motors also means less chance of wheel spin.

     

Phew - I am glad I paid attention in first year electrical engineering lectures!

I can think of at least one of our Coffee Shop forum members who will be less than happy with that aspect ...  :o ::) :P

Isn't there also something about cables between vehicles? The old overhead wire units had everything within one power car in the middle of the unit, while the third rail ones had a power car at each end of the set (to reduce the problems of gaps in the third rail). That way there were no power cables between vehicles - has there been a technical change about what can be done (or indeed, what's allowed to be done)?

There must have been certain changes, not least because the Pendolino passes 25 kV from the one raised pantograph to 2 or 3 transformers fitted throughout the train (in 9 or 11 car versions). 

In the case of DC pickup, the cars with the pick up shoes were not necessarily those with the traction motors, (the 442 being a good example, with shoes on all cars except the motor car).  As we have mentioned, most BR era DC units had a single motored car, wherever the pick up shoes happened to be, so must have had a DC connection between vehicles within the unit.

I think there might have been a rule whereby power wasn't connected between DC units working predominantly in tunnels, but could be on normal EMUs.

Paul

Not sure, but I think there was at some point because the APT-P (Advanced Passenger Train Prototype) had two power cars in the middle of the train (I think) rather than one at each end which would seem to be more sensible from a passenger's perspective.

The Wikipedia entry about the APT says that:


So why was a roof-line link infeasible at the time, but quite OK nowadays?

The problem of two pantographs causing resonance is still with us - it was an issue when London Midland had some of their class 350s uprated for 110 mile/h operation. As a result, LM had to operate these as single 4-car trains instead of the 8-car ones that they'd wanted.

The 25kV train bus will not link 2 pans together, there would be a big bang and flash as the train went over a neutral section  ;D

Modern trains (like the class 700) have a 400V 3 phase train wire with a bus section circuit breaker that allows the train to operate with only one pan up

Won't there still have to be a roof level 25kV bus line between the two transformer cars on the 700s though?

Agree the pans themselves can never be electrically linked, but with transformers in cars 2 and 11 of a 12 car train, either the inputs must be linked at 25 kV, or they must be separate and run with both pans up.   The train must be too long to run off one transformer.

Paul

There is no 25kV bus on the 700's

The 395's have a 25kV bus but not between units

So will the 700s run with both pans up?

Paul

Yes, their performance especially the 12 car versions is reduced with only one pan up

There's am RSSB "Research Brief" on "Simulation and verification of results from 125mph current collection modelling for two pantographs" T841 - January 2011 (http://)

To summarise rather broadly, it concludes that 160 km/hr is OK with any spacing, but 200 km/hr isn't possible without major changes. 180 km/hr can be done with spacings of 50 m and 200 m, but in between (125 m) only with the right choice of pantograph design and/or slightly more cable tension

That should be true for any train, but the work was done to help with the IEP requirement. That includes:

That seems to suggest that two pantographs far enough apart (within the 207 m length of a 9-car train? Or the 312 m limit of train length, single or multiple-unit?) would permit 125 mph. Which is not what the RSSB found. There is more stuff about multi-unit trains, which hints that two units can be powered off one pantograph. But it doesn't say clearly either it is or isn't required to.

Porterbrook have ordered another 80 Class 387 carriages:

http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/pages/corp2015.html#november2015 (http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/pages/corp2015.html#november2015)

Anyone care to speculate where they might end up?  No specific operator mentioned, though perhaps they could come to GWR if needed? 

An additional 80 carriages for the class 387 are to be built

Potentially there could be more 387s heading our way, or potentially (though I would have thought unlikely) have some of the existing units lengthened.


(Edit, II beat me to it by a minute, apologies for duplication)

That's one mighty speculative order, and surprising given the large numbers of Class 319s that will shortly be coming available and the slowdown in electrification. I can only assume that there is a high degree of confidence from discussions they have had that a taker will be found.

Has the C2C requirement for new stock been met yet? They are looking for 68 new carriages from 2019 - maybe a deal will be struck to introduce them earlier?

Come to think of it, unless they somehow?? manage to find some slots for Paddington to Reading Semi-fasts on the main or crossover halfway or whatever, what exactly will they do with the 37 sets that come this way.

Assuming all electrification projects in the TV area go ahead, then I would assume Henley, Windsor, Basingstoke, Newbury stopper and Paddington to Oxford stoppers will be 365s or best part of.

This would require 4 half-hourly units (doubled, potentially trebled) running to Didcot/Swindon in the peaks, hourly to Newbury which I assume is the same frequency in the peaks, again running as an 8 car, and possibly hourly? to Oxford, ie those services which aren't going to continue on to the Cotswolds, again 8 car. This has me at around 20-24 units, most of which won't be used during the day. Yes some units may be required to do Oxford stoppers if they don't have enough 365s but it does to me seem a stretch to fully utilise all the 387s.

TfL West Anglia?

I'm hearing that the plan is to operate four extra trains between Hayes and Paddington, using 387s, from the May timetable change.  One in the morning and three in the evening. 

Hopefully they'll be 8 car trains.  That will be a very useful increase in capacity, prior to their full introduction in due course.

You say extra, so that implies this won't free up some Turbo's to add capacity on other services?

At the time this was news, hadn't TfL already confirmed their West Anglia fleet from Bombardier.

Have we got another thread running with more recent discussion about the use of the 387s on Hayes and Harlington services as well?  I thought we had but haven't found it yet...

Paul

No, I don't think so - not at this early stage.  After all, there are no Hayes to Paddington services in the timetable currently.  But of course extra capacity will be provided for Hayes and Southall passengers on these additional trains which will of course make journeys to and from Ealing, West Drayton, etc. more pleasant for those passengers on the very busy services that run either side of these extra trains.

First units are scheduled to arrive in March, with empty training runs due to start in April.


I think there was one covering the delays to the cascade in general, though this was the one I found first and is probably more suitable given that it's specific to the 387s.

Not quite right - looks like 2 in the morning, three in the evening :-)

And if you want to travel on the first public electric service from Hayes, better get there for 0724 on the 16th May.

I've travelled on an electric train several times on a Heathrow Connect could be considered a Hayes train as minimal passengers to/from Heathrow so it starts/leaves Hayes more or less empty.

Ok, guess I should have said "first electric GWR service, shouldn't I? :-)

Bet the unit's livery will be either generic grey with or without Thameslink decals or Southern.  Maintenance wonder where that will be done, by Siemens at HEX, GWR at OOC but the fitters there will be looking for the diesel filler  ;D (only jesting guys at OOC) or dead hauled around the NLL / WWL via the Poplars; although North Pole is an option via the WLL

They'll have 6 weeks-ish to get it done, so its possible

I think the overall livery is 'Southern white', but without the end vinyls which are mainly green.  Doors are as current Southern, but branding is just the small Thameslink logo.  The latter should be removable easily.  Picture here on wiki:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_387#/media/File%3AClass_387_at_Luton.jpg

Paul

Great stuff - the more the better!

An update - better make that 0718.....

And from Jan17 (not Dec16 - will need a crossover constructed over Xmas 16 at Hayes East), there will be 2x8car EMUs hourly Hayes<>PAD

I'm guessing the crossover east of Hayes will be to allow for the use of the newly extended bay platform with these 8-car trains.  It could not be extended to that length without alterations to the track layout.

The Bay Platform at Hayes and Harlington is being extended at the country (Reading) end to make the platform 218m long.  The entry points from the Up Relief to the Bay Platform are being relaid to increase the PSR from 15mph to 25mph.  A new facing crossover between the Down Relief and Up Relief is being provided just East of the station to avoid trains having to run in the Down direction on the Up Relief all the way from Southall West Junction to Hayes and Harlington to access the Bay Platform as exists today (but that is not really needed until the full Crossrail service starts).

Also the work on platforms 13 & 14 at Padd must be to accommodate the 8 car trains.  There is some steel works laying around under Bishops Bridge Rd which looks like its there for these platforms.

To generate the paths out of Padd I guess the new bay at West Ealing will need to be completed to allow the Greenford to shuttle

Sorry if I'm being a bit dense here but once Crossrail is up and running what will be the purpose of the bay?  I thought I read that West Drayton was going to be the start/end of peak short workings. 

The distance between the existing buffers and the station toilets is 20 metres. Is that going to be enough space to lengthen the track?

The signalling scheme plan I have access to shows the track extending as far as the end of the Up Relief platform country end ramp (Through the site of the existing footbridge steps etc.?).

Oh
Oh ok, there was work over Christmas so perhaps platform 5 and track were moved. Previously the platform was to the side of the footbridge.

https://goo.gl/maps/rWU6kpgRveB2

Crossrail drawing 318 shows that the platform is significantly widened, so the bay track is on top of the old siding (or headshunt) and goes on to take over at least 200 m of the goods loop before it joins the Up Crossrail. The bay platform is also extended a little at its east end, where the through platforms are being extended a lot more. Those drawings do not show any new crossover, though, so that must be an afterthought. 

That has already been confirmed as a prerequisite due in May 2016, it's in the direct award stakeholder brief.

Paul

Yes, that tarries with what can currently be seen on the ground.  If you look at the current Google Earth image you can see a short section of that new track finishing in a shiny red stop block.  There is new track laid further along the alignment of the old Hayes Up Siding now which allows for the platforms to be extended westwards by at least 20 metres, maybe slightly more if it can go behind the station buildings.  The old platform was quite long anyway at 171m, so the remaining 25-30 metres required will probably be at the eastern end with the junction on to the main line the other side of the canal to allow for that extension and a higher speed turnout.

Is the western end entry to Hayes Up Goods Loop (and the stone terminal) altered on your signalling diagrams SandT Engineer?  It looks like it would have to be to allow the above layout?


I guess when its up and running it will be mostly used as it is now - for when things have gone wrong and trains can't get through to Heathrow or West Drayton.  Though in the intervening years it looks like it will become very useful for these extra Hayes to London EMU services.

If you look at the planning application for Hayes and Harlington Station works on the Hillingdon council planning site, you will see that Platform 5 platform face will be 237.65 metres and the existing buildings on Platform 4 will be removed.

Of course, if you read the Environmental Statement of the Crossrail Act 2007, it states that Platform 5 was to be a through platform connecting with the Up Airport Relief from Stockley Flyover. To save costs, the rebuilding of Station Road bridge, this idea was eventually dropped. I wonder if the present arrangement has been future proofed.

At Christmas, the connection between the Down Relief and the current Up Airport (to become the Down Airport Relief) was made. This new connection was used last weekend when the main lines were closed.

Back to the 387s, with TPWS to be installed on the Heathrow Branch, could the 387s be extended from Hayes to the Airport Terminal 4, especially once Stockley Flyover is completed? With Heathrow Connect also diverted from T5 to T4, they could then dispense with the existing shuttle. (By the way I work at Heathrow and use the Connect service - as an airport worker you only pay ^1.50 from H&H).

Perturbation, in the event the Heathrow branch is blocked it allows Heathrow trains to terminate and reverse.  Also if there is an incident further west on the Reliefs it will also allow Crossrail trains to terminate and reverse

There is no alteration shown to the existing Hayes Up Goods Line S&C connections.  The entry points on the Up Relief are between the Bay Line points and the Up Relief end of the new facing crossover (Health Warning: The Signalling Scheme Plan version I have access to is dated 2010 so could be out of date)

Thanks to both you and II for the clarification. It appears a bit OTT given there will be the ability to reverse just one station up the line, if its sole use (post 2019) will be as insurance against perturbation.

Given how intensively the line will be used some insurance against perturbation would seem to be a necessity.

It seems a recent addition, the early Crossrail GW 'single line track diagram', that I downloaded quite a few years ago now, don't show any work at Hayes and Harlington station itself.  (Indeed it doesn't even show the 5th platform there at all.)

Paul

I have added a topic on the Thames Valley branches board an item relating to the impact of the introduction of Class 387 on the Greenford Branch services.

I'm getting less and less confident that the May introduction will happen, given that we haven't received any of the trains yet and their is no agreement yet in place with the unions on a training programme which will allow the drivers to be trained on them and drive them.  Meetings this week I hear, but time is running out!

Talks are in progress with another operator to fill the void should the 387s be delayed. As it currently stands though, 387s are due to be running from May.

Aren't the first of the class 700s starting passenger services from April 16th, I assumed that this would then free up a couple of 387s to head our way, giving them a month or so to practice with them and repaint (stick some GWR vinyls on)

The ECS training specials were due to start running as of tomorrow, so if that's delayed by long, or no training agreement is reached soon, then there won't be time.  There will have to be a pool of at least 10 drivers trained to operate the planned services from May, all of which will have to be released and trained for several days without causing too many cancellations as a result of the Rest Day ban.  As well as the staffing concerns there are presumably all sorts of safety/operational cases to make as well before GWR are allowed to run them?  Like I say, time will quickly run out.

The franchise agreement had six arriving by end of March, and four more by end of April.  They aren't significantly late on those dates yet.

GTR are already using unbranded red coloured Gat Ex 387/2s on their Thameslink routes vice 387/1s while some 387/1s are away being modified - it could be that there's a simple solution to their required numbers that involves retention of a few 442s for a few months longer than planned.

Paul

They appear to be planning some running before the month is out:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/V12179/2016/04/26/advanced

I would like to think the gauge clearance, platform stepping, signalling and traction power compatibility etc etc etc certificates oh and the Network Change will have been done by now, if it has not it can a protracted process not something that can be rushed,

On the assumption that enough Class 387/1^s will arrive to run the new Hayes stoppers from May, but GWR management will not be able to agree Driver training arrangements with ASLEF, is there a possibility that HEX traincrew will be used to run this service?  Presumably crossover training from HEX EMU^s is simpler than from GWR DMU^s.

Who then drives the Hex trains?

Presumably he means the ones that normally drive the ones that are stuck in the depot doing nothing while Siemens sorts out how to fix them. 

Aren't they back in service? Think they are....

Come on, let's be sensible here - how many driving turns are we talking about for the very limited service due to start in May? And how does that stack up against the number of train drivers that HEX employ, who are of course on C of E's that are not intertwined with historic manning agreements etc.

Why should HEX play ball?

Because GWR would pay for their services?  Don't think that it's too likely to happen though.  More likely is that the trains might operate as Turbos with other trains shortens as a result!

Why would GWR do that? And why would HEX want to too? For 4 trains a day?

Well, because if they're public timetabled services, to cancel them would result in charter implications.

Apologies, I was referring to this part of your post....

I think there's a few too many hypothetical's in this one, but it's safe to say that GWR would not want 4+ trains a day cancelled for a prolonged period of time and would look at all sensible alternatives, which might include paying for the services of other TOC's drivers.

I'd agree - but I think turbos are a probable better bet....

Indeed.  As I said myself in post #182.

I understand that the introduction of Class 387/1^s on the new Hayes shuttles due to start in May will not now happen before September.  I do not know why.

How this new service will now be covered I do not know.  It is, however, worth noting that when the Connect services got cancelled to enable the units to cover the Class 332 problems, GWR stepped in to provide a local stations to/from Hayes service using Turbos and GWR staff.  So, in principle, there is no reason why HEX could not run the new Hayes shuttle if they can provide the necessary staff and units.

Delays in releasing 387/1s from Southern because of some niggles with Thameslink 700 trials is the reason, I'm 99% certain of this based on posts in other forums.

However they aren't extra services, they run in the paths of the Greenford DMUs, between Paddington and West Ealing, the existing service would be curtailed to the new West Ealing bay platform while the EMUs operate.  So all they need to do is maintain the status quo beyond the May timetable change date.

Paul

Maintaining the status quo may be OK for passengers who currently use the Greenfords, but what about passengers at Hayes, Southall and Hanwell who are expecting (for example) the new 0718 Hayes ^ Padd which was due to be a 387/1 from May? 

Just another example of the fragmented railway.

John Major's government thought they were going to reduce the power of the unions instead they handed ASLEF a blank cheque.

Has it ever been announced locally yet?   Perhaps only a very small minority of normal existing passengers have even heard of realtimetrains and such like, so won't have a clue yet...

Paul

It was in the (mini-)franchise material, wasn't it? So a few more may have read that, or it may have been passed on by local groups or all kinds.

...........I can scarcely believe it..........delays on the railways?..........unheard of!  ::) ;D

Depends when or which version of the franchise info was read.  The DfT's consultation response has the Greenford changes not due until May next year...

Paul

Construction Enquirer reports the award of a contract to extend 43 platforms across the network where 12 car EMUS will be operating:


Paul

The platforms concerned are:

4 car length
Appleford ^ Platform 1 and 2.
Aldermaston ^ Platform 2.
Bramley ^ Platforms 1 and 2
Mortimer ^ Platform 1

8 car length
Tilehurst ^ Platforms 1, 2, 3 and 4
Pangbourne ^ Platforms 1 and 2.
Goring and Streatley ^ Platforms 1, 2, 3, 4
Cholsey ^ Platforms 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Culham ^ Platforms 1 and 2.
Radley ^ Platforms 1 and 2.
Reading West ^ Platform 2.
Theale ^ Platforms 1 and 2.
Thatcham ^ Platforms 1 and 2.
Iver ^ Platforms 4 (resurfacing)

12 car length
Slough ^ Platforms 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Maidenhead ^ Platforms 1, 2 ,3, 4 and 5.
Twyford ^ Platforms 1, 2 and 3.
Didcot - Platform 3 ^ funded by IEP but still delivers 12 car EMU capability

Presumably SDO will be used at some locations that would be very expensive to extend, such as Twyford's platform 4?

Do the 387s have SDO currently fitted?

Yes they do, the all-singing all-dancing type which has platform recognition software to stop the driver opening too many doors, or the doors on the wrong side.  Not so sure about the 365s though.

No expert, but if one of Aldermaston's platforms needs extending, I would have thought one or both would need to be at Midgham also?

At Thatcham, the extensions would need to be towards the east, due to the level crossing at the western end - a 6-car Turbo can fit today I believe (although we don't see them very often), so not too much extending to do here anyway.

That is a lot of Stations to get done in just over a year though  ;)

Aldermaston has a length of 115m on the other platform, but just 80m on Platform 2.  So a few extra metres will be needed on just the one platforms for a 4-car train.  Midgham's are 97m/117m so OK as they are.


Yes, it certainly is!

Hopefully Thames Valley Class 387 drivers won't take similar unilateral action as this GatEx driver appeared to do:

http://www.crawleynews.co.uk/Gatwick-Express-driver-refuses-pick-passengers/story-29089301-detail/story.html

Thanks for that. So is this also saying that the "smaller" stations on the B&H between RDG and NBY (eg, Midgham) will only get calls from 4 coach EMU's, whereas the likes of THA and THE will get 8-coachers that won't stop at the "smaller" stations - or will it all be managed by SDO?

The question of SDO (which will be carriage level Auto SDO on the 387s as Industry Insider mentioned) won't apply to the 365 operated routes, as they are non-gangwayed trains.  I'd expect that as they are the slower units they'd be used on the minor branches, such as Reading to Basingstoke, and will not usually be longer than 4 car.

Paul

I would expect that to be the case, yes.  After all (HST's aside) nothing longer than 3-car length currently operates on the B&H route out as far as Bedwyn (save for ECS moves, or train in service but the rear section locked out of use).  You also have the issue of Platforms 1, 2, and 3 at Reading not being long enough for an 8-car train.

So, I would expect the hourly Reading to Newbury stoppers to be 4-car EMU's, quite possibly Class 365s, and that then leaves the Paddington to Newbury semi-fasts operating with either 5-car Bi-modes (and continuing to Westbury), or as 4/8 car Class 387s as far an Newbury with stops at Theale, Thatcham and Newbury.

Picture of a 387 vehicle for GWR here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/69454073@N05/26498845592/in/dateposted/

Paul

Judging from the new E1 timetable that has now been uploaded, it appears they haven't covered the new service.


Appears Paul is spot on, and the half-hourly full service from Paddington to Greenford will run as at present.


Tough luck by the looks of it. We'll just have to wait until September? presumably.

I posted a few days ago (I guess in the wrong thread) that they're postponed till September

Yes you did...

From here: http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=5066.msg194233#msg194233


Although I was referring to the fact about whether the Greenford services would still be curtailed or not and whether the Hayes shuttle would still run (using a turbo)

.............another delay!  >:(

I understood no other changes until then. So Greenfords are ok

The first photo of the first new build 387 from Modern Railways twitter feed

Still set up for DC pickup then.   That'll come in handy on the "Gatwicks" at some time in the future.

(Or on diversions into Waterloo, or extensions beyond Basingstoke, or various other fantasy schemes...)

Paul

Could this not have been added to the existing class 387 thread?
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=14927.0

Standard build I suspect easier to leave them as contracted than to vary to contract, the shoe beam can be removed later.

Also I suspect initially the Unit will be maintained at Selhurst until the GWR depots get skilled up and set up to maintain them, so the shoe gear will be needed to run them out of North Pole and along the West London Line

Are these to be maintained at North Pole? Thought they are replacing the turbos in Reading

Will do in the longer term, but the initial Padd Hayes service will not have wires to Reading, the only electrified route on and off of the GWML is via North Pole onto the West London Line, which is still signalled, and wired 25kV with the transition to 3rd rail at Westway

Yes, fair point - and it now has been moved and merged, in the interests of continuity and ease of future reference.  ;)

It was suggested below that North pole is only the route for getting them to Selhurst rather than being the place where maintenance would be carried out initially. 

I don't think this has been mentioned elsewhere, but there is a very confident story in Modern Railways this month that GWR will not be getting the GTR 387's after all, but will be getting 37 brand shiny new units instead. 8 of these are the ones currently under construction, to be followed by the remaining 14 from the Porterbrook speculative build, topped up by an additional order of 15 units. 

Good news for Bombardier if this is the case - the incremental extensions to the production line all add up to a tidy volume.

The report also suggests that GWR are cooling on the Class 365s, and would prefer a further build of AT300s.  Also that they are still looking at a few hybrid Class 387s!

The final point to note is that this will be the last order for the Class 387 in their current form. All the cabs have to be built by the end of September else they won't comply with updated crashworthiness regulations.  Quite who sees fit to demand a further increase in crashworthiness is beyond me, given that the recent safety record on the railways would suggest that the incremental benefit must be miniscule. 

There was some discussion of this in wnxx, and I saw some doubt about the cut off date, with a well placed insider saying it is actually September 2017.   But in any case the cab sub assemblies only have to be started, they don't have to be fitted onto units at that date.

Paul

It would certainly make things a little easier if they're all new build as the internal colour scheme can be fitted out as GWR want it with no modifications on the (admittedly fairly neutral) GTR interiors.  Bit puzzled why AT300s would be preferred to 365s though?  The 365s were to become part of the suburban fleet for which the AT300s would be unsuitable, and we're always being told how stupidly expensive to lease the Hitachi trains are going to be?

The scenario I could see developing is that electrification is being delayed so much that the 387s would be able to cover what diagrams are needed until the Class 345 Elizabeth Line trains start to take over the majority of the suburban services in 2019, when the 387s would then be able to cover delayed electrification routes such as Oxford, so there would be no need for 365s in that event.  Perhaps a few more AT300s could then be obtained to deal with any capacity shortages on the main line services?

How realistic/practical is it to make a few Class 387^s into hybrids, and what would the time scale be?  Surely you can^t just stick a heavy diesel engine and alternator set under the frames?  I could see hybrid 387^s might be useful to cover the Didcot-Oxford gap and thus enable Oxford stoppers go to 387^s in December 2017, and also to keep the Bedwyn^s going as through trains. 

But is this really technically and financially viable?

The cl 387 hybrids would have batteries and not diesel engines.  Useful for retaining through trains to Bedwyn, for example.

Good heavens, I hadn't thought of batteries, just shows how the technology is progressing.  What range, speed and acceleration are we looking at?

Some discussion on these units and tests at

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=14408

I would be very interested to see some recent stats and thoughts as to what they might cover.   Not only a question of distance on a single charge, but how quick to charge too.  Some Chinese trams are nor running on capacitors - charge at stops and pick up enough juice to get to next stop.   I have also heard suggestions around intermittent electrification along the lines of giving high speed bimodes a boost along the way where there's no expensive infrastructure work needed. And that leads me to think about recharging the Bedwyn service in the turn back siding, or stringing up a bit of spaghetti at Banbury.  No good if there's no a fast charge option ... can you imagine "This train is running 15 minutes late because we've had to stop and charge a flat battery"

In particular, the results coming out of that Harwich trail - has anyone seen anything? Bright ideas and experiments are one thing, but practical production machinery that will last twenty years or more takes a lot of extra work. Even outside the railways - and we all know how long change takes there. 

As I understand it they charge when under the wires, so a relatively short journey from Newbury to Bedwyn and back would be fine.  Presumably there would be some indication in the cab to show the remaining mileage, to prevent a service running out of charge a mile from Newbury on the return run and blocking the line.

Thought I was keeping up with the latest details like this, but obviously not! Just been browsing other sites and they have been saying the same for the past couple of weeks. 37 brand new 387s heading to GWR instead of 8 new and 29 'almost new' ones .


This is also mentioned. I always thought 37 x 387s and 21 x 365s were a little over the top, bearing in mind the introduction of the 'Crossrails' 345s as well.

A handful more AT300s I feel would be adequate cover for the 'loss' of the 365s. Just as II explains in the following:


I take it you mean 387s?

Yes, thanks for the correction.  :-[

Battery EMU^s may be OK for trundling around Suffolk branches, but are we really saying that a Class 387 on batteries could do, for example, a 26 mile round trip from Newbury to Bedwyn with 2 intermediate stops each way with reasonable acceleration and top speed on what is a 110 mph line?

And in winter there^s lighting and heating to come out of the batteries (unless you^re expected to keep your coat on west of Newbury).

I^m sure someone can calculate the stored energy required: there is of course a gentle falling gradient from Bedwyn to Newbury so a stranded 387 could maybe coast back to Newbury!

I think the answer is that here on the forum we don't know.

We do know that Aberdeen to Ballater was 41 miles where the previous generation tried out a battery electric multiple unit.  Judging by the reports, there was (only) a charging station at each end and I see no reports / suggestions of it running out of juice during the run.

Top speed is a bit of a pink mackerel - with 6 miles, 3 miles and 5 miles between stops you're hardly likely to need something that reaches line speed for the local service.   Showing a clean pair of heels on leaving stops is important, though!

Could be we haven't heard too much about how the Harwich trial went because it was a flop.  On the other hand it could have been so successful that the commercial companies supporting it are keeping quiet to stay ahead of the game while they come up with a production-standard product.

A battery EMU could perhaps enable GWR's stated ambition to extend London to Oxford trains onto Hanborough as at present there is no intention to electrify byond Wolvercote

Ranging from the more obvious to the exotic ... some shorter distances off the to-be-electrified lines include:
Banbury
Basingstoke
Bedwyn
Bourne End
Brentford
Clifton Down
Colnbrook
Gatwick (**)
Hanborough
Henbury
Henley
Oxford Parkway
Maesteg (*)
Marlow
Windsor
Yate

* - different operator but GW electrification Cardiff to Bridgend
** - See "3rd Rail extension" discussions

Graham, interesting list of possible destinations for Battery operation. however I wonder where some of the units would recharge given that only a short run would be under the wires.

So

Banbury yes through from Padd.
Basingstoke? Recharge Reading station not enough time?
Bedwyn yes through from Reading/Padd
Bourne End? through from Padd only
Brentford? recharge Southall? Parry People mover?
Clifton Down? recharge Temple Meads enough time?
Colnbrook could be served by Crossrail from their West Drayton terminators but their trains don't have batteries or toilets!
Gatwick (**) If 3 rail charging although whether Ash Shalford Jn would be enough to recharge to Reigate having done Wokingham  Ash.
Hanborough yes through from Padd
Henbury? would run to Filton be enough to charge?
Henley? through from Padd only
Oxford Parkway yes through from Padd/Reading but East West hopefully wired. Maybe they do Cowley Oxford on battery
Maesteg  yes through from Cardiff
Marlow NO needs short units!
Windsor NO where would they recharge? Not enough time at Slough
Yate  yes through from Temple Meads

Is it possible to charge at destinations? A short length of wire perhaps? Although you'd probably need more units and a layby to give enough time on charge. 

That's the problem with Slough - Windsor there's no layby and the turnround on the one unit 20 minute service is four minutes each end.

Basingstoke, Windsor and Henley should be electrified in reasonable timescales and shouldn't really need to be concerned with battery operation.

Paul

The Seville tram runs through the historic parts on batteries and is charged at some stops as well as through the wired portion. A rather different kind of service though!

And indeed the Birmingham trams will do the same in a year or two it was recently announced. 

And so do the trams in Nice and I'm sure many other places.  But running a Class 387 on batteries on the main line, for example between Newbury and Bedwyn, is very different. To avoid public ridicule they would need timings and thus performance (ie acceleration and top speed) at least as good as a Turbo: they can't just accelerate up to 45 mph or whatever and then trundle along until the next stop.


   

I would agree. I'm also not convinced about the economics.  Just looking at the Bedwyn service, how many units will need to be fitted with batteries to ensure cover for all services. Most of the time these will be on normal services carting around all that extra weight (not to mention the initial cost).  Might be easier/more cost effective just to string the wires up for the extra distance, particularly since the WoE AT300s will also benefit from the extra distance under the wires.

I would agree, but why stop at Bedwyn ? There is a large catchment area at Pewsey, many of whom now drive to Bedwyn and take up even more of the parking spaces at that location to the annoyance of the residents.

They would enjoy a far better service than is currently available.

In which case why not pop on down to Westbury as well, round the corner and down to Bathampton and voila through electrification. No doubt that will be the final aim, but remember thirty years ago the B and H from Southcote Junction was going to be a single line as far as Newbury, with a set of stop blocks under the Black Boys Bridge, everywhere else West being abandoned and track lifted. Only the lack of suitable paths for the stone trains via Swindon stopped it happening.

Bedwyn, what a strange place to stop the outer suburban route. I was told it was the home of Sir Felix Pole one of the top men of the GWR who required his train to London to start there.

I think an hourly semi-fast service from Paddington to Westbury using one of the new Hitachi units (with some extending on as stoppers to Exeter), is much more likely than Class 387s on batteries, though if Westbury does get the wires then 387s might be a more logical choice then - but that's many years away still.  Alternative hours stopping at Kintbury and Bedwyn has been suggested for that route, with a Bedwyn to Newbury DMU shuttle likely to bump that up to an hourly service from those stations.

Because that's where the current service extends to.  There's a difference between maintaining an existing service and spending money to deliver a new one that may or may not prove worthwhile. Particularly in the current economic climate on the railways.

It often strikes me that it is aswell, the Bedwyn's are both small villages (albeit well-heeled).

Purely historic reasons, and that it has a turn-back siding (albeit no use for anything longer than a 3 coach Turbo - AFAIK) should not be the basis for designing better services on this route.

5 car bi-modes running a semi-fast service to Westbury would benefit all Stations along the route, including those east of Newbury  ;)

Bedwyn is also the railhead for Marlborough, population around 18,000 and boasts a rail link bus service from Bedwyn Station into the town. Quite unusually for buses that call at train stations, this one actually waits a bit if the train's late so that it's really much more of a "rail link" than many.

It should be noted that although Pewsey is just as close to Marlborough as Bedwyn, a journey from Marlborough to London via Pewsey involves doubling back on yourself, the train fare is higher and services less frequent.

There are calls for reinstatement of the line from Savernake (between Bedwyn and Pewsey) to Marlborough - see https://www.transitionmarlborough.org/Transport+Group+homepage for a link to the report at https://www.transitionmarlborough.org/tiki-download_wiki_attachment.php?attId=52 which makes their case.

Bedwyn Station should not be judged just purely on the local within walking / cycling distance, nor on the operational convenience of the turn back siding.

It also serves Hungerford en route remember, which has a respectable number of passengers. So not completely illogical to end the suburban service there, given the next station is another 9 miles further on, and the one beyond that a further 20 miles.  

I would agree though that any enhancement to the service would be most likely facilitated by use of 5 car bi-modes.  Given GWR are reportedly looking at an additional order of AT300s, this might not be completely out of the running.

You wouldn't happen to be referring to Thatcham would you?  ;)

Indeed I would, our current mainly Turbo-operated semi-fasts seem to be getting busier and busier.

In answer to grahame, yes I'm aware of the bus link to Marlborough, but I think the point I (and others) are making that Bedwyn doesn't need to be the terminus for semi-fast services going forward (suggesting it should be somewhere further west) still stands.

That would of course be good news for Bedwyn, which AFAIK has very little westbound service today.

The sensible thing to do would be to reopen Savernake-Marlborough and build a large park & ride railhead-type station at the end of the line. Of course it would be electrified and have a day long semi-fast service to Paddington.

In my dreams..

The proposed Swindon terminators could be the semi-fast services.   Ahh we can dream

It might perhaps make sense to extend the Bedwyn services and terminate them at Marlborough? I suspect that operationally and financially it would make much more sense if it were done as part of electrification though (387's to Marlborough), and of course it is always difficult politically to be spending money on areas that the rest of the country sees as 'privileged', even if it is justified commercially, traffic reduction and we all know there's plenty of deprivation in leafy rural areas too.

Electrification from Newbury to Westbury, Westbury to the GWML (and probably Westbury to Southamption) would appear to have a pretty good business case, if only on the grounds of switching freight haulage from diesel to electric, and getting rid of a few more DMUs.

I suppose the question is how good the business case is against other projects in the South West, and whether it makes it into CP6 or is relegated to CP7? The cynic in me says that despite an outwardly objective process, a lot of the CP6 programme is going to be aimed at marginal constituencies and keeping England blue. 

Does Marlborough have a station or are you proposing they construct one in the same process?

No station at Marlborough.  And about 5 miles of new track would have to be relaid.  Fortunately not much in the way of buildings built on the old formation, but there was at least one tunnel that would no doubt be costly to bring back into service.

Sadly, I've got a feeling a lot of the CP6 programme will be about finishing off stuff that was due to be done in CP5.  I'd be very surprised if any additional route reopening projects not currently at a fairly advanced planning stage (such as Bedford to Cambridge, March to Wisbech, or Bere Alston to Tavistock) made it into the CP6 pot, and even those could well fall back into CP7.

I hear NR are still hopeful of additional redoubling work around Hanborough on the Cotswold Line getting into CP6 in order that additional services from there to Oxford might run (which also would mean 387s being able to run north out of Oxford rather than terminating there)

Purely historic reasons, and that it has a turn-back siding (albeit no use for anything longer than a 3 coach Turbo - AFAIK)

Takes a five car Turbo, but no walking route or safe way to change ends as the driver would have to walk either along the field side of the train at ground level (unacceptable), or walking along the Up Westbury which would have to be blocked by signal protection to let him move between the two units.

If the new trains are of the same length as a turbo (25 metres per car if I remember correctly) a five car would fit.

If they are considering DOO then the line West of Bedwyn is not set up for it, a situation that should have been remedied years ago, which would have allowed the extention of the Turbo service to Pewsey, and changing ends in Woodborough Loop as was done when they were vehicle handling when the Turbos were new and the Bedwyn turnback siding was occupied by the older DMU's. The decision not to do it was made by Victory Holdings ,who took over the service from NSE on privatisation, stayed a while and then sold out big style to the next owners (Go-Ahead), who never pursued it either.

I used to relieve Trevor at Pewsey when he went on holiday and the locals were always asking why they had such a poor service compared to Bedwyn, and the fact that many drove there to take advantage of the better service proves the point.

I would refer "originally for historic reasons". The service terminating at Bedwyn may well have been due to the presence of the siding originally, but a distinctive traffic has built up and it's no longer just or purely history.

London's where it is for purely historic reasons by the same argument.  It's the first place where it was safe to cross the Thames up the estuary.

The work on the down loop between Oxford North Junction and Wolvercot seems to have ground to a halt according to colleagues at Oxford Panel.

The problem is there is a big relay room on what would have been the site of the continuation of the loop onto the Cotswolds line, a better idea than the existing plan which is to end the down loop just prior to the Wolvercot bridge and join the Down Chester. All you are doing is moving the bottleneck at North Junction about three miles.

Far better would be to retain the existing new crossover from the down loop onto the Down Chester, and extend the down loop under the bridge and onto the Cotswolds line. Far more flexible operationally.

That relay room may of course disappear when they re signal North of Oxford towards Banbury which as I understand it will be three aspect only instead of four aspect as they did North of Banbury some years ago. The old and worn out two aspect they have at the moment really is like a stranglehold on the line capacity and badly needs upgrading, along with the doubling of the Cotswolds from Wolvercot towards Charlbury.

Always a challenge to get it right on that section.

I believe Oxford Panel can't fit in the signalling required for the newly extended loop.  Oxford Panel was due to close originally in 2015, but I believe it is now 2018 so the loop won't be able to open until then.  That also restricts the possibility of modifying the Wolvercote Junction layout to provide the more flexible layout you describe.  Once Didcot controls the Oxford area then hopefully as and when Wolvercote Junction to Charlbury is redoubled (or to Hanborough at least) then Wolvercote Junction can be modified to provide that more flexible layout.

Yes, three aspect signalling from outside of the Oxford area to Kings Sutton AIUI.  The new signals are currently being installed from (roughly) Heyford to Banbury as the first stage.

The Turbo DMUs are 23m per car I thought, the new 800/801/802 EDMUs will be 25-26m per car (depending on where you measure from). The class 387 EMUs are either 23m or 20m per car probably.

All in service Electrostar variants including the most recent 387/1 are 20m vehicles.

Paul

I concur - and as CP6 starts in 2019, what I described above can still happen.


Don't forget the change in Network Rail control is around Heyford - from TVSCC to Saltley....it's the Saltley work you describe. South of Heyford into TVSCC as you say has been delayed into 2018.

Yes indeed, it forms the next stage of what originally was an Oxford-Leamington signalling upgrade, known as the Cherwell Valley Resignalling Scheme, stage one of which was completed back in 2004.  The new signals from Heyford to Banbury will be prefixed OL 'Oxford Leamington' as they are now northwards from Banbury and will significantly reduce headways.  Originally Leamington was to control the route, but now all going to the WMSC at Saltley.  The final stage of that original project will be Heyford to Oxford which should happen when Oxford panel finally closes.  Funny how the lines of an original project get blurred and altered by events over the years.

Confirmed that going to be 37 new build 387's (as well as the 8 on order) rather than cascaded from Thameslink. First due into service on September 5 apparently.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/passenger/single-view/view/gwr-finalises-thames-valley-emu-order.html (http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/passenger/single-view/view/gwr-finalises-thames-valley-emu-order.html).

And informed insiders on WNXX forum have confirmed that this means GWR will now not be taking refurbished class 365 units from the GN line.

Apparently GWR are negotiating with Hitachi and DfT for an number of additional AT300s to plug the shortfall between the 45 class 387 units on order and the 58 class 387/365 units originally specified in the DA franchise agreement. If approved, the AT300s will be used on the fast services terminating at Oxford (North Cotswold line services are already slated for IEP/AT300 working) which were originally down for class 387 working, and for through services from Padd to Bedwyn. Use of the bi-mode AT300s would overcome the problem of Didcot-Oxford wiring not being completed before 2019 and enable a through service to continue for Hungerford and Bedwyn users.

Informed insiders would find it very difficult to deny these stories  ;)

There is huge sense in having a single standard fleet (until a problems' found / check's needed on the whole fleet as happened with HEX)

Would I be right in saying that 387s are dual equipped - overhead and 3rd rail - so that (for example) the outer suburban services could be  diverted into Waterloo if there was a problem between Paddington and Reading?

As they're new build for GWR, I doubt it's included in the spec....but does anyone *know* for sure?

Assuming that all comes to pass then it is an improved situation on what was already quite a good deal for GWR passengers:

As you say, the AT300's will allow the through Bedwyn services to continue - though I have a feeling that many will continue to Westbury or beyond - which was really awkward if Newbury to Bedwyn diesel shuttles had needed to be retained as originally planned.  The turnback at Bedwyn will need to be extended to accomodate a 5-car Hitachi unit.

The more trains with 125mph capability on the main lines the better, and with an all-new fleet of Class 387 and none of the much older Class 365s the eastern end of the GWR routes will have the most modern fleet in the country.  Most welcome news for passengers and staff.

I suspect the DfT is taking a bit of a hammering financially to make all this possible, due to the electrification delays!

I'm assuming the turn back at Bedwyn would need modifying to accept 5 car units.

Having additional IEPs taking over the fast Oxfords and Newbury/Bedwyn/Westbury was always the sensible option, no need to mess around with battery operated 387s etc.

 ;D Very good! Of course there are informed insiders on here too!


Agreed. The idea of a split fleet for what was essentially the LTV outer suburban services and the branches (inner suburban is going to Crossrail) seemed a bit daft to me. Also LTV will still be retaining some turbo units for the Marlow branch and Gatwick services, as well as a Didcot-Oxford stopping shuttle until Oxford is wired.


I think from the pictures I've seen that they are (there are clearly collector shoe beams on the driving car bogies), but I'm not expert on that. Any diversion into Waterloo would require the creation of a 25kV AC/750V DC interface at Reading New Junction on the connection with the down main or on the eastern underpass.

Indeed, if this now happens it will be excellent news for passengers and staff. A silver lining in the cloud surrounding the electrification delays.

You're not the only one suggesting the Bedwyn services might be extended to Westbury. Provided there are the IEP/AT300 units available this would be a sensible idea. Good connections at Westbury for passengers travelling west of Newbury and also might provide Pewsey with a decent service for the first time in living memory.

Yes indeed.  It's only really the historical reasons of the old Network SouthEast border being at Bedwyn, and DOO/CSR equipment not being fitted beyond Bedwyn that stopped the Turbo trains ever getting there.  It was mooted a few times over the years but never happened.

You might need to find two extra units to work the service, but with that you would get much better service resilience.  At the moment there is just seven minutes between arriving at Bedwyn from Paddington, doing the shunt to the other platform and then departing for London, so if a train from London arrives late, it departs late back to London! 

Connections west from Newbury and Hungerford would be massively improved, as would the service at Westbury and especially Pewsey.  One for the timetable planners hopefully...  :)

The pictures of GW liveried units from the follow on batch of 8 show that they have pickup shoes, but that doesn't mean the rest will.  But fitting shoes to a modern EMU is a fairly trivial matter, because they all have a DC stage in their traction power system.   Whether or not they come fitted would not prevent them being so fitted in future, if some cunning plan required then to run on DC lines somewhere near Reading for instance.

Paul

Don't forget also that the current Under Secretary of State for Transport just happens to be MP for Devizes, which covers Pewsey IIRC, not to mention that an awful lot of other constituencies elected Tory MPs at the last election.

I was also reminded this morning that the MP for Derbyshire Dales (i.e. the bit north of Derby) is Secretary of State for Transport. Can't have done much harm when it came to orders being sent Bombardier's way, particularly as Derby North is a pretty marginal seat (and even Derby South might be winnable if Margaret Beckett should step down).

AFAIK, pick-up shoes are generally fitted at manufacture to allow acceptance testing, then if not required, removed to facilitate maintenance, avoid damage from obstructions etc. But ultimately, the ROSCO owns a dual-voltage EMU that can be redeployed to a TOC where the shoegear is required.

Or in the case of the LM 350/1s they simply run around with their shoe gear permanently in the raised position, where it can't be seen behind the shoe beam unless you get down really low.

Paul

There have been various ideas mooted over the years.    A suggestion to extend to Westbury on existing stock levels, halving frequency west of Newbury, went down like a lead balloon.   Ideas of skipping stops alternately at Kintbury and Bedwyn were equally unpopular.   And a service needing more trains didn't sit too well with the people who have to sanction and pay for the hire of trains. People at Pewsey are less than enamoured by the current service with just a handful of stops being replaced by something that takes quite a bit longer and provides largely unwanted journey opportunities like Pewsey to Midgham, and people at Westbury have similar concern together with a worry that they'll loose service heading to The West as a result.

Anyone who can solve all that lot is - in my view - a genius!

Future electrification to places like Westbury will have to be in part if not wholly locally sourced, some of it may come from central Government but the new funding model for NR means if a Local Authority wants an enhanced railway service in their area they can no longer demand its done.

It has been mooted that the 387s will start running from 5th September. I notice on the train feeds they are down as running from the 1st August (Although of course these may not have been updated yet)
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C44181/2016/08/01/advanced


On the other hand perhaps training begins on the 1st August as there are a handful of ECS movements to/from Airport Junction also scheduled.
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C58622/2016/08/01/advanced

That one says 165/6 DMU


Pathed as Class 165/1 or 166 (Turbo) DMU

They all do, same as the ones that were due to start in May, they are all pathed as 165/166 as the timings/speed will be the same.

If you follow the diagrams from the beginning to the end of the day they start/finish at North Pole, which is where the 387s will initially be based

Yes, the pathing type can be completely different from the actual planned traction.  For example many of Chiltern's services are pathed as Class 158s (when they haven't got any!), and many of the Northern Electric services operated by Class 319s are still pathed for the old DMU's that used to operate them.

I should imagine the initial services are driver training runs, though there's still no deal in place for the training programme I hear that outstanding issues are pretty much resolved now.

The first GW unit, 387130, has been reported tonight as being delivered to Bletchley depot for its period of main line test running.

A successful couple of weeks at the temporary base should then see it arrive with GWR.

Paul

A training deal with the unions and GWR is still not signed off, but 'close', so hopefully trains will be in place and drivers able to learn them (Paddington LTV depot first), so that the September date for the shuttle service can be achieved.

Video of the initial two 387/1 on test passing through Purley:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR-eWZZHC8M

Pictures of the pair at Brighton on mackenzieblu's flickr, there are some interior shots there as well:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mackenzieblu/28304081315/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mackenzieblu/28270406996/in/photostream/

Hope this is of interest.

Paul

Well - that certainly confirms they have all the 3rd rail equipment fitted and and working (unless they've quietly been fitted with diesel engines too!)

Lets hope GWR haven't been teasing stressed out Southern passengers as the empty trains pass by.

Not today, apparently they were seen on the WCML to Crewe and back...

Paul

Yes, I saw two units at Crewe today.

Part of the entry into service process.  A new type of stock needs to do a lot of type testing this is determined by what the new stock is, then new units off of the production run that have been type tested need to run a prescribed mileage on the forms of traction power they operate on before they can be signed off for use

Found a photo taken near DIRFT (on the Northampton loop) during yesterdays test run to/from Crewe:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/chris-chaplin/28043771260/in/photostream/

Paul

Update based on info trawled from a number of other forums, is that 387130/131 continued on mileage runs during the week, and then 387132 and 387133 were delivered to Bletchley T.M.D. on Wednesday and Friday respectively.

There are also delivery paths available Mon - Thur next week, so the initial batch of GWR units may be around sooner than we think.

Just saw in another forum (uk modern EMU) that 387132 and 133 have been on an outing to Brighton for some DC testing today, Wed 27th.

Paul

The first GWR unit(s) arriving at North Pole tonight I gather.  Let the revolution begin...  ;)

Cool  :)
I'm guessing this is it testing tonight between Paddington and Hayes:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/V19595/2016/07/29/advanced

There's now an STP path in the system from Bletchley, and heading to North Pole depot as has generally been predicted.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O15594/2016/07/28/advanced

this train then moves over to Paddington as per:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/V19620/2016/07/28/advanced

(That second path wasn't in when I first checked.)

Paul

The transfer path from Bletchley has subsequently been cancelled. 
...and reinstated under a different pseudo headcode.

I think I'll give up.

Paul

On their way.  Two units being hauled by a Class 37.  Presumably 130/131.

I probably should have been paying attention earlier so apologies for that.....on which routes will these trains be operating & do they represent additional services/capacity or are Turbos being taken away?

Not sure if I'm reading this correctly but it seems to run through Southall station 3 times. I'm guessing it runs through the station heading west (1), reverses just west of the station passing through again (2). The third pass seems improbable from Acton to Ladbroke Grove via Southall  ???

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O15666/2016/07/28/advanced

IIUC they will take over the Paddington to Reading and Oxford/Newbury and together with the Crossrail trains they will, on these lines, replace the 165/166 which will be heading further West.  Until the branches are electrified they will retain the 165/166s.

Initially they will run Paddington to Hayes/Harlington using the path of the Greenford trains that will then be confined to the branch. These will be extra trains

Adding to Ellendune's comments, but making it more specific to Taplow, they will run possibly from the middle of next year when the line out as far as Maidenhead is electrified.

They will run as 4 or 8 car formations on local services which in terms of numbers of seats (assuming an internal layout as per other 387s) is roughly equivalent to a 2.5 or 5 car Turbo.  The passenger environment is a massive step upwards from a Turbo though with much more room and more tables - similar to Chiltern's Class 168s if you've had the pleasure?  16 doors instead of 10/12 on the longest Turbo formations should mean dwell times at stations improve slightly and the fact they're electric will mean much quicker acceleration and there should be quite a leap forward in reliability.

They will probably only serve Taplow for a couple of years though, as when the Elizabeth Line opens fully in 2019 all trains are likely to be operated by their fleet of all 9-car trains.

Thanks for your detailed update there, IndustryInsider.  :)

As a Taplow user I'm can't wait for the 387s.

Also waiting for the howls of protest when commuters first see the Crossrail cattle trucks

Seconded! Many thanks  :)

According to realtimetrains records there were 3 return runs between Paddington and Airport Jn overnight:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/PAD/2016/07/29/0000-2359?stp=S&show=all&order=wtt

There's another run showing as I post this info, but it doesn't seem to be happening, followed by a number of out and back runs to Friars Jn.

I wasn't familiar with "Friars Jn" but it seems to be a trailing crossover DR to UR at 3m 53ch, between Old Oak and Acton.

Paul

Both units currently stabled on different roads in North Pole Depot.

IIRC Friars Junction used to be a slightly grander affair before the layout was modified to leave just the two sets of points. Now just used for access from the Relief Lines to the Reception Line (or whatever it's called).

Pictures of those awful cattle trucks you talk of!!

https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/758970928294273024 (https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/758970928294273024)

They look pretty good, the interior is very reminiscent of the new subsurface LUL stock with the seating arrangement. While I was sorry to see the A-stock disappear from the metropolitan line, the reality is the new trains are a significant improvement all round and also appear to be much easier to keep clean with the 'lino' type flooring and seats raised off the floor.

The last time I spoke to a college in the NR Crossrail electrification team they said all the wires will be run between Airport Jcn and Maidenhead by the end of November; I assumed he meant 2016 and not 2017  ;D   

There is still quite a bit of steel to go into the ground in places and to put up into the air, I suspect there will be a concerted effort during the Aug bank holiday.  I suspect a lot of the Overhead Linesmen have been deployed between Reading and Didcot of late.

The UK does have an acute shortage of Overhead Linesmen, most of the teams I have worked with are from elsewhere in the EU they travel here for a few weeks or even just the weekend (not sure how Brexit will effect this type of labour in the future, it is an item on some project risk registers for projects past 2018)

Yes, I was erring on the side of caution there, but it could be early next year once the electrification is finished and gauging runs and staff training have taken place.  I believe all the wiring should be in place by the end of the year at the latest - well ahead of the revised Hendy dates from NR which is good news.

Seem to be a few daylight test runs going on between Paddington and Airport Jn as of now, Saturday afternoon.   

May be of interest if anyone is in the area.

Paul

Found a reasonable youtube video of 387130 entering and leaving Paddington in daytime:

http://youtu.be/hYHqvQEi21I (http://youtu.be/hYHqvQEi21I)

Paul

A driver training agreement between the unions and GWR has finally been reached.  So proper driver training on them will be commencing next week ready for the September launch.

Reports elsewhere that 2 more units (387132 and 133) have been delivered this week, moved separately this time on Monday and Tuesday evenings.

In other news, the magazine Today's Railways UK has reported that the GWR fleet will take on the consecutive numbers between 387130 and 387174, and deliveries will be complete in late summer 2017.

Paul

As suggested earlier in the thread, GWR have confirmed the first 387 in passenger service will be the 07:15 London Paddington to Hayes & Harlington on the 5th September, returning at 07:48.

If that's all the 387's doesn't that mean that they're going to be distinctly under-utilised to begin with - I believe it'll be more than a year after that before they can run down the B&H to Newbury, for example?

I imagine there will be a surplus, but how much depends on how they're utilised next spring when Maidenhead becomes available, and at the end of the year through to Didcot which will use up quite a few of them.  No excuses for not running them at maximum length anyway!  ;)

Presumably untill cross rail starts they will cover some services that will eventually be covered by crossrail stock.

That's the published plan.   That GW direct award stakeholder brief that has been linked before (but I can't currently find online) gives an end date of May 2018 for the Hayes and Harlington service, to be replaced by Crossrail.

Heathrow Connect ends on the same date, so as you say the two pairs of trains per hour form the 4 tph Crossrail.   I'd be surprised if they won't run in the same or very similar paths.

In fact having just checked the Crossrail site the initial 4 tph runs to and from Paddington high level for the first 3 timetable changes, until Dec 2019;   so the initial service might just be a rolling stock change with any timetable changes coming later with the full service.

Paul

RAIL magazine have released some pictures to give all you Thames Valley commuters a taste of what the new trains look like inside.  Pretty swish I think -  2+2 seating throughout, power sockets, air-con (that works) and plenty of tables (27 in each 4-car train).

http://www.railmagazine.com/news/fleet/2016/08/29/gwr-shows-off-the-first-of-its-new-class-387-emus

Yes, they look to be a big improvement compared to the 165’s for us at Pangbourne etc.  Just hope that the post-Crossrail timetable links our service to the Padd- Maidenhead-Twyford- Reading service to give us a decent service to London.

I suspect that this step change improvement in comfort etc will not be matched by what long distance passengers see with the Class 80X’s taking over from HST’s.

It would be logical for it to do so, at least until the Western Heathrow and East-West Rail Link is up and running.  No point in unnecessarily clogging up Reading's through platforms at both ends with trains terminating, so I can see the current 2tph service from Oxford to Paddington (starting from Didcot for a while, whilst electrification is completed) from the end of next year.  Improved journey times might then occur from the commencement of Crossrail in 2019 with stops like Langley, Iver, West Drayton and Southall taken out.

Agree II, very nice looking, look forward to them working further westwards in a couple of years. (And look, seat back tables, power sockets, arm rests and what looks like ample leg room, shhhhh don't tell the Thameslink commuters, these are all luxuries the shiny new class 700s don't have  ;D)

Yes, not all brand new trains are solely designed to squeeze as many people on board as possible as Broadgage would have you believe.   ;)

387131 now has full branding and will presumably be used at tomorrow's launch event.  Looks very nice IMHO:  http://goo.gl/G00spW

The photo was apparently taken of the unit on a crew training run from Padd to Friars Junction, 3 miles 48 chains precisely.  I checked with Realtime Trains that the trip wasn’t via Hayes etc.

Is this a world record for the shortest main line crew training trip?   

Will report after tomorrow launch.

From the pictures of the Crossrail prototype in September's Modern railway Adelante is right TV commuters won't be too pleased when they get 700s.

345s.   700s are Thameslink and would be well off route... :)

The choice of seat colour fabric unfortunately shows up stains clearly as seen on the HST with these interiors. I now spend more time looking and avoiding incontinence stains than reservation tickets! I guess with old fabric colours that hide the stains it's better off not knowing!

As trains have had fabric seat covers for at least 50 years, wouldn't it be fair to assume that the people who designed and selected the materials and colours had a wealth of experience available on durability to support the choice made?

Yes but don't you have a sneaking suspicion that those with the years of experience may sometimes be overridden by that young buck from Marketing who thinks that cream is a good fabric colour because it "complements our new brand identity so nicely..."?

I think the shade of grey is noticeably darker than was installed on the HST and Class 166 unit.  They were indeed too light shaded for such a use, but hopefully this darker shade will conceal the various stains much better!

Two four car units were unveiled for the media to have a look over at Paddington today, before entering service on Monday.

Look impressive with decent legroom.  I was surprised at the number of tables for what is essentially a commuter train.

Might be a few surprised people at Hayes & Harlington on Monday expecting a two carriage train and this eight carriage one rolls up!

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/elect1.jpg)
(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/elect2.jpg)
(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/elect3.jpg)
(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/elect4.jpg)
(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/elect5.jpg)
(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/elect6.jpg)
(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/elect7.jpg)

Look nice - nice pics too, thanks, Bob

The train might be 4 times longer than a 2-coach 165, but passenger density looks like it will be a lot less in that layout.

Guess I'm just saying that we shouldn't expect it to carry 4 times as many people.

Looks great though, pity it will be a while before they reach the B&H.

They are meant really for outer suburban and not the metro use they will initially be put too.  So the Oxford semi fasts, Newbury's etc and limited stoppers east of Reading

Definitely meant for the outer suburban services as ET says, not the riff-raff east of Slough who now have 3 years to mess up our nice new trains with cannabis odours, graffiti (especially in First Class), chewing gum, feet on seats etc. 

First Class? You'll be lucky. I didn't see any provision when I glanced over the unit in the depot recently.

Hence in anticipation, the total removal from the 165s and de facto removal from the 166s.

Passenger density is highly relevant isn't it.  On the routes the units will be used on, capacity includes a standing allowance, and in terms of shifting people into Paddington in the peaks, that is the figure DfT and GWR will be considering.   Less seats = more standees.

My experience on the 387/1s temporarily in use on Thameslink is that they just 'feel' extremely spacious inside compared to a 165 or 166, despite individual vehicles being shorter.    I think the use of more glass in the vicinity of the doors has a lot to do with the 'openness'.   (Is that a real word?)
 
Paul

The existing Thameslink 387/1s have a marked section of First Class at one end, but as per the usual 'Southern' specification the 2+2 seats are physically identical to the rest of the train, and as in some variants of 377 there isn't necessarily a partition door.   I suggest that just as in the Southern trains, paying for first class is just a way of improving chances of a seat.   Rightly or wrongly, I'd expect GWR's trains to have a similar set up.    Equalising down to the typical set up used in south London...

Paul

Thanks for the excellent photos, Bobm.  You can clearly see the darker shade of grey in those photos, so hopefully no visible stains!


I would be a little surprised if fast Oxford's didn't have first class provision, given the affluence of the passengers on that route, but perhaps that will be added later in the fashion Paul suggests?  I guess it depends how many of them will end up on Oxford fasts, and how many will be covered by IEP/SET/IET units.  Certainly with a layout inside similar to Chiltern's Clubman trains, who seem to do perfectly well with just one class of travel, GWR might just try the same principle given the likely furthest reaches of Oxford/Swindon/Newbury.

Porterbrook's brochure doesn't show any first seating, and the carriage type names suggest none too. However, Porterbrook don't spend much time on keeping their site up to date, and only list their 387 fleet as leased to GTR.

PS: That brochure actually says it's for class 387/3, which are the c2c ones - makeup DMOS(A)-MOSL-PTOSL(W)-DMOS(B) and 219 seats.

Porterbrook's revised brochure dates from their decision to order a speculative build, it wasn't decided at that stage where they were going -there was some debate elsewhere about whether or not the rest of the GWR units would be 387/1s or 387/3s.  It has subsequently been decided that only the c2c units will be numbered as 387/3.

But as I said earlier, when the only difference between First and Standard is stickers and a stripe on the outside, and stickers inside, with a general purpose antimacassar tied onto the same seats and headrests as the rest of the unit, then the Rosco wouldn't need to differentiate the cars by type, 'First' provision, and marking of it, is purely down to what the TOC decides.

Paul

Here's a report from ITV, very negative and focussing on the electrification delays more than the new trains, but at least Bobm gets his one second of fame at the beginning...  :D

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2016-09-02/new-generation-of-trains-revealed-today/

As scheduled the first two GWR Electrostar passenger services operated this morning, the 07:15 from Paddington to Hayes & Harlington and the 07:18 in the other direction.

The stock for the 07:18 comes into Paddington before running out empty to Hayes

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/electpad.jpg)

The 07:15 left Paddington on time and as you'd expect from an electric train was very quiet and accelerated smoothly out of the station, quickly passing the 07:15 HST to Cardiff on the adjacent line.

The train was lightly loaded going out. Saloon temperature is a subjective thing but it was slightly high for my preference and indeed I did see one other person, unsuccessfully, try to open a window.  It wasn't a particularly cold morning so I wonder how it will cope on a hot day.

The other thing I noticed was the distance from the platform to the train.  Hard to show but with a curved platform there's not only a step but also a large gap.

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/electgap.jpg)

The onboard audible announcements are clear and gave details of which doors would not open at stations with short platforms.  There is also an announcement, as on Southern, to tell you which coach you are in. I do wonder why it couldn't have all been recorded by the same voice.  It does jar a bit when a second voice chips in to tell you the coach number.

After arriving at Hayes the two four car units shunted out of the station while a five car turbo from Reading came in on the adjacent platform.

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/hayes1.jpg)
(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/hayes2.jpg)

After it departed, well loaded, the 387 came back into the station and despite another train just a few minutes in front of it saw a few dozen people board.

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/electhay.jpg)

It was said on Friday at the media launch that this train is replacing a former two coach service.  If that is the case, I'm not sure how they all fitted on board the old train!  Admittedly I was in the front coach and a lot of people heading into Paddington like to be at the front.  Also at West Ealing the two car and eight car stop board is in the same place so most people were at that end of the platform with the result there were a couple of dozen people standing in the coach.   I understand there was plenty of space further down the train.

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/electsign.jpg)

There are currently four 387s in service with another pair expected next week.  Eventually there will be 45 in the fleet.

For the moment they will operate the 07:15, 17:18, 18:48 and 19:15 Paddington to Hayes and the 07:18, 07:48, 19:24 and 19:54 from Hayes to Paddington.

Perhaps the aircon was only just starting up and hadn't yet controlled the temperature?   But people will have to get used to the idea of not being able to intervene by making unilateral decisions to open windows.   The emergency windows are just that.

Paul

How would it have got so warm this morning it needs chilling? It's not as if it's bolted on top of a hot diesel. Are they really being kept indoors, and in a well-heated building at that?

Is the fourth picture showing that there is a full partition and sliding doors for the First Class seating area after all?

(No it isn't, its a Turbo as bobm explains in a later post.  So my question was unnecessary...)

Paul

The same thing had struck me, especially on platform 5/6 at Reading with a Turbo on one side and a 450 on the other. There's much more daylight under the EMUs. That's not just less stuff, but also a bigger gap, though perhaps it's the Turbos that are unusually low-floored and wide.

No it's all standard but I suspect if any get First class that's where it will be.

There's a big "1" on that door, you  know...

Hang on we are getting at cross purposes here.  That photo is of the preceding Turbo.   There is an internal partition.  I'll see if I can find a photo of it.

Here it is, from Friday's launch

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/electpart.jpg)

My mistake - I took that turbo for an older livery (from a choice of 73) than the next picture shows.

But, returning to footsteps, your pictures 3 and 5 do show the difference in height and width rather well.

Former two coach service at West Ealing and Acton, but additional service for Hayes and Southall passengers.

I see some training runs have been timetabled from Monday 12th onwards between Reading Depot and Didcot:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C47489/2016/09/12/advanced
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C47496/2016/09/12/advanced

I'm assuming these could possibly be 387s on test having been dragged up from London, I believe the next (pair of) units are due to arrive GWR shortly anyway so they will have enough to run these test services.

I didn't think that Tilehurst to Reading Depot was wired yet? So maybe an 80x instead?

At some point they will be going to Reading depot for maintenance staff to train on them and they will be dragged by a GWR 57

Perhaps they could work on the 57 too.  ;D

It isn't and not anytime soon...i believe these paths are for the bi mode class 800 for driver training in future....

... quite probable, I had thought about it being the 800s, although vaguely ruled it out with the near daily test runs they have been doing between North Pole and Bristol at the moment. Seems pointless to limit runs to such a short section when longer ones are currently being done, but makes sense if its for driver training purposes.

The test runs will at some stage start run during the day under electric power between Reading and Didcot possibly as part of Driver training.

he current 387 diagrams are thus -

Here are the diagrams:
 
 Diagram 1
 2S07 0718 HAY-PAD 0740
 2S48 1718 PAD-HAY 1739
 5S52 1741 HAY-PAD 1841
 2S52 1848 PAD-HAY 1909
 2S53 1924 HAY-PAD 1944
 
 Diagram 2
 2S09 0715 PAD HAY 0733
 2S10 0748 HAY PAD 0810
 2S56 1915 PAD HAY 1936
 2S57 1954 HAY PAD 2014

Steady on .......... with such an intensive diagrams as these the units will get worn out  ;D   ;D

Did see them out and about today

Don't think enough drivers are passed out to run any more at the moment!

Do they have to be passed out? Wouldn't a healthy wide awake driver be better on this route?

Think it is more likely to be the passengers who will 'pass out' at the sight of a shiny new train...but they will soon recover their equilibrium when they find out it's not long enough......

No danger tonight of anyone passing out at the sight of these trains as according to Realtimetrains both diagrams were cancelled.

Totally different form of traction, the acceleration and breaking is totally different to the turbos. 
The drives need to know what ADD is,
What to do at Neutral Sections
The breaking is totally different to a turbo the 387 have regen breaking.   
All the emergency systems are different, the location of rests and equipment isolation are all different.
The coupling / uncoupling of units is very different. 
Also 387 have incab monitors for DOO


The drivers being trained are already highly skilled so will pick it up very quickly and I am sure are looking forward to the challenge of learning the new units

(ADD - automatic dropping device a safety system associated with the pantographs)

Looks as if the Class 387 drags to Reading Depot using Class 57s have been pencilled in to be used when required as follows:
TWThO from December 13th onwards
0R87 09:09 OOC to West Ealing Loop (Class 57)
5R87 10:00 West Ealing Loop to Reading TD (Class 57/387)
5G87 12:21 Reading TD to West Ealing Loop (Class 57/387)
0G87 14:32 West Ealing Loop to OOC (Class 57)

GWR have recently purchased a couple of additional 57s. Presumably to do 387 drags.

Can they also stand in when the Sleeper loco breaks down?

Providing the breakdown is in the London area and doesn't has an impact on getting the 387s out the next morning then it should be possible.

New unit 387136 reported elsewhere delivered to North Pole last night.

Paul

Took my first trip today.  Very impressed with the trains, the best Class 377/387 interior in my opinion.

However I was very unimpressed to see several people left behind at West Ealing when the Greenford shuttle left on time despite people visibly running down the platform to try and connect with it having alighted from a slightly delayed Hayes service.  A 5 minute connection hold policy should be enforced as the goodwill of commuters from the Greenford branch needs to be maintained as they have ended up worse off as a result of these changes.

I'm guessing you are referring to the 19:15 then II? as the 17:18/18:48 services aren't suppose to connect, if that is the case then yes, it really should wait, especially as it then has a 30 minute wait at West Ealing on its next trip back.

Don't think I'm being pedantic, but GWR haven't bought two additional 57s.   They have leased 2 from Porterbrook.

The 17:18 is due to call at 17:30, and the Greenford shuttle due to leave also at 17:30.  No, they are not designed to connect - they seem set up to provocatively fail to connect and leave people frustrated.

Edit to add ... same thing at 19:00 off the 18:48 ...

If they can catch the 1915 to catch it, then there isn't really a problem?

It wont be shown anywhere that the 1918 is a connected service either

A look at the timetable, none of the 387 services are recognised connections onto the branch service. All are under the 5 minute minimum connection time. Maybe something for the planners as the branch train has so much slack.

It was the 1915 out of Paddington, arriving West Ealing at 1927 connecting into the 1930 to Greenford.  An advertised connection in that it appears as a journey in the journey planners.  It arrived one minute late tonight and the connection departed on time two minutes later - which wasn't enough time to for several passengers.  It's quite a long way to walk, so the connection should be either made longer, not advertised, or the train should have waited another minute.

Same goes with all the other services that now require a change at West Ealing, those being the 1715, 1844, and 2013 from Paddington.

I guess the problem is that these 387s are running in the paths that were Greenford services, and at the same regular 30 minute intervals. The Greenford branch is 12 minutes each way, so there isn't much scope for shifting even a couple of minutes either way just for one train - it's 30 minutes round trip with no hanging about at all.

When the through trains to Greenford stop, the branch timing can be offset from the main line trains (Crossrail or some later interim operation). Crossrail is planned as 4 per hour, though probably not regular and the time offset of up and down trains at West Ealing is anyone's guess. But with a bit of normal timetabler's inventiveness it should be possible to get more sensible connection times by then.

Was one suggestion to increase the Grennford  branch Service to 4tph 

It has been suggested but there's no evidence of it happening in the published franchise specifications.

A couple of minutes is unlikely to cause a problem.  If the return working from Greenford is delayed then even if it misses the connection for the train back to London (which is unlikely given the small amount of extra time we're talking about and the simple cross platform change the other way), then that's not so bad as there's another train only 15 minutes later.

Leaving people stuck for 30 minutes for the sake of a few seconds, when they used to have a through train is simply unacceptable.

Indeed.

I can see the operational reasons - but the appearance is a slap in the face to through passengers to the Greenford line.

Indeed - the easiest solution is to increase the station change time from 3 mins to 5mins & that connection would no longer be in the planners.

That would indeed be the easiest (but least customer friendly) option.  Is a new footbridge and lifts to be provided further along the platform at West Ealing to make the transfer easier in future?  This will be an all-day issue shortly, not just a couple of trains a day.

Once that happens, easier to slide the round-trip timings by a couple of minutes. But can't do that until all services are self-contained within the branch

I believe the station building is resited alongside the new bay, and step free access provided as Crossrail work.  There are hoardings on the down relief platform suggesting something happening with the footbridge.

Crossrail description here:  http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/western-section/west-ealing-station

Paul

That would be really pointless as the 17:15 & 18:45 from Paddington only call at West Ealing in order to make the Greenford connections.

3 minute advertised connection times work at Twyford & Maidenhead no problem.

but they don't hold at Maidenhead either, for the same reasons

They will usually wait a few seconds at Maidenhead (which was all that was required last night) and at Twyford the connection hold policy is on the drivers diagrams and they will wait several minutes if necessary.  The principal difference with both of those is there are station staff on hand to advise the driver to wait if necessary.

At West Ealing it's difficult for the driver to see down the long platform and there are no station staff apart from someone in the ticket office.  I feel sorry for them as they must be taking a fair bit of flack!

Nothing on drivers diagrams with regards to holds at any station / branch line service. Its purely down to the driver or communication from station staff or control (via signaller).

Apologies if that's no longer the case.  It certainly used to be on drivers diagrams at Twyford for some of the later Henley services.  Last time I drove that branch was many years ago!  :)

My point still stands though, the train will usually wait a few seconds (more with authority from Control), at Maidenhead and Twyford so the situation I witnessed last night at West Ealing would be very unlikely to occur.

Connections with the branches has been and still is a problem. Now they've added West Ealing to the list.

One of the main problems is the lack of turnround time at the terminus in order for the train to get back to the junction and keep its onward connections.

To keep up the 20 minute service the Windsor line only has 4 minutes at each end. It is similar with the two train service on the Marlow branch with the turnround at Bourne End.

Currently there is a bit of slack in the Henley timetable with its 45 minute service it will be much tighter with the 30 minute service. So much so Wargrave gets an hourly service.

It looks like with its 30 service the Greenford branch is going to suffer.

One of the problems it seems to me is  the performance regime, whereby the the TOC is punished for holding the branch and making it late.   

It's all down to John Watt MP for Slough who was in the Ministry of Transport at Privatisation who said something like connections won't be held in the new sleek private railways. Forgetting that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole and connections a an essential part of the network.

Yes, we sometimes get so obsessed with delay minutes and charter figures that we forget why the trains are running in the first place - to serve the customer.  It's a shame a case-by-case system can't operate more often when a hold is of a clear benefit to the customer, and has little operational impact.

I note the connection was missed again tonight, though a 4 or so minute delay would have been incurred rather than the 1-2 minutes of last night.

Six units now with GWR following two separate deliveries overnight Sunday and Monday.  Reported to be 134 and 136, although I have not sighted them personally.

Will be interesting if once three pairs are available they add some more services into the mix?

Paul

I'd imagine they'll stick with what they've got and use the extra units to ramp up the driver and maintenance staff training.

More services with the December timetable, I think

Yes, that's the current plan.  Replace all of the Greenford's from December with an all day Paddington to Hayes service, then let the 387s loose as far as Maidenhead next summer.  Until then, there's some serious amount of training to be done...

Full (all day) service from January and extension to Maidenhead in May is as per GWR's announcement prior to last weeks startup, however there will surely come a time in the interim period when they'll have to increase the number of trips?   If they don't they'll end up with loads of trained drivers but not enough services to keep their competency up...

Here's the info GWR published, in case people haven't seen it yet:  https://www.gwr.com/travel-updates/planned-engineering/greenford-line-alterations   The Jan and May 2017 predictions are near the end.

Paul

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a bit harsh about West Ealing.  There are 4 trains per hour to/from Paddington, and the Greenford service provides 2 of them.  A lot of people will get off the 17:15 and 18:45 at  West Ealing.  Remember that it's a station with about £1.3m passenger entries and exits per year

Welcome to the Forum, Msealing.

Yes - I would agree the wording looks a bit harsh; I would suggest that "the 17:15 only calls at West Ealing because of the connection it makes" would be more accurate.   The 17:15 is a semi-fast train to Maidenhead and is followed from Paddington by a much longer and more modern (nearly) all stations train at 17:18.   If it weren't for the connection to Greenford that's possible off the 17:15 but not off the 17:18, I suspect the 17:15 call at West Ealing wouldn't happen in order to distribute passengers - as you say there are a significant number of the too - into the following high capacity electric service.

Where a low capacity train is followed by a high capacity one just a few minutes later (I have other examples in GWR territory) it's really problematic to persuade people to wait for the high capacity train rather than crowd the earlier one and then (!) grumble at lack of capacity.   When we had the opportunity to make inputs in our area, we asked for the one coach local train to follow the 8 coach express rather than run ahead of it from Swindon to Chippenham - precisely to avoid these problems.  Good news (I think) is that the West Earling current situation is temporary until more trains become longer electrics and the Greenford turns into a pure shuttle, at which point it can routinely connect 5 minutes after the arrival of an 8 coach electric.

Wow, those passengers are a bit expensive!  ;)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to belittle West Ealing in any way, as Graham has suggested perhaps I worded it incorrectly. Those additional stops made are for the passengers to connect with the Greenford service, which would make it silly to then have a 5 minute rule,,,, whilst these services are not aimed at West Ealing passengers they of course may benefit from the changes made.  :)

It's going to be a little awkward planning the Greenford shuttle service in the future.  As with the Twyford to Henley service, the running time is around 12 minutes, so that leaves you with four less-than-ideal possibilities:

1)  Use the one unit to provide a 30-minute frequency.  Has the benefit of saving a unit, but gives minimum turnround times, and if a connection is missed gives passengers a long wait.
2)  Use two units to operate a 30-minute frequency.  Has the benefit of making delay recovery easy, but is very wasteful of resources and is no improvement on the current service and if a connection is missed gives passengers a long wait.
3)  Use two units to operate a 20-minute frequency.  The benefit of an increased frequency, meaning less of a wait if connections are missed, and still robust turnround times, but more difficult to work those connections well as there is likely to be a 15-minute frequency on the main line.
4)  Use two units to operate a 15-minute frequency.  A really frequent service with easy connections off of main line services at West Ealing, but minimum turnround times again leading to a performance risk, and more difficult to path the other freight and ECS moves that use the line.

You could consider making options 1 and 4 work better by making every other train miss out some stops en-route, but unlike Twyford to Henley, where Wargrave and Shiplake provide a small percentage of total passengers with Henley providing the clear majority, the Greenford line stops all provide a similar number of passengers, and the linespeeds are very slow so the journey time saving smaller, so I don't think that is an option worth pursuing. 

Personally, I think the 20-minute frequency of option 3 would be the best compromise going forward, perhaps increasing that to a 15-minute frequency option 4 during a couple of hours in the high peak.

There is perhaps a little more leeway than I said in the timing. The timetable now gives 10 minutes Greenford-West Ealing, and 12 minutes the other way includes the overall allowance at the end of a run from Paddington. Oddly, in pre-diesel 1949 it was given as only 9 minutes - and you know what that was done by! Of course the odd minute may be due to different assumptions about what a timetable means.

What will a connection mean in the long run? With 4 Crossrail trains promised per hour, it will come down to the spacing each away and between directions. If it's regular, the 20 minute options looks unhelpful. But really, as it's not single track, it ought to be possible to come up with something reasonably flexible to cope with disruptions to Crossrail (but of course there won't be any of those in the bright new tomorrow, will there?).

Yes, though 11 minutes is allowed for the Greenford to West Ealing trains as the entry speed into the bay platform is slightly slower than into the though platform, so you'd be looking at around 23 minutes actual movement per round trip.  That gives four minutes at one end and three at the other to provide a clockface 15-minute interval service, which is just about OK in short peak time bursts, but probably not sustainable for the whole day.  A 20-minute frequency gives a much more manageable 8 minutes turnround at both ends.  A 30-minute frequency and you've got a wasteful 18 minute wait at each end.

Connection optimisation does indeed depend on how clockface the Crossrail timetable turns out to be.

Presumably it also depends on the offset between eastbound and westbound calls at West Ealing?    If the westbound call is at :00, :15, :30 and :45 and the eastbound at :05, :20, :35 and :50, the Greenford can arrive at :01 and leave at :04 ... but if they both call at  eastbound were to call at :12, :27, :42 and :57 you would have a different situation.

Is there significant traffic connecting from the Slough direction to Greenford?

Virtually non-existent connectional demand from the west, Graham.

Now that we are a couple of weeks in to the introduction of the additional Hayes services, I'm just wondering how the existing services have been affected with regards to passenger numbers,,, do we have any regular commuters on the 17:15/18:45/19:12 stoppers out of Paddington? If so have those services been slightly less of a squeeze recently, or have the extra services had minimal impact?

Did this level of preparation occur (i.e. timetabling moves to get the new stock to and from its depot) when a similar step-change in motive power last occurred on the Great Western?  I'm thinking of the Steam to Diesel transition in the 1960's.

There's a minor bug in ARS at West Ealing.  It routes trains from the Greenford branch onto the Up Relief, even those timetabled to terminate in the bay.  Oops...(mea culpa!)  It'll be fixed at Christmas.

Big difference with this traction change, all the pervious traction changes on the Western the traction units have carried there energy source with them, this time the energy source is external to the traction unit and only the first 10 miles from OOC is available after that its not quite ready  ;D

Slightly off topic, but when will the diesel trains displaced by the Class 387s be released to Bristol and West?

There are so many routes journeys that could do with moving from 2/3 carriages to 4/5 carriages. Compounded growth over 20 years does cause serious capacity issues that need addressing.

Not for a long time as far as I can see.  There is only one 2 car unit released from the Greenford branch, because the Hayes services are additional beyond West Ealing they don't release any other stock.    I doubt any more DMUs will become available until wires are complete to Reading, at which point you'd expect the two per hour Paddington - Reading stoppers would become EMUs.   Mid to late 2017 maybe?

Paul

Don't forget that even when some turbos are released from current duties, 3, possibly 4 units will need to be retained in order to cover for the enhanced Gatwick services.... Also if the Basingstoke 150s are not kept then another 2 turbos for that route as well.

I hadn't realised how soon the enhanced Reading to Gatwick services, and the additional 3rd train per hour Reading to Redhill are supposed to start; the direct award brief reckoned May 2017, as does the SLC2 definition,  so they could easily end up taking the very first 'spare' Turbos anyway...

Paul

Going back to the Greenford discussion, I see the shuttle times from January are slightly altered between morning and afternoon, so that 3-4 minute connections 'should' occur heading into London before midday and 3-4 minute connections heading from London after midday. If travelling to/from Greenford in the directions opposite to the am/pm flows then a connection to/from the Heathrow Connect at West Ealing will be required with roughly 14 minute waits in both directions.

As expected, the first train to Greenford and the last from Greenford will run to/from Paddington.

There's also a track access application online now, that describes exactly what will happen both in January when the Hayes service goes all day, and from next May it explains the changes to various peak extra services to/from Maidenhead and Slough that replace the various  existing through DMUs from Bourne End:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/track%20access/2%20completed%20consultations/2016/2016-08-30-first%20greater%20western%20limited-3rd%20sa-section%2022-%20closes%2027th%20september%202016/form%20p%20dec%2016%203rd%20sa%20final%20for%20external%20consultation.pdf

Paul

“To-days Railways” is reporting that Class 387’s are subject to severe route restrictions between Paddington and Hayes, prohibiting them from a number of platforms.  A senior manager is quoted as saying the situation is a “nightmare”.

What’s the problem? Are they out of gauge? Are the platforms or the trains at fault?

387137 delivered last night, reported elsewhere.

Paul

There's a few platform, route and speed restrictions in place currently.  I expect they'll be resolved before too long though and the limited number of trains that are currently operating are doing so without too many issues.

...and for completeness 387135 was reported to have been delivered last night.  So that's 8 of the initial 8 now.

Paul

Bit of a chicken an egg problem, the platforms have been around a long time but should have been made compliant years ago.

There may be some physical obstacles that need resolving but I suspect most of the issues are actually carrying out the gauging assessments, whilst most of this is done by a computer program there is still a lot of interpretation and final assessment done by Gauging Engineers before they sign the route clearance.  Don't forget the gauging also includes pantograph clearances both mechanical and electrical and the platform to train stepping heights and distance.

There might even have to be TNC (Temporary Non Compliance) or Derogation against standards required, internal NR ones can take a while if the Professional Heads have to sign them off, if it has to go to the ORR / RSSB that will take some time.

I think one Ground Position Signal has had to be physically removed for the time being, but suspect that 'Electric Train' is correct in that it's mostly just waiting to get the paperwork signed.  There's no reason why the all-day service in January can't operate with the current restrictions as long as the new bay platform and crossover at Hayes are commissioned by then, though it would be nice if the restriction of calling at Hanwell could be sorted out by then as well.  A more frequent service would be really useful there as there's lots of growth potential that the current 30-minute interval service is stifling.

The next unit for GWR, 387138, was reported delivered from Derby to Bletchley last night.  By the time it reaches GWR, if it takes similar time to test as previously, there will possibly have only been a gap of about 6 or 7 weeks while the 6 units for c2c have been produced.  (As far as I can work out they have 4 in service and 2 on test.)

Paul

Are these trains in service yet? If so, are they having any effect on the hideous overcrowding at Ealing Broadway in the evening peak?

Yes, they've been in part service since September.  Two units forming 8-car trains currently work the 07:18/07:48/19:24/19:54 Hayes to Paddington and 07:15/17:18/18:48/19:15 Paddington to Hayes services on weekdays.  I saw the 17:18 depart Paddington the other day and it was pretty much full, and must be taking lots of passengers off trains either side.  Obviously any train not around the times the above trains are running will be no different to how they were.

During the day, and on those service trains, driver training takes place and I think around 30 Paddington drivers have now been passed out to drive them.  Then a full day service between Hayes and Paddington launches in early January which will see 8-car trains running every 30 minutes from around 6am to 10pm on weekdays.  That will make a big difference at places like Ealing Broadway.

Driver training will then expand to Reading depot so that enough drivers are available to cover the peak time Maidenhead services due to start next summer.

I recall that when the M25 was first opened, it was busier than had been expected from day 1 because it brought people in from far further afield than had been expected.    So  - yes, I'm sure that many people have transferred from other trains ... but is there a lot of traffic new to GWR there too - for example people who would have used the Central and District lines out to Ealing switching to (or at least trying out) the new electric trains?

The first 387 to visit Reading Depot on Tuesday:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/K96000/2016/12/13/advanced

That move took place.  Class 37 hauling 387130/1.

The new half hourly all day (EMU) service from Paddington to the bay platform at Hayes and Harlington started today (Tuesday 03/01/2017).  At the same time the all day Greenford service now shuttles between Greenford and the new bay platform at West Ealing.

We hope  ;) ...

By then it had already demonstrated how fragile the timetable is. The poor little shuttle unit is allowed three minutes to turn round at Greenford and four at West Ealing (those times vary only a little through the day). So it "works" on the principle of "late in, late out" or - as there's no gap after the peak for recovery - "late once, late all day". And it was more than ten minutes late when hit by the cancellation.

As noted earlier, the allowance for connections is dictated by the intervals between up and down trains, and it's been set up with three minutes for the up EMU. That's doable as it's cross-platform, but only if the Greenford train is less late than the EMU. This morning it wasn't for the first few trains. the back-up is the HC train about 15 minutes  later, and this morning half of those were cancelled (track circuit failure).

For up services it's zero minutes to connect off the EMU, but as it's over the bridge three wouldn't be enough anyway. So the official connection is off the HC - but if the Greenford is late enough, and you got the EMU because the HC was cancelled ... Maybe that's why the DMU lost ten minutes at its first visit back to West Ealing (though commuters outward towards Greenford can't be that numerous, surely?).

Oh well, maybe you should never trust the first service on a new timetable. I remember doing that once when going to catch a plane, only to be delayed by half an hour because the driver's instructions said his unit had to be coupled to the one in the bay (at Reading) and the station crew ("shunters", in some sense) had no such instructions. But that's another story ...

Press release from GWR - https://www.gwr.com/about-us/media-centre/news/2017/january/over-13000-more-seats-are-available-on-gwr-rail-services-today

How many new bay platforms are there?  Isn't it just the one?

It's none really as Platform 5 has been there all along.  "Reopening the lengthened Platform 5" would have been rather more accurate.   ;)

I am unsure if GWR have commenced to transfer some of the Class 165s and 166s westward as a result of the introduction of these new Class 387s but I drove past St. Philips Marsh depot (Bristol) this morning and found Class 166 no. 166215 parked up.

Photo (taken from the public side of a wire fence):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/14103794@N04/32144043335/in/dateposted-public/

HTIOI,
Dave

It's the first complete* unit to move for initial depot staff familiarisation, and probably driver trainers will get involved at some stage.  The move was reported a few days ago in a number of other forums.   

(* I believe they also have half of a damaged two car unit at the moment as well while the oterhe end gets repaired up north somewhere.)

Paul

I was initially surprised that GWR release a 2-car 165 from the Greenford service but send a 3-car 166 to Bristol, but I suppose that for familiarisation purposes St Philip’s Marsh needs a set that has everything eg air-con, trailer car non-driving car etc.

I notice that the Class 387 Paddington – Hayes shuttles are still not calling at Hanwell.  Is this because of the outstanding gauging issues - I presume platform height and/or stepping gap?

I hope it's not that far out of gauge!

I think it's a station lighting issue which means it doesn't meet standards regarding despatch for trains of that length.  It might also be a case of the performance risk of another station call on a fairly intensive service with quite tight turnaround times.  A shame, as Hanwell does warrant a 15-minute interval service in my opinion.

The lighting issue sounds a plausible explanation, I presume that Crossrail will be upgrading it in due course.   In the current climate I can understand that any TOC introducing DOO trains will be careful to fully comply with the relevant standards.

Hanwell is I think busier than Acton Main Line, so the latter would logically be the stop to leave out if necessary to maintain a reliable 30 minute service with 2 trains.

Doubt it will be gauging as that would prevent the trains running or mean a low speed in which case they may as well stop, it could be train / platform stepping or the platforms are not long enough for 8 car trains and the SDO has yet to be fitted; ultimately the 387 are not destined to serve Hanwell once cross rail is operational so there is no urgency to fit SDO.

Also Hanwell although a GWR station its served by Heathrow Connect so there could be some franchise / revenue issues perhaps

The SDO is fitted and working and needed at most other stations.  Like I said, I think it's a lighting and/or pathing issue.

That's good as (from what I reading on other fora about platforms to be extended, or not), it's definitely going to be needed at places like Midgham and Aldermaston in my locale.

It is reported elsewhere that the new EMU sidings at West Ealing are now being used by the 387s and that the contract with Hitachi for the use of North Pole depot ends this month. It looks like a number of units will be dragged to/from Reading Traincare Depot.

Also, next Sunday a night of testing is scheduled for a 387 unit between Reading TCD and Didcot on the electrified test section. This is the first time the 387s will have ventured west of Reading under their own power and is a proving run to assess how the units perform under the new OLE (there have been electrical interference issues with with IEPs apparently).

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/DID/2017/02/05/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

This is apparently a precursor to driver training starting over the test section.

I came out of PAD on a fairly late train last Thurs evening (26/1) and I think there was at least one 387 parked there.

I see that the first unit has been vandalised in the West Ealing sidings overnight. I do wish that the punishments for this type of crime would act as a suitable deterrent to these criminals.  >:(

Oh - you saying that just reminded me, I saw (I assume the same unit just outside of H&H) early last Saturday morning on my way to Paddington, and it was covered in graffiti  ::)

I think a few have been targeted over the weeks since West Ealing stabling point was opened.  Not sure what they have in terms of CCTV and security, but most people I spoke to who had heard about the new sidings said they expected it to be a problem at that location.

Basically you can get onto the tracks easily from the Plasser level crossing on the Greenford line.

Obvious it was going to happen. Such a stupid location to stable trains.  Don't know about CCTV but I believe there's a security guard employed at the site, goes by the name Stevie Wonder!!

At least 4 units stabled in sidings on Tuesday. When i cam bacl noticed tha there are rows of knee high floodlights alongside hardstanding. Very bright.

Another one daubed with childish doodle's, sorry, artistic tags, today.

I'm not surprised if NR/GWR are now providing them with flood lighting! They'll be supplying coffee Red Bull next! :o ;D

Just drop the OLE on the adjacent siding by a couple of metres overnight. That'll save on graffiti and Red Bull.

... or send a couple of BTP officers out there, with tasers ...  :P

no way to carry them.....both hands already busy with coffee and donuts.

<yawn>

Tired, and not very funny cliché. When did you last see a bobby on duty with a coffee in one hand and doughnut in the other?  ::)

Don't take life so seriously  :)  x

You should know by now that TG's shots are mostly of the cheap variety.

Some orange-suited gents with a meaty pressure washer tackling one of the units this morning...

Shame you used the word 'units' rather than 'perpetrators'...  :-\

How dare you Sir! .......I may be easy, but I'm never cheap!  ;)

I thought it'd be useful to provide a summary of the trains due to be formed by Class 387s coming from further afield than Hayes & Harlington from 22nd May onwards:

Services towards London Paddington:
2P14, 06:56 Maidenhead to Paddington, calling Taplow (06:59), Burnham (07:02), Slough (07:07), Langley (07:11), Iver (07:14), West Drayton (07:18), Hayes & Harlington (07:23), Southall (07:27), Ealing Broadway (07:33) and London Paddington (07:46).
1P93, 07:33 Maidenhead to Paddington, non-stop to London Paddington (08:04).
1P94, 07:42 Maidenhead to Paddington, calling Taplow (07:45), Slough (07:51) and London Paddington (08:21).
2P25, 08:29 Slough to Paddington, calling Langley (08:32), West Drayton (08:39), Hayes & Harlington (08:43), Southall (08:47), Ealing Broadway (08:53) and London Paddington (09:04).
1P97, 08:42 Maidenhead to Paddington, calling Taplow (08:46), Slough (08:51), Southall (09:01) and London Paddington (09:22).
2P32, 09:07 Maidenhead to Paddington, calling Slough (09:14), West Drayton (09:21), Hayes & Harlington (09:28), Southall (09:32), Ealing Broadway (09:38) and London Paddington (09:49).
1P98, 09:43 Slough to Paddington, non-stop to London Paddington (10:13).
2P73, 18:18 Maidenhead to Paddington, calling Slough (18:25), Langley (18:29), Iver (18:32), West Drayton (18:37), Hayes & Harlington (18:41), Ealing Broadway (18:48) and London Paddington (18:59).


Services from London Paddington:
2S80, 09:09 Paddington to Slough, non-stop to Slough (09:34).
1N40, 16:09 Paddington to Maidenhead, calling Slough (16:34) and Maidenhead (16:42).
1N42, 16:42 Paddington to Maidenhead, non-stop to Maidenhead (17:13).
2D55, 17:14 Paddington to Maidenhead, calling Ealing Broadway (17:23), Hayes & Harlington (17:29), West Drayton (17:34), Langley (17:41), Slough (17:46), Burnham (17:51), and Maidenhead (18:05).
1N44, 17:42 Paddington to Maidenhead, calling Slough (18:04), and Maidenhead (18:13).
1N52, 18:42 Paddington to Maidenhead, calling Slough (19:04), and Maidenhead (19:14).
1N62, 19:36 Paddington to Maidenhead, non-stop to Maidenhead (20:00).

A fairly mixed bag of calling patterns and timings, three calling at Taplow in the up direction but none in the down for example.  Some are trains that run now, and some are new or amended from the current timetable, and there's quite a lot of empty stock movements to get the stock in position which will be a test of the track capacity.

All services are formed by three different diagrams (all hopefully 8-car), though one of the evening ones swaps about with one of the Paddington-Hayes EMU diagrams, so that's a total of five EMU diagrams required per day for all of the 387 diagrams.

Good news is that it looks like another, new , fast train to and from Maidenhead in the Peaks.  :)
Bad news is that it takes just as long as an old smoky diesel...
Q: Can't they put the eleccy's on the mains?
A: Probably no pathways  :(

correct, I believe. And they're slower. Even 15mph (plus any stops) makes a difference

The first electric services must run to diesel timings. However their superior performance means that timetable compliance improves, as does capacity, dramatically.

1P93 up has 31 minutes non-stop whereas 1N62 down has 24 minutes - expect that to be regularly beaten.

Spring has finally come!

OTC

In my opinion the increased capacity (at least 2 coaches on every train, assuming 8 car sets are diagrammed as II suggests) and superior interior environment represent greater improvements than shaving a minute or two off a 20-25 minute journey.

Don't get too used to the 387 the cattle wagons are coming in 2019.

As OTC says, with the initial services it's very much shoehorning them into the current timetable.  When the wires are available to Didcot I would hope that the timetable will be recast to take advantage of their quicker acceleration and top speed, and of course the timetable must be recast substantially Dec 2018 for the first proper IEP timetable and then again the following year for the Elizabeth Line opening.

Regarding main line running, 1P93 (07:33 MAI-PAD) is booked on the main lines after Dolphin Junction (east of Slough), and 1N62 (19:36 PAD-MAI) is booked main lines until Slough West.  All the rest are booked on the relief lines.

Capacity at Paddington also a problem, 1P93 for example will cross over to the main line at Slough, but then takes 11 minutes from Acton to Paddington in order to wait for the 08:00 to Bristol to depart from platform 4

1N62 also runs mainline as far as Slough (beaten by II)

Assuming everything is going to plan, according to RTT the next batch of services from 3rd July have been loaded. These include the following departures from Maidenhead:
2P06 05:52
2P09 06:21
2P17 07:17
2P21 07:51
2P28 08:26
2P35 09:34

All the above currently operate from Reading and therefore Twyford sees it lose out on all the above services. Three additional stops will be made at Twyford however and these include:
2K27 06:55 Newbury to Reading will continue on to Maidenhead and stop at Twyford (07:41) running as 2F21
2F28 08:08 Reading to Maidenhead calling at Twyford (08:14)
1P95 09:15 HST from Reading to Paddington will depart at 09:12 and stop additionally at Twyford (09:19)

In the other direction, services from Paddington to Maidenhead include:
2D54 16:58
2D61 17:57
1N50 18:10
2D71 18:57
Again a few less stops at Twyford occur as a result

Numerous other alterations as well around the peaks, including the 2H60 Maidenhead to Henley departing at 18:53, this along with 1N50 above replaces the direct 1H52 18:10 Paddington to Henley. (The other 2 direct services between Henley and Paddington both remain in each direction)

Keep an eye on realtime trains for this weekend. It may be that a 387 will come out to play between Stockly Jn and Maidenhead.

Will probably be in the middle of the night

Guessing this (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/V37472/2017/04/08/advanced) has something to do with it, a 387 being dragged on Saturday night from Reading TCD to Hayes
And then returning (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/V70222/2017/04/09/advanced) Sunday morning.

Yep there appear to be 8 shuttles between Hayes/ Southall and Maidenhead tonight. Between 01:00 from Hayes and 07:24 from Maidenhead on Realtime trains. All booked as FRGT in 165 timings. Also all seem to be booked ML.

If i'm awake might look out for the 07:24.

One of the tests required on new electrification is to run a train called "Mentor." This train is designed watch the wire over the pan and has sensors to measure contact pressure etc.   Mentor is BR Research vintage, and there is only one and is quite busy, when it works  ::) (no one was willing to fun the upgrades to it for a few years). 

387's have CCTV fitted that constantly records the pan, if you see them at night your notice a light coming out of the pan well illuminating the wire.  Also with modern traction units they have sensors fitted that work with the traction system and part of the fault / maintenance monitoring.   Temporary mods that can be done to connect recording instruments to the unit to that can give the commissioning engineer enough data to sign off the contact system into service.

So my guess is the Crossrail project are using the 387 in lieu of Mentor

Two 387s coupled made several runs from Hayes to Maidenhead early Sunday morning 03:30. this was later than planed due to inspecting the O/H at  Slough for an obstruction (kite?). Nothing found.

Runs considered successful.

I hadn't realised the service was to be further enhanced so soon!  Looks like another three diagrams worth, so if all 8-car that will be 16 units required for daily use.

That date also sees the first use of the Maidenhead Turnback Sidings (known as Maidenhead Reversing Sdgs) in RealTime Trains, as well as the Maidenhead Carriage Sdgs - though rather curiously there's one arrival booked into it on dates before then but no corresponding departure.  Might get busy in there!   ;)

And more to the point, how many more turbos will that release for use elsewhere I wonder?

We are getting VERY close to the Severn Beach going 3 car 16x, I suspect, with certain single car services being able to move up to 2 car on a regular basis.   Mind you, I wonder if "elsewhere" might be to release 180s ....

I had to review a gauging document for class 16x the ride height is being increased for platform clearance for the cascaded area, my part of the review was would the increase in ride height cause any third rail issues.  The ride height is being done prior to the cascade so some units could operate on the Gatwicks.

Tough decision .......... would the increased ride height effect third rail gauging  ::) ??? ;D 

Could you clarify what the ride height is please?

I think in this context the entire body of the train is being raised by a few cm with respect to the 'as designed' condition.  A while back they were talking about fitting various shims between the bogies and the vehicle body, basically packing out the suspension.

This therefore provides additional gauge clearance at some platform edges on the route.   It presumably also means that some units will not easily couple with others.

Paul

yes that correct, I don't believe it effects the coupling of two units as the height increase is not that much

Travelled on my first Class 387 today (05/05/2017).  Quite impressed with the quality and finish and the quiteness of the ride.  One comment is that the passengers on the 8 coach service could have all been squeezed into a single coach... ::) :P

Squeezing passengers in to the shortest possible train is not compulsory, although it does seem to be a feature of modern train travel!

I've always thought it odd that most modern suburban/provincial DMUs are 2 and 3 car whilst non IC (intercity) EMUs all seem to be all 4 or more cars.

A couple of theories, the easier being that the more heavily trafficked routes are more likely to have been electrified, so can therefore justify the longer rolling stock.

However, I suspect it is more complex than that.  All other things being equal, a mix of 2 and 3 car trains on a route enables a close tailoring of demand in that you can have any length of train from 2 onwards.  For diesels, other than the additional cost of the cabs, there isn't much difference in the cost, as every coach is powered.  However, for emus, the traction equipment is one per train, so (as an example), 2 x 2 car sets costs a lot more than 1 x 4 car set, and would be overpowered. Therefore the balance swings more to having longer trains with fewer sets. 

Modern 2-car EMU sets are such a rarity that the electrification of the Marlow Branch is pretty much dead in the water.

It's a pity the 2 car 309s were scrapped although they would be grossly overpowered for the Marlow branch. Unless of course sunless there's a Barry for redundant EMUs.

How about a Bourne End to Marlow shuttle using stock from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preserved_EMUs_of_Southern_Railway
and there are also electric trains being converted - some as 2 coach units - to diesels:
http://vivarail.co.uk/vivarail-news/
and in due course there may be some vintage 2 coach units available from elsewhere:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-35495934

... then extend the London - Maidenhead electric serve that starts in July to Bourne End  ;D

There is a real need to be able to run heritage EMUs ... but so much extra complexity is involved as soon as any heritage operation starts to share with main line certified stuff.  Is there space at Marlow for a depot building?

If and currently its a big if the Maidenhead / Bourne gets electrified, or indeed any of the TV branches.   The 387 are through corridor between units so with the use of SDO it would be feasible to run an 8 car unit Maidenhead / Bourne End, or do a 8 to 4 spilt at Maidenhead, but given in Crossrail mode there are no TV branches to Padd through services.  I believe the current pattern morning peaks of a 2 car 165 Bourne End Marlow and a 3 car 165/6 Maidenhead Bourne End with evening being a 2 car 165 Maidenhead Bourne perhaps a 3 car 165 is set in stone now for many years to come.

There is no funding at the moment for the TV branches to be wired, especially as Didcot / Oxford electrification is deferred

The biggest problem with the Bourne End Marlow line is the cost of altering the track work and platform extension at Bourne End to accommodate a 4 car unit.  It is unlikely the DfT or TOC would want to have a few odd 2 car units.

My understanding from folks I know in the project the final hurdle to run electric passenger services to Maidenhead has been signed of by the Office of Rail & Road.

Other than a major hic up the first electric passenger service will depart Maidenhead as timetabled

The first 'real' tangible benefits of electrification should be felt from Monday onwards.  I put real in brackets because the Hayes shuttles ran on (modified) existing infrastructure.

I'll be very interested to hear the thoughts of those who are set to benefit from next week onwards.

There are limitations to the service that can be run, Kensal Green Feeder Station I understand has not been signed into use; this means all  electric (OLE) services out of Padd will have to rely on the original OOC Feeder Station which is planned to be decommissioned when Kensal EIS (EIS Enters Into Service)

'EIS' now 'enters into service' in the Coffee Shop forum's acronyms page (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/acronyms.html).  ;)

My view is that Maidenhead passengers will take to the 387s.

Faster, smother, quieter and cleaner.

The contrast between the 387 gliding out of Maidenhead (on Friday) with that lovely three phase sound and a Turbo on full throttle leaving another platform couldn't have been greater

I agree.. particularly whilst the trains are starting and ending at Maidenhead. The increased capacity is going to make such a huge difference to the overcrowding.. (I hope!)

Do we know when the commissioning (EIS) date for the Kensal Green feeder is?

When I went up to Paddington last week the feeder cables from the new Kensal Green station had been connected above the OLE on the mains and reliefs immediately west of the E&C flyover before Old Oak. I think this was done fairly recently. Presumably they need this to be commissioned before they can run a more intensive electric service to Maidenhead.

Believe there are some intertripping issues between NR and Grid when the did a short circuit test out on the NR infrastructure the Grid tripped; should not be difficult to resolve.

All three diagrams covered by 387s today.

3 diagrams? I thought one had to be Turbo as Network Rail were only allowing 2 units between Stockley and Maidenhead at any one time until Kensal Green is EIS.

I guess they wanted to be cautious but are now happy that three units west of Airport Junction are going to be ok.  They are restricted to power notch three (out of four) for the same reasons.

three units west of....  :)

Having travelled on the erstwhile 17:42 to Bourne End in the past and witnessed how crowded it was, it was a delight to see the eight car double 387 set roll into platform 5 yesterday evening to form the 17:42 to Maidenhead.   

Although I didn't travel on it, it did seem well - but not uncomfortably - loaded when it departed - probably attracting passengers from other services.  Suspect the air conditioning was very welcome too!

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/387padd.jpg)

One thing to say for them they are quite! Hardly notice them passing the house.

Is that quite quiet?  :)

I had my first journey on one of these today.. Firstly the 7.33 MAI To PAD. 8 carriages starting from Maidenhead is almost a surreal experience whilst everyone adjusts their journey plans  to even out the really busy ones versus the quite empty EMUs..I reckon 1/10 of the seats were taken today I also got the 16.42 from PAD to MAI earlier and that was also quite empty.

Wow!  You mean you could even breathe in - as well as out?  :o ::) ;D

Of course, don't get too used to empty trains starting at Maidenhead as the majority will be coming from Didcot and Reading in just over six months.  Rather a contrast on what's been before though.

I just missed the 07.33 MAI to PAD and so was on the 07.42 this morning, on the same EMU.
I thought the seats were quite hard and upright, perhaps with a few more bums on seats they may soften.... ;D.
Wouldn't like to come in from Didcot on one though, my arms got numb on the hand-rests.
Acceleration and braking were good, despite having to crawl along following a stopper.
Trouble with the build quality though, one of the panels on the toilet was oscillating really badly and certainly didn't contribute to the passenger experience, making a heck of a noise for a new vehicle. How something like this left the works is puzzling, perhaps they weren't tested on the gwml and somewhere rather smoother..  ???
W.E

Re Seats - They are to the standard 387 softness the reference standard is a church pew  ;D
Re Acceleration and braking - that is the big benefit of electric traction with regen braking
Re Build quality - try a journey of a Southern Route the GWML is a bowling green in comparison.

Yes.. I'd forgotten what that's like  ;D :P

1742 from Paddington to Maidenhead shortformed (only 4 carriages), 10 minutes late departing (no announcements from driver) and once again missed out Burnham.....seems to be becoming a pattern for some reason. 

The 7.33am MAI to PAD was 4 carriages instead of 8 this morning but not too much of an issue whilst people still don't know about it and the 7.08 madness (you need to see it to believe it - the panicked look in people's eyes as they realise they've still got a chance of getting on it and don't mind who they knock down in their bid to run up the stairs to the platform) continues  ::) ::) ;D

Well the 1742 to Maidenhead is continuing to disappoint......cancelled tonight, just disappeared from the boards, no announcements, nothing.

Apparently many delays this evening: person hit by train somewhere. Currently on other 17:42 to Cheltenham crawling along behind delayed 17:30.

That was between Taunton & Tiverton, don't think it would impact Paddington-Maidenhead electric services, but yeah there's been a bit of everything today......

TM on our service said that had affected much of the inbound traffic to PAD hence knock-on delays to outbound. But you are right - shouldn't affect local services unless the pathing is now up the creek.

Everything's up the Creek tonight mate.....apart the GWR staff service disruption disappearing act which worked superbly at Paddington!  :(

Realtime trains said the 17.42 was cancelled due to an issue with the train crew.. but yes no announcements.. it just vanished as TaplowGreen said..

15 minutes late at Maidenhead tonight, so all the Marlow branch customers missed their connection. For a service launched with so many fanfares, it's proving rather a disappointment.

Certainly a poor week so far.  The 17:14 and 19:12 were cancelled from Paddington.  Can't remember too many fanfares though - I think it was deliberately quite a low key soft launch.

Hmm.  ::)

Their press release, sent to me by e-mail on 22 May 2017 by Great Western Railway, seemed to be fairly high key:


I didn't post details at the time (simply due to having limited time at my disposal), but some of the claims in that press release do now sound rather hollow ...  ::)

https://www.gwr.com/about-us/building-on-our-heritage

Whilst taking your point(s), I'd describe 'high key' and 'big fanfare' as large amounts of press coverage, appearances by the SoS for transport, NR Chairman/Chief Exec, local MP's (though one of them might have been a little busy!), not to mention bunting on the station, free cake, a brass band and so on.  ;)

Not sure how many of those happened, but the press coverage certainly seemed very muted, and there was little in the way of staff briefings and so on.

It seems a lot of people don't even know that some of the new trains exist judging by Jo's post of a couple of days ago.

Thanks for your observations, IndustryInsider.  ;)

Press coverage of this particular service improvement was probably muted, due to other events in the news, in Manchester and at London Bridge, for example - and in the lead up to the general election.  And it was / is half term week. ::)

We'll perhaps see how things really develop from next week onwards.  ;)

Another disappointing morning of delays and cancellations on arrivals at Paddington and the other GWR routes, though rather surprisingly the Maidenhead/Slough electrics managed to avoid getting caught up, with everything arriving (as an 8-car) within PPM charter except 2S80, 09:09 PAD-SLO which arrived 6 minutes late.

A quick question for II re Maidenhead signalling with the new layout for 387s et al. if I may?

On the Down Main there are now four diverging routes available from signal 569 (in addition to the Down Main itself): platforms 2 through 5 – Platform 2 being the new addition.  How is this route signalled?

The route to platform 2 is signalled from 569 signal with an 'X' in a theatre box and no junction indicator.  As it's for reversing movements only I guess they wanted to make it distinctive.  Platforms 3,4 and 5 are indicated by the more standard Junction indicators 4,5 and 6.

Thanks II.  That explains the theatre box I saw passing slowly through - and looking back - on the Up Main this morning.

Another quick question for II regarding signalling at Maidenhead.

Is signal 575 at west end of platform 2 a fixed red?

If it is I'll report it to Open Train Times as such.

I'll also report dodgy signal-berth 1616 and a few incorrect route settings on the same map as well. 

Yes it is.  So is 564 on the down main in the up direction to the east of Maidenhead.

Just to add to this information posted by II.  An 'X' indication usually applies to a limit of shunt or nominally wrong direction movement exit signal.

All 'on time' tonight as well, thought he 16:42 and 18:42 PAD-MAI were both cancelled due to a driver shortage - both trains being on the same diagram.

All Slough/Maidenhead 387s reached their destination within the PPM this morning, indeed all were either early or on time apart from the 09:09 PAD-SLO which arrived three minutes late.

It was an exceptional morning peak all round with many of the sectors reaching the magical 100% PPM.

......so all "on time"......apart from the ones which were cancelled! 😂.......driver shortage seems to be a growing issue at the moment and not just at the weekend when we're used to it.

Yes, that's right TG.  And driver shortages are a growing problem currently, though 387 training is currently going at quite a pace there are way too many trains being cancelled company wide for my liking.

And I suppose I should've used the correct terminology of Standard Route Indicator instead of the rather old fashioned theatre box!  ;)

....CfN is going to hate me, but two more abbreviations to add to the Acronyms and other Abbreviations page :P:

MARI = Miniature Alphanumeric Route Indicator

SARI = Standard Alphanumeric Route Indicator

A MARI is usually associated with a shunting signal or with subsidiary aspects (e.g. Calling On) on a main running signal

A SARI is usually associated with a main running aspect on a main signal

Like all things on the MDTR, caution is required as there is always the odd exception to the golden rule..... ::)

With regards to the signal we were discussing, there's a MARI on the signal adjacent to that one with it's SARI.

A good evening peak as well - 18:18 MAI-PAD arriving 3 minutes late was the worst performer.

What do you mean, "... is going to ..."  :o ::) :P


On a slightly more serious note, I have indeed added those two new abbreviations to the Coffee Shop forum's list - and I really do welcome any such additions, from any of our members.  ;)

All pretty good today in the morning and evening peak.  09:09 PAD-SLO arrived 5 minutes late after being delayed by a late running connect between Ealing and Hayes, and two morning services were short formed as only a 4-car, but that was sorted by the evening.  All others made the PPM of less than 5 minutes late, with several arriving early again.

The 18:42 PAD-MAI arrived 8 mins late this evening, and the 09:09 PAD-SLO was 5 minutes late again, otherwise all made charter PPM again and were 8-cars as booked.

Perhaps the warmer weather will cause a few more problems later in the week, though I'm jetting off away for a few days so will stop monitoring them.

Enjoy your holiday, IndustryInsider!  ;) :D ;D

The 7.33 is attracting a few more people but is still relatively empty most days (if it's 8 carriages) and any "newbies" that get on all have the same slightly bemused look on their faces when confronted with so many empty seats to chose from  ::) ;D

I'm temporarily having to work more frequently in Ealing and my usual morning commute now from TWY is to change at MAI and wait for the 0656 electric stopper. I sit in the rear half of the rearmost car and there doesn't ever seem to be more than 3 or 4 other passengers in that part. The rearmost car only has doors opening at MAI, TAP and EAL  due to short platforms so it's a nice quiet environment.

Incidentally I've noticed that both doors of the 8th car seem to be on the platform at Burnham so I don't know why they're cut out for that particular station?

The next batch of 387 worked services commenced today.

Units 387132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 149, 150 and 151 all out and about this evening covering the required eight daily 8-car diagrams now needed.

Looking more and more like an electric suburban railway in the peaks now!

Here's a list of the 387 services from this week which are in addition to the ones that started in May listed above:

Services towards Paddington:
2P06, 05:52 Maidenhead to Paddington, calling Slough (06:00), Hayes & Harlington (06:10), Ealing Broadway (06:19), and Paddington (06:31).
2P09, 06:21 Maidenhead to Paddington, calling Taplow (06:23), Burnham (06:26), Slough (06:31), Langley (06:35), West Drayton (06:40), Hayes & Harlington (06:46), Ealing Broadway (06:52), and Paddington (07:03).
2P17, 07:17 Maidenhead to Paddington, calling Burnham (07:21), Slough (07:27), Langley (07:31), West Drayton (07:36), Ealing Broadway (07:50), and Paddington (08:03).
2P21, 07:51 Maidenhead to Paddington, calling Taplow (07:55), Burnham (07:58), Slough (08:03), West Drayton (08:10), Hayes & Harlington (08:15), Ealing Broadway (08:22), and Paddington (08:37).
2P28, 08:26 Maidenhead to Paddington, calling Taplow (08:28), Burnham (08:31), Slough (08:40), Langley (08:42), Iver (08:47), West Drayton (08:51), Hayes & Harlington (08:54), Ealing Broadway (09:04), and Paddington (09:16).
2P35, 09:34 Maidenhead to Paddington, calling Taplow (09:38), Burnham (09:41), Slough (09:46), West Drayton (09:53), Hayes & Harlington (09:58), Southall (10:02), Ealing Broadway (10:09), and Paddington (10:19).
2P61, 16:02 Maidenhead to Paddington, calling Taplow (16:06), Burnham (16:09), Slough (16:14), West Drayton (16:21), Hayes & Harlington (16:26), Ealing Broadway (16:33), and Paddington (16:49).
2P65, 17:05 Maidenhead to Paddington, calling Taplow (17:07), Burnham (17:10), Slough (17:14), Langley (17:18), Iver (17:20), West Drayton (17:24), Hayes & Harlington (17:29), Ealing Broadway (17:37), and Paddington (17:46).
2P71, 18:08 Maidenhead to Paddington, calling Slough (18:15), Hayes & Harlington (18:23), Southall (18:28), Ealing Broadway (18:32), and Paddington (18:43).

Service from Paddington:
2D11, 06:42 Paddington to Maidenhead, calling Ealing Broadway (06:50), Southall (06:57), Hayes & Harlington (07:01), West Drayton (07:05), Iver (07:08), Langley (07:12), Slough (07:16), Burnham (07:20), Taplow (07:24), and Maidenhead (07:28).
2D13, 07:12 Paddington to Maidenhead, calling Ealing Broadway (07:20), Southall (07:25), Hayes & Harlington (07:29), West Drayton (07:33), Iver (07:36), Langley (07:40), Slough (07:44), Burnham (07:48), Taplow (07:52), and Maidenhead (07:56).
2D17, 08:12 Paddington to Maidenhead, calling Ealing Broadway (08:20), Southall (08:26), Hayes & Harlington (08:30), West Drayton (08:34), Slough (08:41), Burnham (08:45), Taplow (08:49), and Maidenhead (08:54).
2D22, 08:55 Paddington to Maidenhead, calling Ealing Broadway (09:03), Southall (09:08), Hayes & Harlington (09:12), West Drayton (09:16), Iver (09:19), Langley (09:24), Slough (09:27) and Maidenhead (09:35).
2D24, 09:27 Paddington to Maidenhead, calling Ealing Broadway (09:35), Hayes & Harlington (09:41), West Drayton (09:45), Iver (09:48), Langley (09:53), Slough (09:56), and Maidenhead (10:04).
2D54, 16:58 Paddington to Maidenhead, calling Ealing Broadway (17:06), Hayes & Harlington (17:15), West Drayton (17:20), Iver (17:24), Langley (17:28), Slough (17:31), Burnham (17:37), and Maidenhead (17:44).
2D61, 17:57 Paddington to Maidenhead, calling Ealing Broadway (18:06), Southall (18:10), Hayes & Harlington (18:14), West Drayton (18:20), Iver (18:22), Langley (18:27), Slough (18:31), Burnham (18:36), Taplow (18:40), and Maidenhead (18:43).
1N50, 18:10 Paddington to Maidenhead, calling Slough (18:35), Taplow (18:43), and Maidenhead (18:48).
2D71, 18:57 Paddington to Maidenhead, calling Ealing Broadway (19:04), Southall (19:11), Hayes & Harlington (19:15), West Drayton (19:20), Iver (19:23), Langley (19:27), Slough (19:32), Burnham (19:37), Taplow (19:40), and Maidenhead (19:44).
2D73, 19:12 Paddington to Maidenhead, calling Ealing Broadway (19:20), Hayes & Harlington (19:28), West Drayton (19:33), Slough (19:39), Burnham (19:44), Taplow (19:47), and Maidenhead (19:53).

I think that's all of them...  ;)

The 19:12 from Paddington started in May

Ah, yes - I knew I'd missed one from my original list and that must've been it.

The first two mornings of the 7.17 MAI to PAD being an EMU and starting at Maidenhead it's left quite late.. On Monday it left just ahead of the 7.23 departure and held it up.. This morning it left after the 7.23.. It departs from platform 5 and not sure if it's teething trouble or may be a bigger issue. Time will tell..

I am now trying to use the EMUS for both journeys each day even though the non stop  EMU services are a bit slower than the non-stop HSTs it's so worth it for the pleasant journey. Trains are generally still only about a quarter or less full.. People are gradually migrating off the other packed services from Maidenhead but it's a slow process it seems..

Looks like nearly all the 387s are short formed tonight (only 4 carriages) as many were this morning. Should be cosy. Hope this doesn't mean they're all breaking down already?

Of the 8 pairs that should be in operation, 4 are running as single units, so half of the services will be affected.  Not sure exactly why but I suspect as it's a Monday there was a problem with getting sets from maintenance from Reading depot over the weekend as they still need to be changed over with diesel locomotives causing a few headaches operationally.

Another unit or two to be transferred from Reading tomorrow (http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/V24881/2017/07/11/advanced)

The air conditioning appears to be a bit hit and miss on these new trains. The other day the journey into work was a consistent 26 degrees in the carriage even though it was a lot cooler outside.. this morning it reached over 25 before the air con kicked in for about 5 minutes.. Having said that I've also had lots of cooler trains so I imagine the temperature setting is down to someone's discretion

Travelled to Taplow on 17:57 ex Padd last night. Reasonably full. Coach 7 of 8 air con OK. Interseting left

Perhaps should have waited for 18:10 which only stops Slough and Taplow.

I really cannot understand the aircon problem with the GWR 387 on the Southern and Thameslink routes it works extremely well in fact often too well ............ chuffin freeeeeeeezin at times  ;D  The aircon only really functions at passenger comfort when the driver has the controller active, the GWR sets currently are sitting a lot of the time idle so the aircon cooling will not be on as much.

Still recon the 387's are a vast improvement over 165/6 ................. but then I am an electrification Engineer  ;D ;D 

I agree. The whole experience of travelling on these trains (including the air con) is 100 times better than what we had before.. And I did think the two warmer than expected trains I experienced could have been down to human control rather than an issue with the air con itself.. Generally it is quite cool as you say :-)

The whole commuting from Maidenhead (for those people who have found the electric trains) has been such a drastic change from the overcrowded, overheated trains we had before that it's still quite surreal and very very welcome  ;D

Jo has now started her new, extortionately overpaid, job as a public relations spokesperson for Great Western Railway.



That is :P by the way.  ;D

Sincere best wishes to someone who is undoubtedly a very courageous woman..............I believe the training includes DVDs of Comical Ali!  :)

Nice to hear somebody is enjoying the new trains.  NR infrastructure might be awfully unreliable at the moment and GWR unable to deal with the fallout from that, but the new electric trains appear to be going down very well with most people and of course their sphere of operation will be increasing dramatically over the coming months.

I hope the new Hitachi IET's create a similar wow-factor, but I think they will struggle in that regard despite being very capable trains, mostly due to the fondness many people have of the HST and 180 trains they are replacing.

Should also add appalling seating and internal layout as negative factors.

Ha Ha why thank you  ;D ;)

along with underfloor engine noise and vibration, no buffet cars, and longer than promised journey times. 

At least you wont have to change trains 20 times just because Transport for London have no concept of where London actually is  >:( ;D